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?
No owning stock does not make you a capitalist. A stock is simply a portion of a company and it's fractionalized worth that allows the owner of the stock to vote for the leadership of the corporation it belongs to. It's a simple voting system where one stock unit equals one vote.
Here's what separates folks you, me, and your grandparents who own some stocks as a light supplement to living off of the fruits of our labour, and the capitalists who've accumulated enough wealth that they can buy large swaths of stock and live off of the interest that those stocks provide.
We live and die by our work. The capitalists thrive off of our work and face being turned back into a worker if they fail to perpetuate their sizable wealth.