4 ms·
I'm struggling with this distinction between workers and capital, when it seems to me that almost always there's no actual difference. Even if we take pure shar
by nvm0n2 3y ago
I'm struggling with this distinction between workers and capital, when it seems to me that almost always there's no actual difference. Even if we take pure shareholders who aren't also employees, in practice, basically all of those shareholders will themselves be employees of funds of various kinds, and thus fireable. People who are pure private shareholders and literally answer to no-one, is possible e.g. Bill Gates and other philanthropists, but they're an extreme edge case and indeed most of them seem to spend their time giving away money to people who otherwise might struggle to find work, like researchers, so it's hard to view this type of "capital" as exploiting the workers.
- lapcat 3y agoIf you think there's almost always no actual difference, consider this: in the United States, the richest 10% of all households own >70% of the country's wealth. The richest 1% own 35% of the country's wealth. The rest of the population may own some stock, but it's a pittance relative to the capitalist class. We're not running the show. Regarding Bill Gates, he acquired his wealth by exploiting workers, not to mention everyone else, engaging in illegal monopolistic practices. Moreover, he's even wealthier now than he was before retiring from Microsoft and claiming to want to give most of his wealth away. And he's 67 years old, time's a wastin'. The problem is that wealth begets wealth. Gates doesn't even have to work to continue to accumulate wealth, so much so that he can't seem to give away money faster than he makes it. That's the essential difference: having to work for your money vs. having your money (and also everyone else) work for you.