For instance I know some lawyers and insurance CEOs who built the company themselves and run an ethical business model but because of innovation have made a ton of money. One lawyer has made a name for himself only defending those who have been hurt my big corporations and their life is ruined. The other made an insurance model that helps these hurt people invest their court winnings into annuities to guarantee they’re financially taken care of for life. These are not billionaires but both companies have won for their clients/work with hundreds of millions if not billions.
How can one clearly define someone like Musk or Bezos as bourgeois whereas these hard working individuals who came from nothing and build a huge business actually from nothing and help people?
Hoping for a non-black and white answer. My local MLM group declares everyone evil who isn’t their exact ideology. It doesn’t make sense to apply this thinking when someone whose become rich through helping people isn’t the same as someone whose has taken advantage of people for generations.
Edit: getting downvoted to hell when I am asking a question sure isn’t welcoming.
The problem with stocks is their disorganisation. Shareholder-workers are simultaneously self-exploiting and extracting value (ie profit) from others, without a social contract or remuneration scheme. Shareholder-workers who become shareholders, that is they stop working there, have unjust power. Stocks can be sold or inherited.
On the other hand, a critical threshold of organised shareholders could change the organisation of the company into a more democratic form.
Incidentally, that’s why employee stock holdings are typically either non-voting shares or granted in quantities that can’t practically become a majority voting bloc. But if you can manage it, this is a valid way to seize the means of production through a peaceful democratic process and it does happen on occasion.
Thanks! That makes sense