3 ms·

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 in

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.

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.