Shareholders

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I was discussing class on another forum. Someone made the suggestion that the division of class based on the relationship to the means of production doesn't allow for the occasional proletariat who is given the opportunity to buy/recieve shares in companies. It got me thinking that workers with shares in a company are simultaneously proletarian and bourgeois as they both sell their labour for wage and exploit the surplus value of labour as the company garners profit.

I understand that they hold no real 'control' over the workplace even as shareholders as I equate it almost to Anton Panekoek suggestion that "Middle-class democracy has proved the best camouflage of the political dominance of big capital" (the quote in my sig now :P ). As in, those with the huge investment of shares hold the control and they are clearly the bourgeoisie. What isn't clear to me is what exactly are those who don't have a large stake of the shares and still draw wage as a worker. This maybe hasn't been too clear of me but could someone comment on this phenomenon?

[citizen of industry]

Proletarian shareholdings are negligible, and never enough to allow them controlling shares in a company. A lot of companies offer stock options as a way to pay lower wages. And sure, some proles probably invest a tiny amount in a stock portfolio in hopes of adding on to their retirement pension, but that doesn't make them bourgeoisie. And a lot of those portfolios turn to shit in a crisis anyway, so the proletariat actually loses their money.

I don't own any stocks though personally. I'd rather drink away my wages than gamble them away.

[Blake's Baby]

It's about how you obtain your necessities, really. If you have enough stocks and shares that you can live your life without working, then, yes, you're bourgeois. You are living of the exploited labour of others.

If you have to work - if you don't own enough of of the means of production to compel others to work for you - then you're a worker, no matter if every couple of months you get a cheque that allows you to have a meal out or by an unnecessary pair of shoes.

The whole welfare state notion, as well as pension schemes and insurance, is a spreading of capital beyond the bounds of strict worker/bourgeois categories, but this is unimportat as it's so small; it doesn't change the fundamental relationships which are: do you work for others, or do others work for you?

[Uppity Prole]

Shares are pieces of paper and do not automatically give the status of 'capitalist'. The value of shares are determined by faith from the broader market that the shares can be exchanged for money.

Shares are only truly meaningful in terms of being a capitalist is when one holds shares that have voting-rights. Most shareholders in say company X will not have voting rights. It is common to have a situation where shareholders who hold 20% of stock have 90% of the voting rights.

Those shareholders with voting rights appoint the board of directors (which usually are themselves) and the board of directors control whether and how much dividends are paid to shareholders. The board of directors also decide how profits are paid in terms of salaries and bonuses (themselves receiving the most of this surplus).

Those other shareholders without voting rights are at the whims of the board of directors and the broader market. They may even not get a dividend, they're just hoping that the piece of paper that they hold will still be considered worthy of exchange for money at some point. Most shareholders will not have any say in running the company.

In conclusion, a worker owning some shares is not a capitalist nor is s/he no longer a worker. Shares without voting rights are a fiat currency of a kind.