• TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    If you are working for a paycheck, you do not touch capital.

    Ok so I have my beef with capitalism, for sure, but this is inaccurate. People all over the country own property, shares in public and private companies, shares of government utilities, just to name a few examples.

    Ownership of things does get distributed through capitalism. As manipulated as it is, that’s the concept of the stock market.

    I’m not rich, but I do own a small amount of capital. My net worth far, far exceeds what I have in my bank account when you account for my car that I’ve paid off, small investments that have appreciated over time, stuff like that.

    Now the top of the capitalist class? They have SO MUCH cash, and so many resources to draw on that they can manipulate stock prices and company values at will. That’s where the whole system starts to break down.

    • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      Idk what definition of capital you used to determine this but I will be using the Marxist on because capital is a Marxist term.

      Capital is private property used to create surplus value usually involving the purchase of wage labor. It can be the money a capitalist uses to pay their employees, the land their workers use to produce surplus value for them, and/or the machinary required for their workers to produce surplus value as a few examples. Buying stocks does not mean you own the means of production in any significant way. You may have stake in how those means of production are use but you do not control them and you do not use them to produce surplus value nor do you purchase wage labor, you only profit off someone who does.

      Furthermore your personal possessions like your car are not capital.

      If you sell your labor to someone who possesses the means of production you are proletariat

    • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      If you work for a living, and being unemployed indefinitely would threaten your survival, you are part of the working class. Owning a few crumbs of capital is a nice cushion, but does not define your class.

      If your income is passive, and you could live your whole life off the returns from your investments without ever actually working, you are part of the capitalist class.

      • metaStatic@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        That can’t be true. I’ve done the math on my living expenses and it would only take a few years of saving in a high interest account for me to be considered a capitalist under that definition. if social mobility was truly that easy no sane person would be against capitalism.

        • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          That doesn’t sound plausible like you said. Either you’re way off the average living expenses/wages or have your formulas wrong.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          If it only took you a few years of saving, you make enough and spend little enough as a proportion of that that you’re outside the average.

    • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      'Ownership of things DOES get distributed…"

      Uhhhh, no? Are you dumb? Owning stock in a company is far, FAR removed from owning any part of a company’s assets.

        • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          Capital is not money, capital can be represented by money but it is not inherently money. Capital is something you use to buy someone’s labor. More specifically it is the social relationship between wage labor and profit. Assets (private property) used to produce profit (surplus value) are capital

          Capital is “the characteristic the means of production acquire when they are used to hire labor and generate surplus value”

          “Capital is dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks.”

        • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          You do not get any access to the company’s resources. There is no dollar sitting in company coffers for your dollar of investment. You don’t get to decide what that money does what so evwr, and its value is speculative on the performance.

          That is far, far, far removed from owning or controlling any part of a company’s capital.

          • metaStatic@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I’ve been part of multiple board elections where the little people have deciding votes because a 3rd party institutional investor needs to rally the retail investors to oust the current board for environmental crimes reasons.

            Having a vote is having control of capital … and they pay you for it with dividends too.

            • GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              But it isn’t the same as if the entire working class had a collective say in the capital, not just those who choose to and have the resources to pay in. It isn’t the same as the workers of that company having a say in their working conditions, shift lengths, compensation, etc.

    • GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      A better way to say it would instead be the inverse: “If you don’t work for a paycheck, you probably hold enough capital”