YOU are not a Capitalist.

[nuadha_prime]

I don't know, maybe you are, but if you are reading this, I seriously doubt it. Even if you are making lots of money (as some of my friends do), this does not earn you a seat at the capitalist table. You may think that the capitalist system is good for the world, but this does not make you a capitalist. I realized this last weekend while

Comments

[jer_]

My understanding is (and I'm too lazy to bother looking) that the definition of a capitalist is someone who invests their "capital" into commerce...by which definition, a small business owner creating, marketing, and selling their own wares would certainly be capitalists. In the same way that I am concerned that people are trying to change the perception of the definition of socialism, I am concerned that people are trying to change the perception of the definition of capitalism. Neither is bad. Neither, on the other hand, is a solution to any existing problem...not alone at least.

[nuadha_prime]

I am not re-creating the definition of capitalist (note I have not said a thing about the definition of capitalism, but capitalist), but using the definition as I understand it from recent readings of some pretty old economic theory (mostly Karl Marx, though I have also been reading Adam Smith). The definition of anyone selling, creating etc. his or her wares, would make just about everyone who ever deals in commerce in any way is a capitalist. If I have a yard sale, it would make me a capitalist. All too often I have someone laughingly tell me that because I sold some stuff I had laying around that I am not a very good socialist and I am trying here to explain how socialists define capitalists, not how the definition has been changed over the years.

The capitalist owns the means of production, but makes his living off of the labor of others.

[jer_]

Okay, but because the definition (the real one, not this new one) is uncomfortable, that doesn't mean we can just decide it means something different. A capitalist, by definition, is a person who has invested their capital (really, any asset, to include time, labor, cash, or "stuff") in commerce however, one could argue that a capitalist also refers to a person who supports capitalism. They are not mutually inclusive, however.

The problem is, you're mixing definitions. A capitalist (in the sense of one who invests capital) would not necessarily support capitalism (just like everyone who donates to charity isn't a socialist)...and a capitalist (in the sense of one who supports capitalism) need not invest any capital at all...and, in fact, might not survive by the sweat of any laborers at all.

The redefinition, however, is a reasonable example of the 'no true Scotsman' logical fallacy.

[nuadha_prime]

I am not redefining it, but going with a very old definition that goes back to Marx and probably to earlier socialists before him. I am also not mixing definitions. I have been very careful not to use the term capitalist as a supporter of capitalism, but only as a definition of someone whom derives significant income from the labor of others through the ownership of capital. A capitalist is not simply someone who has invested capital (which by your definition of capital includes everyone who has ever completed any monetary transaction, including selling your labor

[cyranocyrano]

I thought it was somebody who supports the beliefs of capitalism.
What would I have to own to be a socialist?

[tlatoani]

A Socialist Party membership card.

[cyranocyrano]

Awesome!

[nuadha_prime]

I can sell you one! The going rate is $50! Although if you want one with your name and not mine, you should join the Socialist Party USA. Its cheaper that way anyway.

[kashma]

My take on this is that Marxist and Socialist thought evolved and developed it's taxonomy in a very different age than the one we're living in now, specifically criticizing industrial production, and in that context, capitalists were those who invested wealth in industry - they owned the means of production, sure, but even more importantly, were making their living off the work of others, entirely so

[nuadha_prime]

Thanks for some interesting points. Here is how I see it

[nicegeek]

By this definition, anyone who owns stock is a capitalist. Which, according to this survey (PDF), is about 45% of all American households. And some of the biggest capitalists are the labor unions (retirement funds) and the universities (endowments).

[nuadha_prime]

I am just going to copy and paste here what I just replied to Kashma, since it also tackles your point. Before I do, I would also quickly point that a capitalist is a person, so a labor union and university does not apply to the definition at all. A capitalist makes a living through the ownership of capital. Labor unions and publicly owned universities are not owned by a person but by a group. The labor union is owned by the members who still work for a living. Publicly owned universities are, well, owned by the public. Here is my previous response copied and pasted

[nicegeek]

So...having a 401(k) doesn't make one a capitalist, but successfully saving enough in it so that you can retire does?

[kashma]

I think, if I follow nuadha_prime's train of thought, that this would make you a financially successful dupe of capitalists.