3 ms·

TIL that an independent contractor with his own tools has no capital. LOL.

jaggederest 4y ago
That's called a laborer. Frequently they own their own tools. "Capital", in this context, means the ownership of the means of production (classically factories, but in this century as much pointed to data, land, and regulatory capture). Specifically, the means of production that you do not operate. If you must do labor for a living, you are not a capital owner. Stop identifying with the class of owners when you are a "working stiff" even if you're making mid six figures in tech or as the owner of a small business. In "Wall Street" Gordon Gekko was talking about "400k-a-year working wall street stiffs", and that's a million a year or better these days, after inflation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqjQxs9l5fg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqjQxs9l5fg
- EarlKing 4y ago
  Moving the goalposts when the definitions don't fit your argument isn't going to change anything. Denying the lived experience of working men does not endear you to them. Try talking with working men instead of down to them next time.
  - wahnfrieden 4y ago
    I'll have to remember this trick - when I don't understand the meaning of something, just say that the meaning is wrong and that they're being condescending I'll also have to remember that Capitalism is all about owning physical tools, not anything about making money from people doing work for you. So if I contract freelance kitchen staff to make and sell food for me, when they show up with their own knives, they are the capitalists, not me. Interesting!
    - EarlKing 4y ago
      We were discussing a self-employed man, not someone who has employees. You're moving the goalposts again. I have to ask: Do you actually own a business? Have you ever worked for yourself? This sort of condescension isn't the sort of thing common among working men, but is very common among the petit bourgeoisie who think they know better than everyone else. I'm just curious.
      - wahnfrieden 4y ago
        They asked about how their behavior is representative of capitalism, and learned it’s not. Your narrow description of capitalism would satisfy someone as radically anti capitalist as Bakunin Yes and yes, I’m a laborer and I wouldn’t take profits off someone else’s work unless we are all sharing the returns aka anarcho syndicalism. I can but won’t subject workers to the exploitation and role based hierarchies I myself escaped. It’s not necessary.
  - jaggederest 4y ago
    Not so hard to do, being a working man myself. Are you not a working man? My lived experience is that I have more in common with people flipping burgers than flying in private jets, but maybe you disagree.
    - EarlKing 4y ago
      I am, and I do, and yet that still doesn't change that a man who works for himself is still a capital-owner, whatever class he may identify with. I'm all for independent business owners (including small family businesses) identifying with the proletariat rather than the bourgeoisie, but pretending they're not bourgeoisie and sneering at people who disagree isn't going to incline anyone to listen to you.
      - zamnos 4y ago
        Agreed that sneering isn't productive. I don't know that I'd put a guy who owns a truck, a leaf blower, a lawn mower, a collection of garden sheers/related tools, and has a client base; I wouldn't put him in the same category as a bank CEO who makes was $5 million a year. Maybe I should though because the guy with the truck's been sold this load about freedom and entrepreneurial spirit that a FANG engineer making $300k/yr didn't buy. Personally, the guy with a yacht, a jet, a summer and winter home, who has enough money to never work another day in his life if he doesn't want to; that guy is definitely burgeoise. The guy that's gonna go hungry and have trouble making rent if he's not outside in the heat of the summer midday sun to landscape most days, just because he owns the truck he drives? Feels like I have a lot more in common with him, which makes it hard to want to throw him against the wall when the revolution comes. Maybe joining the burgeoise should have a $1 million initiation fee, but includes a free subscription to Netjets.
      - jaggederest 4y ago
        I genuinely do not think that they are what Marx was describing as bourgeoisie. Quoth wikipedia: > In the 19th century, Marx distinguished two types of bourgeois capitalist: (i) the functional capitalists, who are business administrators of the means of production; and (ii) rentier capitalists whose livelihoods derive either from the rent of property or from the interest-income produced by finance capital, or both. That is, managerial staff (low level managers better, these days, better fit the description of petit bourgeoisie, I think), and owners. Talking about a man who owns his own tools, employs himself but no others, you duck either category - perhaps you're thinking of someone who employs others and manages them, in which case, I agree, they've moved into the position of earning part of their income from management. But merely having the tools you need is not "the means of production" classically - that would be real estate and finance more than directly tools. You begin to cross that threshold when my hypothetical car repair or building maintenance guy also owns his shop (or building) and the land it's on - but even so, I think the distinguishing characteristic is not merely ownership of land and finances, but subsisting primarily on the rents and/or administration thereof. If my hypothetical car repair guy had retired, rented his shop out, and leased tools to people he employed, yes, obviously. But I think you'll find that many of the people who identify as business owners are, in this analysis, tradesmen and working men first and foremost, rather than earning their income primarily as administrators, rentiers, landlords, bankers, or lenders. That is why I distinguish between the two, and you may disagree, but it's certainly not moving the goalposts or sneering.
- quxbar 4y ago
  We castle and cathedral builders like to pretend there is great meaning in how we decide arrange the stones.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- m0llusk 4y ago
  Ownership of property and profit from labor are the foundations of Capitalism. Following capital as it trickles up is interesting but is only a part of the larger picture.
  - wahnfrieden 4y ago
    Pretty funny! You would be a fan of Bakunin's anticapitalist anarchism even though you would still call that capitalism with that kind of definition

