These are examples of working class people who are also capitalists.
They are capitalists in the sense that they believe in capitalism. But they are not capitalists in the sense that the post is using (i.e., a part of the capitalist class).
Members of the working class sell their labor in order to gain money and buy the necessities of life. Those in the capitalist class buy labor in order to see a profit on the money they already have. The worker lives on their labor while the capitalist lives on their profits. The idea that someone is in the capitalist class based on a minimal investment in the stock market ignores the fact that they must continue to sell their labor in order to survive. Similarly, Jeff Bezos can can work hard as the CEO of Amazon, but that does not make him working class. It makes him a “worker” in the weak sense that he decides to work, but that’s not what’s at issue in the post.
To be fair, most people who disagree with the ideology behind the post are not aware of the class analysis and so will default to the weaker use of the terms. (“Everyone can just choose to be a capitalist or a worker!”) But the question “Do you work for a living?” is an indication that we’re invoking deeply entrenched class distinctions. Typing this out, I realize the people who upvote the post already know all this, which gives the illusion that everything I’ve written above is immediately obvious.
But this is only true if you accept the Marxist interpretation of labor, class, and economics. I don’t accept the Marxist analysis as a valid one because the ideology itself is both outdated and flawed (both in theory and practice).
Like I agree with the general notion that oligarchs are a problem, but I don’t agree with the Marxist notion that labor is the source of all value in an economy (it isn’t) or that the solution is some form of a planned economy which has been shown to not be in effective historically.
They are capitalists in the sense that they believe in capitalism. But they are not capitalists in the sense that the post is using (i.e., a part of the capitalist class).
Members of the working class sell their labor in order to gain money and buy the necessities of life. Those in the capitalist class buy labor in order to see a profit on the money they already have. The worker lives on their labor while the capitalist lives on their profits. The idea that someone is in the capitalist class based on a minimal investment in the stock market ignores the fact that they must continue to sell their labor in order to survive. Similarly, Jeff Bezos can can work hard as the CEO of Amazon, but that does not make him working class. It makes him a “worker” in the weak sense that he decides to work, but that’s not what’s at issue in the post.
To be fair, most people who disagree with the ideology behind the post are not aware of the class analysis and so will default to the weaker use of the terms. (“Everyone can just choose to be a capitalist or a worker!”) But the question “Do you work for a living?” is an indication that we’re invoking deeply entrenched class distinctions. Typing this out, I realize the people who upvote the post already know all this, which gives the illusion that everything I’ve written above is immediately obvious.
But this is only true if you accept the Marxist interpretation of labor, class, and economics. I don’t accept the Marxist analysis as a valid one because the ideology itself is both outdated and flawed (both in theory and practice).
Like I agree with the general notion that oligarchs are a problem, but I don’t agree with the Marxist notion that labor is the source of all value in an economy (it isn’t) or that the solution is some form of a planned economy which has been shown to not be in effective historically.