>On Jun 2, 2007, at 3:57 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
>> I've never agreed with this division. Rentiers are a subsection of the
>> capitalist class, not another class. They do own capital, and their
>> use
>> of it may always shift. Surely David Rockefeller and John D.
>> Rockefeller
>> III wre not in different classes.
>
>Class, or subclass, is partly what you do.
This is twaddle.
> There's a difference
>between being actively engaged in production in some sense and purely
>living off income.
Yes, but it isn't an economic class difference.
> Their interests aren't always the same.
Different kinds of capitalists have different interests. So?
> David
>Rockefeller worked all his life. He was the chairman of Chase. If
>that doesn't make you a capitalist I don't know what does. Paris
>Hilton mostly lives off the income from inherited wealth.
Neither of them have to work to make a living though, that's what makes them capitalists. Not what work they do if they choose to do any at all.
> She's
>turned her celebrity into cash through endorsements - and, as a
>friend of mine once put, when you're rich enough you never have to
>pay for anything. Paris is that kind of rich.
>
>It's interesting that today's rentier girls do want to give the
>appearance of working. Tinsley Mortimer has a handbag line, of course.
This "rentier" crap that you yanks come out with is starting to really bother me. Wake up to yourself! Its a useless distinction, seeking as it does to make a distinction between worthy capitalists and unworthy capitalists. It is an immense error of conception to imagine that one kind of dividend-bludger is more worthy than another, simply because one kind is capable of personally managing his/her business investment and another isn't.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas