If that makes you feel better, whatever man. I own a house and don’t consider myself part of the “ownership class”. I work hourly and my 403b is a joke, I am closer to homeless than wealthy by factors of magnitude.
Stakeholding is a long way from ownership in any meaningful sense. The “varying proportions” here are all on the coattails of capital from whichever angle you look.
That’s kind of my point though. Control is real ownership. What we experience can really only be construed to ownership in name. Especially with the way financial systems work, built by capital, the vast majority of individual investors expressly do not own their stake in their names.
A silent partner (through choice or circumstance) is just as much a member of the capitalist class as the hands on partner. They reap the same rewards. They exploit the same workers.
Only in a co-operative setup can the worker and owner class be in balance.
I see where you’re coming from and why you’re drawing that line. My thought is that so many of those investors are not functioning as capitalists considering that they are still workers at the end of the day. They need to participate because of the way things are, where I suppose my idea of a “true” capitalist simply chooses to exploit in order to claim more. I do think there’s a difference between choice and circumstance in that way.
Totally. Most 401k holders don’t even realise they own companies, never mind thinking about moving their money into something better fitting their particular political and investment philosophies
If that makes you feel better, whatever man. I own a house and don’t consider myself part of the “ownership class”. I work hourly and my 403b is a joke, I am closer to homeless than wealthy by factors of magnitude.
My main point is that the ownership/worker distinction is not binary. Most people are both (in very different proportions).
But my secondary point is that even the small investor has some (slight) power to influence which is usually not exercised.
Stakeholding is a long way from ownership in any meaningful sense. The “varying proportions” here are all on the coattails of capital from whichever angle you look.
It’s only a long way from control of the company.
It’s full ownership in terms of receiving a proportional share of the profits of the workers. That part is very meaningful.
That’s kind of my point though. Control is real ownership. What we experience can really only be construed to ownership in name. Especially with the way financial systems work, built by capital, the vast majority of individual investors expressly do not own their stake in their names.
A silent partner (through choice or circumstance) is just as much a member of the capitalist class as the hands on partner. They reap the same rewards. They exploit the same workers.
Only in a co-operative setup can the worker and owner class be in balance.
I see where you’re coming from and why you’re drawing that line. My thought is that so many of those investors are not functioning as capitalists considering that they are still workers at the end of the day. They need to participate because of the way things are, where I suppose my idea of a “true” capitalist simply chooses to exploit in order to claim more. I do think there’s a difference between choice and circumstance in that way.
Totally. Most 401k holders don’t even realise they own companies, never mind thinking about moving their money into something better fitting their particular political and investment philosophies