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.

[–] YearOfTheCommieDesktop@hexbear.net 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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)

Sorry if this is annoying lol

[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] YearOfTheCommieDesktop@hexbear.net 5 points 2 years ago

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 heart-sickle