> >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 latter's holdings usually do not allow him/her the option of permanently exiting the labor market until retirement. Even in that case on could say the worker is a capitalist because his/her portfolio of securities etc. are claims on the output of other workers; the difference being for someone like Bill Gates, the cost of job loss is as close to zero as it is possible to get--he'd lose his salary but that loss compared to his titles to the output of others is friggin' negligible. A pure capitalist is someone who holds a portfolio of property entitlements of sufficient wealth to enable him/her to avoid being compelled to enter the labor market. That is one possible minimal definition.
Ian