<p><strong>Small Business Owner: Yes.</strong><br>
<strong>Freelance Writer: Yes.</strong><br>
<strong>Subsistence Farmer: No.</strong>  </p>

<p>Capitalism is the use to the private sector to grow the economy.<br>
This means that the private sector has to be producing a good or service that can be sold in the marketplace to benefit society.  </p>

<p>Let us take a look at your examples. </p>

<p>A small business owner is, by definition, owning a business that is producing some good or service for which there is a market.  One example would be a barber shop or a "mom and pop" restaurant.  It does not matter if the venture is making millions of dollars or just making ends meet.  It does not even matter if they are the only employee.  The business is making a good or service that is demanded, and they are fulfilling that demand.  </p>

<p>A freelance writer is also producing a good or service that is demanded by others.  This could be written articles, books, essays, etc. or the service of taking notes and transcribing words.  Again, it does not matter the payment received for this good or service or if the freelance writer is a loner.  </p>

<p>However, the subsistence farmer is different.  By definition, a subsistence farmer is only producing enough food to keep themselves alive; they are not producing any food to sell to anyone else.  The farmer (presumably) has no other source of income and is forced to produce all other items on their own.  So, although they are innovative, the subsistence farmer is not a capitalist.  </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-20T01:40:53.363Z
Thanks for this rational comment. Lots of other answers, with ideological motives, stating otherwise and making everything confusing.
AngelusVastator
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-25T12:20:51.267Z
2017-10-25T12:20:51.267Z
Mathematician
<p>(Bowing to peer pressure) <strong>According to original Marxist theory, no, he is not</strong>. Here, the defining characteristic of a capitalist is that he appropriates (as "profits") the surplus value that is created during the production process by <em>other people's labor</em> (capital does not produce surplus value).  </p>

<p>Your freelancer or small business owner without employees appropriates only their own surplus value, created by their own labor. And it doesn't matter how large is their income, as long as they make it without employing other people as their employees.</p>

<p>According to some other theory? Well, somebody name the theory, and then we can clarify who is a capitalist and who is not, according to that other theory. Otherwise, it will be too much "personal opinion-based".</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-24T22:46:34.437Z
I think limiting the definition to using "other people's labor" is far to extreme. A capitalist is simply someone who uses the "capital" they own to make more "capital" to own.  The freelancer's capital is their skill and the tools they own which are used to create a product which they sell to bring in more capital for them to own. Thus, seems like a capitalist to me. I think the key tenets are "ownership" and "uses capital to make more capital"
Dunk
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-24T23:27:29.757Z
@Dunk I provided the answer that the original marxist theory would give. But certainly anybody can re-define the content of the term "capitalist" in many plausible ways, and then apply it to infer who is capitalist and who is not.
Alecos Papadopoulos
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-25T11:46:44.203Z
@AlecosPapadopoulos, yes, the original marxist ideology was more about wage labour than other issues. But then, answering 'No' to OP's question is probably not appropriate here. You may want to edit your answer by providing a bit more context to your point?
london
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-25T14:09:18.177Z
@user43282 He does, I didn't say otherwise.
Alecos Papadopoulos
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-25T19:39:23.830Z
I am not happy with my 'reasoning/definition' either but it is what is defined in the dictionary, which is actually even broader and more encompassing than what I wrote. Using my definition, it seems like anybody who gets paid 'capital' for doing anything is essentially a capitalist, which doesn't seem right as it essentially makes the word 'capitalist' fairly meaningless. That seems to contradict that many (if not most) people think the word and what it implies is very important.
Dunk
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-25T19:46:16.687Z
@Dunk This is why I prefer to stick with recognizable existing theoretical frameworks, at least as a starting point. Otherwise, the issue becomes a philosophical discussion on all things human, with everybody having a different premise. Usually a stimulating discussion, but not a Q&A activity.
Alecos Papadopoulos
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-24T21:19:15.207Z
2017-10-26T13:28:12.120Z
2017-10-26T13:28:12.120Z
Alecos Papadopoulos
<p>If I correctly remember it, the profit motive was an important factor in the definition, though, there are other characteristics of "capitalist" i.e. wage labour, free market agent, private property etc. </p>

<p>One definition I found useful is this:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A capitalist is, practically by definition, one who exalts capital,
  who emphasizes the importance of its holders, as against the workers,
  in the process of production.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>You may want to read the rest <a href="https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/16/who-is-a-capitalist/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-24T23:17:56.450Z
Fixed the problem
london
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-25T23:43:30.023Z
Something like that.  One definition I saw said a capitalist thought *money* $\to$ *things* $\to$ *more money*, while others thought *things* $\to$ *money* $\to$ *different things*, where "things" could include land, working time, goods, services, etc.
Henry
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-24T21:54:16.623Z
2017-10-25T13:02:35.683Z
2017-10-25T13:02:35.683Z
london
<p>If a man has a small business where he is the only employee or if he is self employed, that makes him a capitalist?</p>

<p>For example a freelance writer. Or a subsistence farmer that only produces enough to feed himself and his family. Or a subsistence farmer that makes a little income on top of feeding himself and his family. Is there an income threshold that makes them capitalist?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-25T11:44:26.500Z
@Joe Jobs, can you please define 'subsistance farmer'?
london
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-25T12:27:15.667Z
@london - I've updated the question. I was thinking about the subsistence farming like in the Wikipedia definition of "Subsistence agriculture"
Joe Jobs
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-25T12:29:04.223Z
@user43282 - If he is making only the profit necessary for feeding himself  and to pay the bills (can't save money) then he is still a capitalist?
Joe Jobs
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-25T12:58:51.420Z
@user43282, I think Mathematician gave a good description of subsistance farmer. In many societies, families live off subsistance farming. They do not trade their produce and do not invest in farming for profit motives.
london
<capitalism>
Is a small business owner without employees a capitalist?
Joe Jobs
# Is a small business owner without employees a capitalist?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-10-24)

If a man has a small business where he is the only employee or if he is self employed, that makes him a capitalist?

