Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ziq wrote

Reply to comment by n_n in u/Ziq we need to solve our problems by n_n

minimum in that context does not mean at least one, it can mean zero, or it can mean their children or other relatives work at the store

self employed people can hire employees

mom and pop stores can have employees, as can self employed people because they're one and the same.

self employed people who operate a business are still capitalists whether they have employees or not, as they still control capital. capitalist does not mean 'has employees', it means 'has capital'.

a hairdresser who operates a single shop is both self employed and is a mom and pop store, and if they later hire an employee as they accumulate more capital, they remain self-employed and a mom and pop store.

for-profit anarchist bookshops are capitalist enterprises whether you like it or not.

I'm done here. i never cared about this boring fucking argument you pulled me into. leave me alone.

3

n_n OP wrote

You have you view and I have mine. At least that point has been clarified, that's something positive I guess. I won't going to bother you any more. I don't have more to say so the discussion can be closed.

−4

n_n OP wrote (edited )

minimum in that context does not mean at least one

How do you know?

Self-employment is the state of working for oneself rather than an employer. An employer is a person or organization that employs people. The US census differentiates the employers and non-employers in two groups. I cited the employers business owners. I'm also not talking about co-ops, who are owned and self-managed by its workers. Seriously, stop conflating working people with capitalists, it's disgusting. If you are done the so I am.

−4