[lbo-talk] "Capitalists" and "the rich"

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

--- 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