it’s becoming truer everyday that $1m is not enough to be considered “rich” thanks to inflation. the avg age of a millionaire in the US is 62 (approx retirement age for most countries in the world). if a 62yo owns their house and has enough to retire in the US, there’s a large chance they’re a “millionaire”.
controversial, but i think someone’s relation to capital is more important than their raw net worth. though tbf at some net worth number your relationship to capital does fundamentally change as something like investing in the stock market becomes enough proxy for ownership.
It’s simple, if you have or had to depend on your boss for your paychecks you’re a worker. If you got your paychecks based on other people’s work, who you have a stake in determining the way production is done, you’re a capitalist.
if the majority of your income comes from wage labour, you’re working class
anything else and you’re some flavour of bourgeoisie, petit or otherwise (also could be some kind of lumpen too, though that’s mostly career criminals)
most managers live on their wages
, I get that, I just felt the original comment was incredibly unclear and muddied the waters rather than clarifying, and quoting the same phrasing back at me didn’t help.
Other people gave good replies but since I wrote the original comment, no, because managers are not paid based on other people’s work. They still need to perform their own duties and are held accountable by their own bosses.
I guess to my brain a definition based on wage labor just seems more straightforward and more clear cut, ie what WoofWoof91 said below. Here’s what I mainly found unclear:
If you got your paychecks based on other people’s work,
This feels wishy-washy, what counts as “based on other people’s work”? If you structured a company where the managers compensation was based on the output of the workers they supervised, would that make the manager a capitalist? Maybe I’m just misreading.
who you have a stake in determining the way production is done
This I actually don’t understand.
and from your reply, I think this line is clarifying as well:
They still need to perform their own duties and are held accountable by their own bosses.
or to take a less descriptive approach, it seems simpler to say, capitalists are the ones who own the enterprise. Since that ownership is what gives them impunity/autonomy to do with the enterprise as they see fit. And I like WoofWoof’s comment because it also addresses the degrees of ownership (people who derive some income from owning capital, but a minority of their income)
Don’t apologize, you’re right. The definition I gave isn’t perfect. It’s just what works for me in many cases where I’m talking with someone who is unfamiliar. But yeah, WoofWoof’s is clearer about those ambiguities in mine.
Is thar really a controversial take? They tske a higher wage to have the job of ensuring maximum worker exploitation. Management doesn’t get to join unions for a reason
It gets more complex of course, I work in a kitchen and the chef works the line just like the rest of us in addition to other responsibilities for very little money especially cause it’s salaried when you’re 'management’s he’s making less than he would with hourly. On the other hand he can fire us. I think in class theory the class traitor aspect is what really matters, but with the general lack of class consciousness, that middle management is usually a pretty shit gig as well and all that, the specific people in those positions aren’t generally the ones to be upset about as people. Capitalism organizes people these ways and while some are for sure gonna end out as open class traitors the rest are just people trying to have an okay job who probably don’t need to be shot. What lies where depends on the discussion at hand.
Marx made the distinction that some people show up to work every day for their wage, but that their labor goes into the logistics of distribution of capital, not into the creation of surplus value.
Whether managers fit into that may depend on what kind of manager you’re talking about. Managers have been historically excluded from unionization drives not because of some intensive class analysis but because they’re used as the front line of defense against union pushes. Personally, I don’t think it’s in the class interest of most low level managers to do this, but whether they’re class traitors or whether they’re PMC doesn’t make much of a difference to me if they’re spreading union busting propaganda.
No technically they are still workers, but they form a pseudo class because they are delegated managerial rights, but no legal claims to ownership or surplus value.
it’s becoming truer everyday that $1m is not enough to be considered “rich” thanks to inflation. the avg age of a millionaire in the US is 62 (approx retirement age for most countries in the world). if a 62yo owns their house and has enough to retire in the US, there’s a large chance they’re a “millionaire”.
controversial, but i think someone’s relation to capital is more important than their raw net worth. though tbf at some net worth number your relationship to capital does fundamentally change as something like investing in the stock market becomes enough proxy for ownership.
It’s simple, if you have or had to depend on your boss for your paychecks you’re a worker. If you got your paychecks based on other people’s work, who you have a stake in determining the way production is done, you’re a capitalist.
If you have to show up to work in order to get paid you’re not a capitalist
so managers are capitalists?
Managers (who have real jobs) are workers who have incentive to side with the capitalists
Sorry the phrasing is still just going over my head on this one I guess, but I think (hope) we all agree that managers aren’t capitalists.
if the majority of your income comes from wage labour, you’re working class
anything else and you’re some flavour of bourgeoisie, petit or otherwise (also could be some kind of lumpen too, though that’s mostly career criminals)
most managers live on their wages
sorry for preaching to the choir lol
Other people gave good replies but since I wrote the original comment, no, because managers are not paid based on other people’s work. They still need to perform their own duties and are held accountable by their own bosses.
I guess to my brain a definition based on wage labor just seems more straightforward and more clear cut, ie what WoofWoof91 said below. Here’s what I mainly found unclear:
This feels wishy-washy, what counts as “based on other people’s work”? If you structured a company where the managers compensation was based on the output of the workers they supervised, would that make the manager a capitalist? Maybe I’m just misreading.
This I actually don’t understand.
and from your reply, I think this line is clarifying as well:
or to take a less descriptive approach, it seems simpler to say, capitalists are the ones who own the enterprise. Since that ownership is what gives them impunity/autonomy to do with the enterprise as they see fit. And I like WoofWoof’s comment because it also addresses the degrees of ownership (people who derive some income from owning capital, but a minority of their income)
Sorry if this is annoying lol
Don’t apologize, you’re right. The definition I gave isn’t perfect. It’s just what works for me in many cases where I’m talking with someone who is unfamiliar. But yeah, WoofWoof’s is clearer about those ambiguities in mine.
guess it’s reflexive at this point, to make clear I’m not just being a debate bro. I’m glad this site isn’t like that
It’s the manager’s job to ensure what goes on at the workplace benefits the capitalist. So not a capitalist themselves but a hired goon of capitalists
next struggle session: are all managers class traitors?
Is thar really a controversial take? They tske a higher wage to have the job of ensuring maximum worker exploitation. Management doesn’t get to join unions for a reason
There’s very much a dual role thing going on there. In addition to their enforcement role, they also do actual work of coordination and support.
It gets more complex of course, I work in a kitchen and the chef works the line just like the rest of us in addition to other responsibilities for very little money especially cause it’s salaried when you’re 'management’s he’s making less than he would with hourly. On the other hand he can fire us. I think in class theory the class traitor aspect is what really matters, but with the general lack of class consciousness, that middle management is usually a pretty shit gig as well and all that, the specific people in those positions aren’t generally the ones to be upset about as people. Capitalism organizes people these ways and while some are for sure gonna end out as open class traitors the rest are just people trying to have an okay job who probably don’t need to be shot. What lies where depends on the discussion at hand.
Marx made the distinction that some people show up to work every day for their wage, but that their labor goes into the logistics of distribution of capital, not into the creation of surplus value.
Whether managers fit into that may depend on what kind of manager you’re talking about. Managers have been historically excluded from unionization drives not because of some intensive class analysis but because they’re used as the front line of defense against union pushes. Personally, I don’t think it’s in the class interest of most low level managers to do this, but whether they’re class traitors or whether they’re PMC doesn’t make much of a difference to me if they’re spreading union busting propaganda.
No, they’re petty bourgeois.
Not petty bourgeoisie unless they own the business.
No technically they are still workers, but they form a pseudo class because they are delegated managerial rights, but no legal claims to ownership or surplus value.