Not enough funding

Yesterday in class, we discussed how the Bourgeoisie do the least work while reaping the most rewards, while the Proletariat reaps the least amount of rewards even though they do the  most work. The argument from the Capitalist perspective goes something like, "Because the Bourgeoisie own the means of production and the materials that the Proletariat use to produce products, the products produced by the Proletariat are actually owned by the Bourgeoisie as well." However, if I were to go out into the world and mine some gold and make a ring out of it, it would be considered "my," ring because I put effort into shaping a unique product. If you want to get technical about it, and say that nobody owned the gold to begin with, let's say that I am a summer camp counselor who works at the craft hut.
Here, it is my job to teach campers how to create different crafts, such as fuse-beads and lanyards. Let's say that a camper wants to make a lanyard for the first time, and I have to show them how. As part of my instructions, I also create a lanyard in order to give the child a visual example. Now, since the camper has bought the plastic chords to create their lanyard, we would call it his or her lanyard. But what about the lanyard that I created as a part of my example? Technically, the materials were bought with camp funds, but wouldn't it still be considered my lanyard even though I didn't pay for it? You can't say that it still belongs to the camp, because now there is a part of myself- the time that I put into making the lanyard- in it, and it is recognized as something different than it was before (the word, "lanyard," versus the word, "chord.").
So why are the Bourgeoisie allowed to dominate the ownership of things that they do not make? I would think it is because they have the financial *cough cough* legal power to do so. They are the ones who have enough money to bribe politicians into doing what they want to do through "campaign donations," that have strings attached. So what should the Proletariat do about their lack of ownership? "Write your Governor, of course!" would be the common answer. But what good will that do when they already have obligations to the Bourgeoisie? Should the Proletariat pool all their spare change together to combat the Bourgeoisie? I mean, strength in numbers, right? But you have to remember that the Bourgeoisie have that power too- where they are lacking in bodies, they make up for that with dollars in seven-fold (if not more).
Now I'm not bashing Capitalism, or anything, but what I'm saying is that in order to be an effective system without the threat of collapse or revolution, we need to pass laws that support the ownership and wage rights of the Proletariat, while also recognizing that the Bourgeoisie play an important role in supplying raw materials. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem likely that this is going to happen any time soon, due to the Proletariat's lack of funding.
What types of laws or regulations do you think would be effective for equalizing the importance of the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie in a Capitalist society?