The Means of Production - what about common means?

[Supermodel]

Stone age woman picked up a flint and started a fire. She had her means of production, cooking-wise. However, since anyone could pick up a flint and repeat the exercise, she was not deemed a capitalist.

Hairdressers are the same way. They have water, shampoo, scissors, combs, and leather chairs. Anybody can get these. Yet Christophe and Vidal Sassoon got to be millionnaires.

Does the nature of the means of production increase the capitalistic nature of the owner, or does it have more to do with how many workers the capitalist can leverage with the means of production?

Did I just make a circular argument back to sole proprietorship again? Where can I get a decent haircut?

And for God's sake, no matter what tools you have, never try to cut your own hair.

[vox]

I'm not sure what you're asking. What do you mean, exactly, when you write, "or does it have more to do with how many workers the capitalist can leverage with the means of production?"

In what manner are workers "leveraged?"

vox

[Supermodel]

I mean by leveraging that there are types of equipment (the means of production, i.e., if privately owned, capitalism) that can put many workers to work, like a complex plant or a germ-free lab or (go back 20 years ) a multimillion dollar mainframe computer.

If you owned these types of capital equipment, you could employ many and use their labor, with your tools...tools they had not gathered the capital to own themselves....to leverage greater profits to yourself, the owner of the tools.

However there are other types of tools that could be owned by the capitalist but can only be used by one person at a time, like a sewing machine or maybe a laptop or something.

So the question is, is the owner of the complex manufacturing plant who employs a thousand people more of a capitalist than the hairdresser with six girls and boys equipped with scissors and mindless chit-chat?

Certainly you could argue one has more capital, in dollar terms, and is therefore the greater capitalist.

However if we change it around and note that the hairdresser turns a fine profit while the manufacturing plant is a big money loser, who's the capitalist?

What if the hairdresser is a flaming nazi while the manufacturer is a card-carrying leftie?

Does your belief in socialism make you a socialist?
Does the amount of your wealth make you a more or less socialist?
Does the amount of your income/loss make you more or less socialist?

(I'm back to how economic beliefs versus realities can be divergent in each of our lives, that's my question).

[Hattori Hanzo]

well, technically a capitalist is someone who invests in a company or who supports the action thereof

[vox]

"to leverage greater profits to yourself, the owner of the tools."

I don't see how wage labor and leverage are the same thing. To me, leverage is, for example, buying securites on margin. I don't think I'm going to be able to help you with this.

As for the rest of your post, yes, both are capitalists, but one is more properly refered to being in the petty-bourgeois (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/e.htm#petty-bourgeois).

Also, I responded to a thread in Theory about class that you had responded in. I don't know if you saw it. There was a quite interesting interview there that you might like to read.

vox