I feel like this is one of the finer points to convince people of, and doesn't have as many resources to explain it to someone who's been indoctrinated in Capitalism their whole life.
I feel like this is one of the finer points to convince people of, and doesn't have as many resources to explain it to someone who's been indoctrinated in Capitalism their whole life.
My usual explanation is:
Under capitalism there are 2 classes, those who sell their labour for a living(producing) - proletariat/workers/the 99% - and those that do not sell their labour but instead capitalise upon the labour sold by the proletariat, these are non-workers - bourgeoisie/capital-owners/the 1%. The bourgeoisie do not work because working is selling your labour in order to receive a paycheck, their money does not come from selling their labour(producing) but instead comes from slicing a cut from what the proletariat produce using their labour. The bourgeoisie does not do labour they have other people do labour for them via what they own.
The easiest, simplest and most obvious explanation of this within society are landlords.
A member of the proletariat goes to work, he sells his labour in order to receive a paycheck. He comes home to a rented property and he gives 60% of that paycheck to the landlord who has done nothing except take this labourer's money. The landlord provides nothing, the landlord did not build the home as it was already there, maintenance is also paid for with the renter's money so that too comes from the renter not the landlord. The proletariat is the one doing the work while the landlord parasitically takes his labour. He provides absolutely nothing. He is a parasite.
The proletariat had his labour stolen twice in this example. Once by the owner of his workplace who makes their income from the theft of the combined labour output of every employee there, and a second time by the landlord who contributes nothing while only capitalising upon ownership of the property.
Then the landlord in question should be a carpenter, electrician, or plumber, and make money directly from their labor rather than by holding a government-backed monopoly on a parcel of land and using that leverage to extort rent from the tenant.
Something I'd like to understand better is why many socialists seem to believe it's more acceptable to invest in the stock market than become a landlord
Indirect vs Direct exploitation? I don't know I've never considered the question before. Is the stock market even real? Does the buying and selling on it directly affect the workers in a negative way? Is it a meaningful thing that participation in directly creates exploitation that wouldn't be there anyway?
These are legitimate questions and immediate thoughts. I'm not sure. Something I'll have a think about and come back here later hoping someone gives a good answer.
Yes this tends to be what I think, but I can't come to a consistent position on how and why it being indirect matters.
It's not so much that you're supporting the stock market as that you're owning a chunk of a company, whose workers' labour you're now capitalising on.