People accuse leftists of idealist thinking but in what fantasy world are you thinking your personal savings from selling your labor is ever going to come close to what would be considered “capital” in the sense being discussed here?
You’re right that wealth is concentrated, but I was saying that the assets are collectively owned. For example I am a shareholder of Amazon, a publicly-traded company that Jeff Bezos owns a large stake in. So Amazon is “collectively owned” but each share gets one vote instead of one person.
Shares only give you voting power if you have a massive amount of them. In the vast majority of cases shares function as either a place to store wealth to protect it from inflation or as speculative gambling, the majority of use cases is not to signify ownership. I would not classify that as collective ownership, maybe only in theory if you don’t look into it too much but real world application of shares is definitely not collective ownership.
I’m very much in favour of businesses being actually collectively owned through a coop business model though.
Plenty of things are legally indistinguishable but real world applications are often quite different.
Though I would also challage that claim since owning a joint business gives you legal deciding power while owning 1 stock does not, you get zero votes from that.
People accuse leftists of idealist thinking but in what fantasy world are you thinking your personal savings from selling your labor is ever going to come close to what would be considered “capital” in the sense being discussed here?
It’s directly deployed in stocks and real estate, what do you mean?
Most capital is “collectively owned” through public corporations, pension funds, etc.
Not most, in the US around 400 individuals own over 50% of wealth. Similar situation in Russia.
You’re right that wealth is concentrated, but I was saying that the assets are collectively owned. For example I am a shareholder of Amazon, a publicly-traded company that Jeff Bezos owns a large stake in. So Amazon is “collectively owned” but each share gets one vote instead of one person.
Shares only give you voting power if you have a massive amount of them. In the vast majority of cases shares function as either a place to store wealth to protect it from inflation or as speculative gambling, the majority of use cases is not to signify ownership. I would not classify that as collective ownership, maybe only in theory if you don’t look into it too much but real world application of shares is definitely not collective ownership.
I’m very much in favour of businesses being actually collectively owned through a coop business model though.
Owning public stock is legally indistinguishable from directly owning a joint business venture.
Plenty of things are legally indistinguishable but real world applications are often quite different.
Though I would also challage that claim since owning a joint business gives you legal deciding power while owning 1 stock does not, you get zero votes from that.
It depends on the percent of the company you own.
Gee, who decided what is legally equivalent? Certainly not the people with wealth to buy politicians and judges.
I have no idea what point you’re trying to make.
As it turns out, if someone owns 51% company (like amazon), it doesn’t matter how “collectively owned” a company is. One entity gets the final say.
It almost Halloween in the US. Anyone like scary stories? 😈