Not necessarily. Attempting to force a sea change in the proportion of capital ownership is undoubtedly class warfare, and further, perusal of WSB will find mos

Not necessarily. Attempting to force a sea change in the proportion of capital ownership is undoubtedly class warfare, and further, perusal of WSB will find most GME posters expressing some variation of an intent to hold their shares until they're either absolutely worthless or are in a position to force the aforementioned sea change (e.g., mass sells as prices that would ruin not only the hedge funds, but also brokerages and possibly banks). A popular (and not altogether unbelievable) narrative is that the DTCC forced the shutdown of share buys through its "margin call" on brokerages' collateral requirements (a sudden shift despite a week of unprecedented volatility in GME et al.) on the precipice of just such an "infinite short" scenario. The priorities of each group on the other side of a victory are clearly different: entrenched money will continue on as always. WSB would have paid off their consumer debt, donated to worthy causes, or invested directly in themselves or new ventures, without the limitation of interest-bearing loans or the judgment of denial-happy lenders. I think your entire comment is inaccurate in this context.