Are people who own stock in companies but still wageslave for a living considered bourgeois? Are stocks considered private property?
Are people who own stock in companies but still wageslave for a living considered bourgeois...
Other urls found in this thread:
Not really bourgeois because you still need to use your labor to live and remember. Marx believed socialism could only be attained in an advanced capitalist economy. He didn't say capitalism was evil. Just that capitalism could be better.
if they can live off of it they are proper ruling class
I think OP is referring more to the people who get like a 1000 bucks bonus at the end of the year form their 0.0001% of the company stocks
Honestly? It’s a grey area that Marx himself never wrote about. Workers owning stocks wasn’t really a thing in his day. I’d say it depends on what percentage of their income is derived from stocks versus wages.
Their are degrees, but the surplus does come from somewhere.
That’s somewhat similar to my situation, I have a mediocre 40k/yr job, but I save as much as I can and throw some into the stock market to have it work for me. It’s at a couple thousand right now.
My friend’s uncle has a much heftier stock portfolio (half a million or so) that he could technically live a meager existence from, but he still works at a salaried job so he can live much more comfortably.
Money doesn't work you fucking bourg.
Marx did write about it in his letters to Engels. He said trading in stocks is a good way to get some money from the enemy if you were willing to risk a bit.
Marx made (at modern rates) around 15k pounds.
Yeah but that was because Marx was living in poverty and needed additional sources of income besides Engels and unsteady proceeds from being a foreign newspaper correspondent.
As far as I know Marx didn't write about stocks in relation to classes.
During the 1950s-60s though there was a concept in the West known as "People's Capitalism" that argued the stock exchange made class distinctions irrelevant or nearly so. There's a short article critical of it in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia: encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com
Neither of you are bourg, you are proletariat and the uncle is petit-bourgeois at most.
No. Most workers today own stocks through their pension fund, but that does not change their relation to production.
When the proletarian revolution happens, we will shut down the stock market. Don’t think it’s a good way to make money
I remember either him or Engels writing something about joint stock companies revealing an aspect of capitalism rising above its limitations and creating more concrete institutional structures that lend themselves to new forms of organization. Basically, the workers could look at the existence of joint stock companies and conceive of a world in which the joint stock companies are simply divided amongst everybody.
That is kind of how I see the stock market, except it also could be said to spread bourgie values because people with sizable portfolios for retirement start to fear disruptions to profit. I also thought Stiglitz had written some article or book trying to devise a different economic system that involved stock equally dispersed among the population every year or something through big public banks. I can't find it anymore so maybe it wasn't him. But anyways, Cockshott kind of had a solution to that fear which was to just guarantee them their retirement.
If your PRIMARY source of income is profit, rent, or interest, then you are bourgeois. If your PRIMARY source of income is wageslaving, then you are proletarian. It doesn’t make you bourgeois if you just invest a little of your wages into the stock market, that’s ridiculous.
only good answer.
to add to this, companies which pay in stock are in a way conditioning pay, and makes proles think they own part of the company, so they dedicate more time and effort to it.
Also being bourgeois isn't bad if you're a comrade imo.
Oddly, I heard a similar theory when arguing with a Sakaist ages ago: that because (implicitly white) workers own stock and houses, they're no longer proletarian but petty bourgeois (at the very least). Most retirees were also included in the category of petty bourgeoisie, for those that no longer worked and lived in some part off stocks and/or bonds.
I'm just wondering if the theory is going to have a small revival on the left, in a negative rather than positive light, due to such arguments.
There's an interesting argument to be made for living off private pension funds or superannuation making someone bourg note not petit bourg just bourg echoing Marx's observation of capitalist development reducing the capitalist to a mere coupon clipper and echoing the modern boomer hate
Sakai is an 8/pol/ tier theorylet if that's the argument he makes
Sauce? I have been looking for this quote for a while.. I think it's what Elon meant when he said Marx was a capitalist.
Do you think he was wrong considering what happened historically?
Do you think he would be a neoliberal or a free market advocate now considering what's happened with purchasing power of electronics and all the failures of socialist countries and late stage communism in China and Vietnam?
Surplus value extraction by the capitalist class still exists and the amount of gadgets you can buy won't change that.
So retirees who live off a 401k even though they worked their entire lives are bourgeois who need to be lined up and shot in the revolution?
nice meme ideology lmao
Must be nice to be able to afford to retire.
Are communists incapable of knowing how to save and invest for the future? Or is putting the effort into learning about that kind of stuff too "class traitor"?
Your individualism is cancer.
just guarantee their retirement lol, with what? you think public pension funds don't invest in stocks and bonds?
Yeah, I wish these people would be honest and put on their brown shirts. What do you eexpect from a self-described "demi-chad"
Nazis were anti-capitalist.
name one anti-capitalist action the Nazis did.
Their "anti capitalism" functioned by equalling Jews with capitalism. It's literally "capitalism would be alright if Jews weren't in charge". They never really cared that much about economics. To them the most important factor was the nation.
Closing of stock exchanges
Capitalism always oscilates between statism and "non-statism".
stock is private property.
it's capital lent that return interest with no work on the part of the lender, value that will have to be stolen from the worker.
They're petty bourge.
They both sell their labor and exist from the surplus labor of others.
Marx was going to write about "Fictitious capital" before he died, but, well, he died.
Do stock holders command the ability to decide how to redistribute surplus value?
Fictitious capital is discussed at length in vol 2 and 3 of Capital.
why are marxists so intellectually dishonest?
Capitalism and State are inseparable. They feed one another, in pendular swings.