--- andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> 1. a person who has private ownership of sufficient
> productive assets so that he does not have to sell
> his
> own labor (power) (i.e., ability to work) to live
> and
> who instead employs others who work for wages to
> make
> goods or services that are sold at market;
>
[WS:] By that definition, corporate executives are not "capitalists" whereas owners of a mom-and-pop candy stores are. That is not very useful for understanding power relations in the US society.
I think the Old Man based his theory on the British capitalism ca. early 19th century in which the role of private ownership was rather unique comparing to the cartel system that developed later in continental Europe.
I suggest a different definition, one that substitutes ownership by effective control of productive assets to the degree that such control affects the functioning of social, economic and political institutions. I do not think that dubbing such control "capitalism" would serve any useful purpose, though. If anything, it would only add a distracting and confusing emotive element.
Wojtek
____________________________________________________________________________________ Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091