So I sent that Gravel Institute video to a couple of friends, and they made the point (and it's been made to me before) that anyone with a pension scheme that invests in shares is a "capitalist" and "owns the means of production".
And I guess that's true. By virtue of investing money in a scheme, or putting savings into an index fund, I am owning companies that are exploiting workers across the globe.
The next step of their logic I guess is that I'm a hypocrite (true I suppose but also difficult) or that in the 21st century it's impossible to separate the proletariat from the beorgousie so distinction is subjective and meaningless. Because, in a country like mine where pension schemes that invest in stocks are compulsory (and even if they weren't most people would still do it) - we are ALL beorgousie/capitalist in that we all to some extent own the means of production.
I guess my question is - how to I respond to or reconcile this? I want to say "don't hate the player hate the game" or that meme about "hmmm you use an iPhone - curious! 🤡🤡" - but Jeff Bezos, or my boss, could say the same thing?
You can point out how while it is technically true, the vast amount of shares are owned by the upper 1% and the people actually working there will own a tiny tiny tiny fraction, if at all. The more shares you own in a company, the more power you have over it so workers don't actually have any control in how the company is run.
Every person I know who buy shares do it because they worry about having a stable source of income because of how fucked the job market is and not because they're sadistic assholes who chase after bigger numbers. If we had a fair system to begin with, no one would need to invest in the first.