The Triviality of Capital Ownership

W. Kiernan WKiernan at concentric.net
Fri Dec 18 16:53:41 PST 1998


boddhisatva wrote:
>
> C. Bill,
>
> Sorry for being so strident, I was in a mood. First, owning
> shares is indeed immoral in my opinion. Buy bonds. If you want
> something a little sexier, play the options market. At least there
> you know that if you win the swine who wrote you the option lost.
> There's no rising tide that lifts all capitalist boats in the options
> market. I haven't really analyzed the morality of the futures
> market, but I'll give it a provisional okay ;-)
>
> Seriously, I think owning shares is a poisonous idea. It's one
> thing when people own shares in the business they work at (as you do,
> although one would like to see everyone in the company own equally)
> but the idea that people can be innocent capitalists because the
> stock market seems so divorced from reality is wrong. It's like
> being a landlord. I've never met a landlord who could retain his
> humanity after a couple years in the business. It inevitably corrupts
> people to profit that way.

Hello mail-list!

I have a question for you all. I've worked for a civil engineering company for the last twelve years; I get paid by the hour. I don't have any college degrees, and I am not a registered professional, although I plan to take a test next year to become a Florida registered land surveyor.

Last night I went to my company's Christmas party. Quite to my surprise I was elected to be an associate of the company. That means I can buy stock in my own company. Also, I get new business cards. Now if I buy stock, even one share, it would mean that at the age of 44, I will have stepped out of the proletariat into the bourgeoisie (as the pettiest of petit bourgeois, to be sure), a notion that I find both amusing and somewhat disturbing at the same time. I mean that in the technical sense that I would own in part the means of production, rather than being a worker paid for each day's work. If I misunderstand the distinction between proletarian and bourgeois, please clarify it for me.

Now I can understand the idea that it could be considered immoral for a stockholder to leech off the surplus value created by the paid employees. They work, he kicks back, skims off, and stuffs his pockets; yeah, I dig the problem. But I myself am one of those paid employees. If I buy stock and receive dividends, then I will be getting back some of the surplus value I myself generated. (I can't imagine ever owning such a large share of the company that I would be taking in some of my cow-orkers's surplus value - but I suppose you never know, do you?)

Well, assuming that my dividends are less than the profits I generate for the company, would this qualify as immoral behavior on my part? What would you do in my place? Aside from their potential financial value, as a matter of principle, would you not buy shares in your company?

Yours WDK - WKiernan at concentric.net



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list