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

[Tayssir John Gabbour]

On 6/6/07, Wojtek Sokolowski <swsokolowski at yahoo.com> wrote:
> [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 managers generally aren't capitalists. In that they don't have
sufficient ownership.

I find it convincing that there's not just two useful economic classes
for activists to consider, but three. (Each class having areas of
antagonism with the others, etc.)

In the case of mom 'n pop stores, I can imagine (but I don't know)
that in the old days, relatively minor people at the court could end
up exerting much more power than many a feudal lord.

In slave societies, those supervising the slaves were often of the
same race as the slaves, but better compensated. Yet they weren't of
the same economic class as slaveowners.

Of course, the number of classes depends on our interests. So for
instance, many sensibly observe the US as a monolithic economic
powerhouse. Whereas marketing professionals might distinguish zillions
of classes.

Tayssir