> This reification of timeless "capitalism" (yet always changing! - a
> dialectical unity of opposites, no doubt) is another pet peeve of mine, but
> I'll spare everyone.....One hugely important aspect of capitalism that has
> changed since Marx's death, as Doug noted, is the radical separation of
> ownership from control. In Vol. 3 of Capital, Marx notes this phenomenon -
> which was at only a very rudimentary stage at that point - and makes the
> following remarkable observation. He says that in stock companies
> (corporations),
>
>> The capital, which in itself rests on a social mode of production and
>> presupposes a social concentration of means of production and labour-power,
>> is here directly endowed with the form of social capital (capital of
>> directly associated individuals) as distinct from private capital, and its
>> undertakings assume the form of social undertakings as distinct from private
>> undertakings. It is the abolition of capital as private property within the
>> framework of capitalist production itself.
>
> Since then, it's become the dominant mode of production. Bet you hadn't
> heard private property had been abolished!
>
> SA
=====================================
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Stock_Companies_Act_1844>
The Joint Stock Companies Act 1844 (7 & 8 Vict. c.110) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that expanded access to the incorporation of joint-stock companies in the UK.
Before the Act, incorporation was only possible by Royal charter or private act, and was limited owing to Parliament's jealous protection of the privileges and advantages thereby granted. As a result, many businesses came to be operated as unincorporated associations with possibly thousands of members. Any consequent litigation had to be carried out in the joint names of all the members and was impossibly cumbersome. Though Parliament would sometimes grant a private act to allow an individual to represent the whole in legal proceedings, this was a narrow and necessarily costly expedient only allowed to established companies.
The 1844 Act created a Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, empowered to register companies by a two-stage process. The first, provisional, stage cost £5 and did not confer corporate status which arose after the completing the second stage for another £5.[1]
However, there was still no limited liability and company members could still be held responsible for unlimited losses by the company.[2] Limited liability was subsequently introduced by the Limited Liability Act 1855. The system of registration was revised by the Joint Stock Companies Act 1856 which introduced the system largely still in operation as of 2006[update]. The aim of the act was to place business and economy on a surer foundation, and to increase public confidence in the honesty of business.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Stock_Companies_Act_1856>
The Joint Stock Companies Act 1856 was a consolidating statute, recognised as the founding piece of modern UK company law legislation.
Unlike other Acts of Parliament that preceded it, the 1856 Act provided a simple administrative procedure by which any group of seven people could register a limited liability company for themselves.
The Joint Stock Companies Bill was introduced to Parliament by the then Vice President of the Board of Trade, Mr Robert Lowe. In doing so he proclaimed the right of every citizen to have freedom of contract and with it obtain limited liability for operating a business. Companies had until recently been prohibited, as a result of the Bubble Act and the stock market panics of the early 18th century. There was still a lot of suspicion of companies, so Lowe refuted the idea that a limited company is inherently subject to fraud, and proposed the suffix of "Ltd" to make businesses aware of limited liability.