For example a freelance writer. Or a subsistence farmer that only produces enough to feed himself and his family. Or a subsistence farmer that makes a little income on top of feeding himself and his family. Is there an income threshold that makes them capitalist?

**Tags:** capitalism

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: @username_0, can you please define 'subsistance farmer'?  
> **username_0**: @username_1 - I've updated the question. I was thinking about the subsistence farming like in the Wikipedia definition of "Subsistence agriculture"  
> **username_0**: @user43282 - If he is making only the profit necessary for feeding himself  and to pay the bills (can't save money) then he is still a capitalist?  
> **username_1**: @user43282, I think username_2 gave a good description of subsistance farmer. In many societies, families live off subsistance farming. They do not trade their produce and do not invest in farming for profit motives.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2017-10-25. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

**Small Business Owner: Yes.**  
**Freelance Writer: Yes.**  
**Subsistence Farmer: No.**

Capitalism is the use to the private sector to grow the economy.  
This means that the private sector has to be producing a good or service that can be sold in the marketplace to benefit society.

Let us take a look at your examples.

A small business owner is, by definition, owning a business that is producing some good or service for which there is a market. One example would be a barber shop or a "mom and pop" restaurant. It does not matter if the venture is making millions of dollars or just making ends meet. It does not even matter if they are the only employee. The business is making a good or service that is demanded, and they are fulfilling that demand.

A freelance writer is also producing a good or service that is demanded by others. This could be written articles, books, essays, etc. or the service of taking notes and transcribing words. Again, it does not matter the payment received for this good or service or if the freelance writer is a loner.

However, the subsistence farmer is different. By definition, a subsistence farmer is only producing enough food to keep themselves alive; they are not producing any food to sell to anyone else. The farmer (presumably) has no other source of income and is forced to produce all other items on their own. So, although they are innovative, the subsistence farmer is not a capitalist.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: Thanks for this rational comment. Lots of other answers, with ideological motives, stating otherwise and making everything confusing.  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2017-10-24. Score: 4

(Bowing to peer pressure) **According to original Marxist theory, no, he is not**. Here, the defining characteristic of a capitalist is that he appropriates (as "profits") the surplus value that is created during the production process by *other people's labor* (capital does not produce surplus value).

Your freelancer or small business owner without employees appropriates only their own surplus value, created by their own labor. And it doesn't matter how large is their income, as long as they make it without employing other people as their employees.

According to some other theory? Well, somebody name the theory, and then we can clarify who is a capitalist and who is not, according to that other theory. Otherwise, it will be too much "personal opinion-based".

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: I think limiting the definition to using "other people's labor" is far to extreme. A capitalist is simply someone who uses the "capital" they own to make more "capital" to own.  The freelancer's capital is their skill and the tools they own which are used to create a product which they sell to bring in more capital for them to own. Thus, seems like a capitalist to me. I think the key tenets are "ownership" and "uses capital to make more capital"  
> **username_4**: @username_5 I provided the answer that the original marxist theory would give. But certainly anybody can re-define the content of the term "capitalist" in many plausible ways, and then apply it to infer who is capitalist and who is not.  
> **username_1**: @username_4, yes, the original marxist ideology was more about wage labour than other issues. But then, answering 'No' to OP's question is probably not appropriate here. You may want to edit your answer by providing a bit more context to your point?  
> **username_4**: @user43282 He does, I didn't say otherwise.  
> **username_5**: I am not happy with my 'reasoning/definition' either but it is what is defined in the dictionary, which is actually even broader and more encompassing than what I wrote. Using my definition, it seems like anybody who gets paid 'capital' for doing anything is essentially a capitalist, which doesn't seem right as it essentially makes the word 'capitalist' fairly meaningless. That seems to contradict that many (if not most) people think the word and what it implies is very important.  
> **username_4**: @username_5 This is why I prefer to stick with recognizable existing theoretical frameworks, at least as a starting point. Otherwise, the issue becomes a philosophical discussion on all things human, with everybody having a different premise. Usually a stimulating discussion, but not a Q&A activity.  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2017-10-24. Score: 1

If I correctly remember it, the profit motive was an important factor in the definition, though, there are other characteristics of "capitalist" i.e. wage labour, free market agent, private property etc.

One definition I found useful is this:

> A capitalist is, practically by definition, one who exalts capital,
> who emphasizes the importance of its holders, as against the workers,
> in the process of production.

You may want to read the rest [here](https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/16/who-is-a-capitalist/)

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Fixed the problem  
> **username_6**: Something like that.  One definition I saw said a capitalist thought *money* $\to$ *things* $\to$ *more money*, while others thought *things* $\to$ *money* $\to$ *different things*, where "things" could include land, working time, goods, services, etc.  

---

