Well there certainly shouldn’t be such a big difference between all of those things, but my point is that in a capitalist system, there is in fact a big difference between many of those things. The way the system is set up, acquiring or selling stock — means a lot more for power than selling labor or buying consumer goods. So the system defines ownership a certain way, where a laborer’s labor power is “owned” in a very minimal sense. No laborer’s labor power can possibly equal “the power of capital shares” in terms of the rights which it can claim for itself — in large part because the power of the capitalist consists in the massive accumulation of the much smaller units of his laborers’ labor power. The whole is greater than the part; therefore ownership on the part of stockholders means a lot more, mathematically, than ownership on the part of the worker.