In a message dated 8/14/2 4:03:33 PM, you wrote:
>>As for this idea that there is some class difference between sole
>>proprietors and other large shareholders, this is nonsense.
>
>Really? They often take opposing positions on political issues - on
>trade agreements and regulation, for example. What sole proprietor
>can get a Senator or cabinet secretary on the phone?
>
>>But isn't that just semantics? The revenue is derived from surplus
>>value one way or the other.
>
>The economic functions are different, and so are the social roles.
Okay, wait a minute. Of course there are substantive differences between middle and upper managers, and small business owners, and partial stockholders, yes. And, of course they frequently oppose each other. But the history of capitalism is a history of internal opposition. The Democrats overthrew Nixon and the Republicans tried to overthrow Clinton (but couldn't and later staged a coup)-- does this imply that either of these parties aren't capitalists? The two world wars were fought by imperialist powers to divide up the world markets, but they were still capitalists. The working class suffered regardless of which "side" they were on.
The point is, I think, not to determine which individual capitalists are "really" capitalists, but to show that a cohesive mass of these folks will stand together if put to the test, opposed by a "greater enemy" that stands organized against capitalism. There are blurry lines, and some will mutiny to the opposite pole, but that's life.
-- David