I know the two possibilities are Proletariat and Petit-Bourgeoisie. I'm just not sure which.
They are artisans, a working class distinct from the proletariat that neither has to do wage labor because they control a small mean of production (traditionally artisan tools like potter's wheel) nor steals surplus value from other wage laborers because they don't employ workers. There are still traditional artisans like self-employed plumbers, but modern artisans are podcasters, medium size Youtubers, Twitch streamers, Tiktokers, and other influencers who do editing and self-promotion on social media entirely by themselves. Some people would argue that modern artisans aren't actually artisans because they don't control the servers and means of distribution and are completely at the mercy of Youtube/Twitch/Tiktok. This just shows the proletarianization of all working classes into the proletariat.
There are probably many more traditional artisans than internet content ones. Go to a farmer's market or local goods store in your area and you'll see florists, embroiderers, woodworkers, jewellers, perfumers, soapmakers, printers, bakers, and plenty more making goods and selling them directly as their primary income or a substantial supplement to their wage work.
Owner-operator
It's like a subcategory of petit-bougeoisie. They have some more things in common with the proletariat, but their position as owner means most of their material interests firmly align with the bourgeoisie.
I somewhat disagree that their interests align with the bourgeoisie. The recent drive towards contract work (to get rid of full time employment benefits) has put many proletarian people into the owner-operator category.
For example, a full time uber driver is an owner-operator but I can't think of many ways their interests align with that of the regular bourgeoisie.
I would have to disagree with the Uber example because the drivers do not own the app nor the brand. Both are owned by capitalists and without these two things Uber is just a bunch of people offering rides for money.
But on paper they are the same category of worker as a self employed plumber who works on contract for a bigger company, or even a highly paid lawyer or consultant who works on contracts.
On the other hand, compare that against someone who runs a McDonalds franchise. McDonalds owns the recipes and the brand, without those two things the franchisee is just selling generic burgers. However, that does not change the fact that the franchisee is likely bourgeois or petit bourgeois.
I guess what I wanted to point out is that "owner-operator" encompasses a wide variety of people so it's not necessarily good analysis to say that their interests align with the bourgeoisie. Maybe better examples would be freelancers (artists, editors, writers) who are self-employed and are owner operators on paper but are mostly proletarian in interest.
But on paper they are the same category of worker as a self employed plumber who works on contract for a bigger company, or even a highly paid lawyer or consultant who works on contracts.
On paper, sure. Doesn't mean they should actually be considered the same category. The primary function of the app is to skirt labor laws.
But on paper they are the same category of worker
Uber pays a ton of money to make sure the paper says that
In the UK that might be a sole-trader. Think of an interior decorator, plumber, consultant. Something like that. I am a registered sole-trader, as well as having a payroll job. It lets me do work on the side.
