3 ms·

Giving a precise definition is hard, since it is easy to twist it and point out that pretty much everyone owns at least a bit of capital and could thus be consi

by emt02 10y ago

Giving a precise definition is hard, since it is easy to twist it and point out that pretty much everyone owns at least a bit of capital and could thus be considered part of the class. However, the usual definition of the capitalist class is about owners of capital, or people who earn wealth from the work of others. This includes industrial capitalists, who own the means of production, the land owners and the financial capitalists. The average Joe may have some little money on the stock market, but he doesn't have any influence in corporations or the global market, contrarily to what your previous comment hinted.

hutzlibu 10y ago
"people who earn wealth from the work of others" Everbody who has money on the stock market, directly or indirectly, earns wealth from the work of others. But this is not a bad thing, as "the others" also benefit from the capital invested as they otherwise could not produce or earn. And for sure you have influence even with little stock, by choosing where to invest and where not. And surely there are people with much more influence (money), thats the way it is, if not everbody is forced to have the same, no matter what they do (or their ancestors did)
- emt02 10y ago
  As I said in my previous comment, it is easy to twist a definition as you just did, to claim that the penny stock owned by the average Joe is even comparable to the stock controlled by the actual capitalist class. I think that everyone can understand the difference here, even though the line between proletariat and capitalist class may be a little more blurry than it was 50 years ago.
  - hutzlibu 10y ago
    A good definition is not easy to "twist" (i call it arguing btw), but a blurry, vague and oversimplifying definition like yours of capitalist, is just useless. You might as well say "rich" and "poor". Which is more fitting and more to the root problem.
    - emt02 10y ago
      I'm just a random person on the internet that read some books on the topic, but a very quick google search would get you to a lot of information about the definition of capital and capitalist class. The division of the society in capitalist and working class is a well studied topic, it's not like I invented it at the moment. But your argument about holding penny stocks making people comparable to capitalists makes me think that you're just attempting to mislead instead of keeping a meaningful discussion. And by the way, rich and poor is a consequence and not the cause.
      - hutzlibu 10y ago
        "The division of the society in capitalist and working class is a well studied topic" Yes, studied and defined by those who later created a big slavesystem. And I read them, but don't like or agree to their definitions, nor alternatives. And by the way, " rich and poor is a consequence and not the cause." I think not. So ? And I also think that creating arbitary classes is not helping the (old) discussion or society at all and rather increases tensions, than solving them. I think history proves me right.
        emt02 10y ago
        > Yes, studied and defined by those who later created a big slavesystem. And I read them, but don't like or agree to their definitions, nor alternatives. This is just plain misleading. Marxism/Leninism is not the only school of thought against capitalism, or that distinguishes between proletariat and capitalist class in the capitalist systems. And I would argue that 1. the "slavesystems" you're talking about (I guess you refer to soviet russia, china and other similar dictatorships) never applyed the Marx theory, but they rather implemented a state capitalism system (IMHO because the idea of dictatorship of proletariat as a means to reach communism is plain stupid). 2. even considering those cases, which I agree were fundamentally flawed and unjust, there's still debate about whether they caused more or less death and suffering than capitalism. I think this answer [0] on Quora gives a good summary of the main points in that regard. [0] https://www.quora.com/What-has-killed-more-people-communism-or-capitalism https://www.quora.com/What-has-killed-more-people-communism-...

by emt02 10y ago

hutzlibu 10y ago

"people who earn wealth from the work of others" Everbody who has money on the stock market, directly or indirectly, earns wealth from the work of others. But this is not a bad thing, as "the others" also benefit from the capital invested as they otherwise could not produce or earn. And for sure you have influence even with little stock, by choosing where to invest and where not. And surely there are people with much more influence (money), thats the way it is, if not everbody is forced to have the same, no matter what they do (or their ancestors did)

emt02 10y ago
As I said in my previous comment, it is easy to twist a definition as you just did, to claim that the penny stock owned by the average Joe is even comparable to the stock controlled by the actual capitalist class. I think that everyone can understand the difference here, even though the line between proletariat and capitalist class may be a little more blurry than it was 50 years ago.
- hutzlibu 10y ago
  A good definition is not easy to "twist" (i call it arguing btw), but a blurry, vague and oversimplifying definition like yours of capitalist, is just useless. You might as well say "rich" and "poor". Which is more fitting and more to the root problem.
  - emt02 10y ago
    I'm just a random person on the internet that read some books on the topic, but a very quick google search would get you to a lot of information about the definition of capital and capitalist class. The division of the society in capitalist and working class is a well studied topic, it's not like I invented it at the moment. But your argument about holding penny stocks making people comparable to capitalists makes me think that you're just attempting to mislead instead of keeping a meaningful discussion. And by the way, rich and poor is a consequence and not the cause.
    - hutzlibu 10y ago
      "The division of the society in capitalist and working class is a well studied topic" Yes, studied and defined by those who later created a big slavesystem. And I read them, but don't like or agree to their definitions, nor alternatives. And by the way, " rich and poor is a consequence and not the cause." I think not. So ? And I also think that creating arbitary classes is not helping the (old) discussion or society at all and rather increases tensions, than solving them. I think history proves me right.
      - emt02 10y ago
        > Yes, studied and defined by those who later created a big slavesystem. And I read them, but don't like or agree to their definitions, nor alternatives. This is just plain misleading. Marxism/Leninism is not the only school of thought against capitalism, or that distinguishes between proletariat and capitalist class in the capitalist systems. And I would argue that 1. the "slavesystems" you're talking about (I guess you refer to soviet russia, china and other similar dictatorships) never applyed the Marx theory, but they rather implemented a state capitalism system (IMHO because the idea of dictatorship of proletariat as a means to reach communism is plain stupid). 2. even considering those cases, which I agree were fundamentally flawed and unjust, there's still debate about whether they caused more or less death and suffering than capitalism. I think this answer [0] on Quora gives a good summary of the main points in that regard. [0] https://www.quora.com/What-has-killed-more-people-communism-or-capitalism https://www.quora.com/What-has-killed-more-people-communism-...