That's called a laborer. Frequently they own their own tools. "Capital", in this context, means the ownership of the means of production (classically factories, but in this century as much pointed to data, land, and regulatory capture). Specifically, the means of production that you do not operate. If you must do labor for a living, you are not a capital owner. Stop identifying with the class of owners when you are a "working stiff" even if you're making mid six figures in tech or as the owner of a small business. In "Wall Street" Gordon Gekko was talking about "400k-a-year working wall street stiffs", and that's a million a year or better these days, after inflation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqjQxs9l5fg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqjQxs9l5fg

EarlKing 4y ago
Moving the goalposts when the definitions don't fit your argument isn't going to change anything. Denying the lived experience of working men does not endear you to them. Try talking with working men instead of down to them next time.
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  I'll have to remember this trick - when I don't understand the meaning of something, just say that the meaning is wrong and that they're being condescending I'll also have to remember that Capitalism is all about owning physical tools, not anything about making money from people doing work for you. So if I contract freelance kitchen staff to make and sell food for me, when they show up with their own knives, they are the capitalists, not me. Interesting!
  - EarlKing 4y ago
    We were discussing a self-employed man, not someone who has employees. You're moving the goalposts again. I have to ask: Do you actually own a business? Have you ever worked for yourself? This sort of condescension isn't the sort of thing common among working men, but is very common among the petit bourgeoisie who think they know better than everyone else. I'm just curious.
    - wahnfrieden 4y ago
      They asked about how their behavior is representative of capitalism, and learned it’s not. Your narrow description of capitalism would satisfy someone as radically anti capitalist as Bakunin Yes and yes, I’m a laborer and I wouldn’t take profits off someone else’s work unless we are all sharing the returns aka anarcho syndicalism. I can but won’t subject workers to the exploitation and role based hierarchies I myself escaped. It’s not necessary.
- jaggederest 4y ago
  Not so hard to do, being a working man myself. Are you not a working man? My lived experience is that I have more in common with people flipping burgers than flying in private jets, but maybe you disagree.
  - EarlKing 4y ago
    I am, and I do, and yet that still doesn't change that a man who works for himself is still a capital-owner, whatever class he may identify with. I'm all for independent business owners (including small family businesses) identifying with the proletariat rather than the bourgeoisie, but pretending they're not bourgeoisie and sneering at people who disagree isn't going to incline anyone to listen to you.
    - zamnos 4y ago
      Agreed that sneering isn't productive. I don't know that I'd put a guy who owns a truck, a leaf blower, a lawn mower, a collection of garden sheers/related tools, and has a client base; I wouldn't put him in the same category as a bank CEO who makes was $5 million a year. Maybe I should though because the guy with the truck's been sold this load about freedom and entrepreneurial spirit that a FANG engineer making $300k/yr didn't buy. Personally, the guy with a yacht, a jet, a summer and winter home, who has enough money to never work another day in his life if he doesn't want to; that guy is definitely burgeoise. The guy that's gonna go hungry and have trouble making rent if he's not outside in the heat of the summer midday sun to landscape most days, just because he owns the truck he drives? Feels like I have a lot more in common with him, which makes it hard to want to throw him against the wall when the revolution comes. Maybe joining the burgeoise should have a $1 million initiation fee, but includes a free subscription to Netjets.
    - jaggederest 4y ago
      I genuinely do not think that they are what Marx was describing as bourgeoisie. Quoth wikipedia: > In the 19th century, Marx distinguished two types of bourgeois capitalist: (i) the functional capitalists, who are business administrators of the means of production; and (ii) rentier capitalists whose livelihoods derive either from the rent of property or from the interest-income produced by finance capital, or both. That is, managerial staff (low level managers better, these days, better fit the description of petit bourgeoisie, I think), and owners. Talking about a man who owns his own tools, employs himself but no others, you duck either category - perhaps you're thinking of someone who employs others and manages them, in which case, I agree, they've moved into the position of earning part of their income from management. But merely having the tools you need is not "the means of production" classically - that would be real estate and finance more than directly tools. You begin to cross that threshold when my hypothetical car repair or building maintenance guy also owns his shop (or building) and the land it's on - but even so, I think the distinguishing characteristic is not merely ownership of land and finances, but subsisting primarily on the rents and/or administration thereof. If my hypothetical car repair guy had retired, rented his shop out, and leased tools to people he employed, yes, obviously. But I think you'll find that many of the people who identify as business owners are, in this analysis, tradesmen and working men first and foremost, rather than earning their income primarily as administrators, rentiers, landlords, bankers, or lenders. That is why I distinguish between the two, and you may disagree, but it's certainly not moving the goalposts or sneering.
quxbar 4y ago
We castle and cathedral builders like to pretend there is great meaning in how we decide arrange the stones.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
m0llusk 4y ago
Ownership of property and profit from labor are the foundations of Capitalism. Following capital as it trickles up is interesting but is only a part of the larger picture.
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  Pretty funny! You would be a fan of Bakunin's anticapitalist anarchism even though you would still call that capitalism with that kind of definition