If a large enough share of your income is returns on capital to both meet your expenses and increase the store of capital, or you have a sufficient store of capital that depleting with your expenses would take lifetimes even though it isn't growing after expenses, you can plausibly held to be in the haut bourgeoisie, the elite of capitalist society. If you are an intellectual worker with a modest amount of stock held through a retirement fund, your probably between the proletarian intelligentsia (in the working class, if among the better working conditions and higher pay of that class) and the petit bourgeoisie (the capitalist middle class), but not at all elite.

Yes.

Ok. Then a good 50% of this country is elite. What a dumb definition.

Are you purposely being obtuse? Or are you trying to argue against a different point than the one I made?

If not, please explain how you having a mutual fund means that "the elites" who control Apple aren't impacted by lost revenue.

I'm really lost here. How exactly will hurting Apple sales help resolve police violence?

I don't think we're there yet, and I think we can still use the ballot box to effect change, but fear of a socialist revolution and mob violence was one of the catalysts behind the new deal.

So if you can't understand how hurting the pocket books of "the elite" can encourage them to compromise, you haven't been paying attention to history.

History says that mob violence is probably more likely to lead to a dictatorship than to another new deal, but you're being willfully ignorant if you don't acknowledge the existence of a potential chain of consequences that starts with "damaging companies' bottom lines" and ends with policy change.