>Almost no one has a controlling interest in a large corporation of
>any consequence. Most Fortune 500-scale firms are owned by millions
>of shareholders, few with single shareholders even approaching even
>5% of the total. There are some exceptions - the Ford family still
>has big power over Ford, the Sulzbergers over the NY Times - but not
>many. So is the U.S. capitalist class made up mainly of individual
>and family owners of small businesses? Is someone who owns a plastics
>plant in Tennessee more of a capitalist than the CEO of IBM?
I've been paging through the Governance chapter in Wall Street, Doug, and from what I've skimmed it seems (please correct me if I'm wrong) that managers of other firms are being pushed by the managers of financial companies (mutual funds, insurance, etc., right?) for quick and high profits. The shareholders are vestigial except for that movement you talked about in Aux Armes, Rentiers! (exemplified by Boone Pickens and Gulf), but they're still clipping coupons and living off their dividends, aren't they? But this group of capitalists would be in the minority, right? The larger group would make less money by dividends, stock manipulations, etc. and have to get jobs, right? And aren't the managers of the companies managing the various funds demanding higher profits for the owners of the stock they are managing? How does what you described in the Governance chapter change the relationship of capitalists, proles, and capital described by Marx? And aren't there different grades of stock (common, preferred) which allow the holder of one type more of a say in corporate decision-making?
Sorry for the barrage, but now I'm curious (and in answer to your question, rhetorical or not: both are capitalists, but one has more direct control over the ownership as expressed by stock).
Todd
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx