3 ms·

The only meaningful way to look at class is by looking at class interests. On the one hand, you have the capitalist class who own significant amount of capital

The only meaningful way to look at class is by looking at class interests. On the one hand, you have the capitalist class who own significant amount of capital and use this capital to further their wealth. On the other hand, you have working class people for whom selling their labour is the primary source of their income. These two classes have largely contradictory interests. People who own companies want to cut their costs, and therefore they want to lower wages, give lower benefits, less time off, and so on. Workers want the exact opposite of that. People such as CEOs constitute a labour aristocracy where their interests largely align with the interests of large capitalists and they own some capital of their own.

hibikir 3y ago
It's still more complicated than that, as ultimately a non trivial number of people end up making more from investments than labor, just from savings and time. Basically every 45 year old developer in the US that tried to save at all is a capitalist in your book. If capital gains hand someone 300k a year, they aren't quite workers, but they aren't playing the same game as someone who is still playing the accumulation game. It's the best trick the late 20th century played: Defined contribution workers are all also capitalists, just like everyone relying on an ever more valuable house.
- yogthos 3y ago
  I don't think it's that complicated actually. The basic question is whether the individual has to keep going to work to maintain their lifestyle. Pretty much every 45 year old developer out there wouldn't last long without having a job. They probably have a mortgage to pay on their house, they have car payments, credit card debt, and so on. They're not living off their capital even though they might own some capital. An actual capitalist makes a living by using their capital as the primary vehicle to create further wealth for themselves and to sustain their lifestyle. Again, the key distinction is in terms of class interests. What sort of social policies would be of interest to each type of individual is the question.

hibikir 3y ago

It's still more complicated than that, as ultimately a non trivial number of people end up making more from investments than labor, just from savings and time. Basically every 45 year old developer in the US that tried to save at all is a capitalist in your book. If capital gains hand someone 300k a year, they aren't quite workers, but they aren't playing the same game as someone who is still playing the accumulation game. It's the best trick the late 20th century played: Defined contribution workers are all also capitalists, just like everyone relying on an ever more valuable house.

yogthos 3y ago
I don't think it's that complicated actually. The basic question is whether the individual has to keep going to work to maintain their lifestyle. Pretty much every 45 year old developer out there wouldn't last long without having a job. They probably have a mortgage to pay on their house, they have car payments, credit card debt, and so on. They're not living off their capital even though they might own some capital. An actual capitalist makes a living by using their capital as the primary vehicle to create further wealth for themselves and to sustain their lifestyle. Again, the key distinction is in terms of class interests. What sort of social policies would be of interest to each type of individual is the question.