>I realize that the vast majority of corporations are controlled by a
>small handful of shareholders. But control, as I understand it,
>isn't necessarily what makes the capitalist. The worker who owns
>stock profits from it (at least potentially), and therefore
>appropriate surplus value (albeit hardly ever enough to live off).
But in the modern corporation, stocks are a means of ownership, while control rests largely with management. Doug's written about the "shareholder revolution" and it's attempts by stockholders (mainly institutional investors) to exert greater influence over management (tying CEO pay to stock performance, rewarding layoffs with several points in stock price, etc.). The largest influence does not come from a small handful of individual stockholders, but institutional ones such as mutual funds.
>So, my question is, why is someone who lives off investments in
>corporations a capitalist, but a worker who does not live off
>her/his small investments (but still, in some sense, appropriates
>surplus value) is not?
Is that the dividing line? If not, what is?
-- Shane
________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!