I appreciate you reading! First, forgive the delay in responding: I got caught up in work and in trying to write about recent events. Additionally, I was editing the Additions, which I have now posted.

No need to apologize at all for length! It’s a detailed comment, and I appreciate that. You read well: indeed, the artifex ‘circumvents the alienation produced by just using [and/or] not owning the means of production.’ That’s the main idea and why I would say that artifex is indeed a class relative to “the material dialectic,” because it’s relationship to alienation and materiality is distinct. While the bourgeoisie owns what they don’t work or make, the proletariat works or makes what they don’t own, the artifex creates what (s)he can own and work. Additionally, I think the artifex should be a distinct class in Marx, because I think creating the means of production is distinct enough of an act from owning and working the means to warrant a distinction. I do not think they should be conflated with the proletariat, and I think the fact not doing so helps explain why Capitalism has not deterministically collapsed is evidence of this. That said, even if artifexians shouldn’t be their own distinct “class,” I think their presence within the proletariat or bourgeoisie would be enough to sustain the argument of this paper. This is because they would still have the function of “venting out” the alienation driving the material dialectic, recognized as their own class or not.

“But what if you made something that doesn’t produce enough money for you, then you would have to keep working and on the side have your little thing so you are still a proletariat even though you own some form of mean of production.”

Great question: that person would be creative but not an artifexian, for this person has generated a project but not a means of production. Until the person develops something that can be sold, distributed, amass employees, or the like, the individual is only creative. Granted, I do think a creative person is less likely to be alienated than someone who isn’t creative, but it is not the case that everyone with projects are artifexians. And indeed, the bourgeois can exploit the working class by making them so busy and tired that they can never develop their projects into means of production, thus solidifying the power of the bourgeois. This is certainly happening, and I repeat that the possibility of the artifex in Capitalism does not justify Capitalism. The focus again is on why Capitalism has not deterministically shifted into Communism like Marx argued. (Note 7.11 might be relevant on the question too.)

All fabrics, buildings, roads, etc. had to be “thought up” and then invented: behind them all are artifexians. Many if not small business owners are artifexians. Perhaps I have created the impression that someone is only an artifexian if they invent something entirely new? The idea for a wedding venue cannot be entirely new, but if there are no wedding venues in Bedford VA, then the creation of one there would be “new” relative to Bedford and thus artifexian. What about the second one? This is where we enter a gray zone admittedly that I try to explore in the additions.

Also, the artifexian is not someone “independent” or a character out of Ayn Rand: the artifexian certainly exists in and needs social networks.

Now, I think the argument you are making on private ownership being inherently exploitive has validity to it, but it’s not the case that all exploitation is equal: assuming Marx is right about his “labor value theory,” the boss who keeps 10% of my produced value is not the same as the boss who keep 80%, for example, though both would entail exploitation. Also, even if the artifexian was exploitive, the artifexian could still help explain why the material dialectic doesn’t breakdown like Marx thought by people having the hope of escaping exploitation by becoming someone who controls. Not a pretty picture, but the explanative thrust of “the creative concord” is maintained in this possibility. Additionally, if it were argued that everyone in Capitalism is somehow exploited, because everyone is part of the inherently exploited system, that could be true, but if people don’t “feel” exploited to an intolerable degree (it’s not enough just to feel “some” level of exploitation), then Capitalism will not be forced into Marxian evolution. The dispersion and dilution of exploitation could also help explain the failures of determinism in Marxism.

This has been delightful: thank you again for your wonderful comments!