"capitalists take risks"

[lulks]

i was arguing against someone who believes in capitalism. he said that capitalists deserve more because they take risks. this seems wrong to me because taking a risk doesn't deserve that much. but this is what he said

^LOL that couldn't be further from the truth. WHy don't you try and start your own business. I'm sure the capitalist will put forth very little effort and the money will just "roll in." You need to stop dreaming, because it's not so cut and dry. There's a reason a "capitalist" is compensated a certain amount. The entrepreneur takes a risk to do so. I think you support your "system" because you are lazy, and don't want people who have the gumption to work harder and take risks get a higher payout, so you can be happy with your level of "hard work" which gets equal pay.
what is the best rebuttal for this?

[Invincible Summer]

I'd argue that the "risk" the capitalist takes is merely a financial one, whereas most working class people experience many more physical risks on the job.

While it's true that capitalist do take a lot of time to start a business, I'd say that putting their financial "risk" and planning on a pedastal over those who create his/her wealth is silly. Also, what about those businesspeople who "take risks" and then fail? Are they "lazy" then? But then I thought taking a "risk" was a good thing?
I notice a lot of these arguments tend to assume that the capitalist will be successful because of his/her "hard work/risk." But then when you question what happens if the capitalist fails, then these apologists will say "Oh well then they obviously aren't good at it" or something that amounts to a cop-out. It's highly hypocritical and contradictory.

And the argument that communists/socialists support a "lazy" system is so goddamned old and refuted. So this guy would argue that the Japanese office worker who works 48 hours/week doesn't deserve the same privileges as the capitalist simply because he wasn't there at the beginning to "risk" some money?

Are gamblers and card sharks capitalist gods or something?

And communism was never about getting everyone to have the same pay. It's about making sure everyone has equal access and opportunities to social and economic resources regardless of race, class, etc.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

The only capitalists who really take a "risk" by starting a business are small-time petit-bourgeois capitalists, who would typically already have to be better off financially than your average person, i.e. they can get approved for a loan, or have the start up capital on hand, etc. But it's been documented that social mobility is going downward all around the world. The "power elite," bourgeois capitalists, have so much wealth that there is essentially no risk involved. After all, if you already have a billion dollars what does it matter if you lose a million?

[Sir Comradical]

Argue on your terms, not his. Arguing about the behavior of hypothetical individuals is a pointless exercise. Instead, talk about the capitalist system in its totality and the crises it creates.

[Rousedruminations]

It's merely a risk of self-interest and financial gain that capitalist tend to make in society. It promotes aggrandizing oneself, at the expense of the fundamental needs of others. If everyone was selfless enough for each and every member in society, the ills of a nation would be tremendously less, yet to maximize earnings and profits, many (capitalist) would step on everyone's toes to get to the apex of their affluence. The problem is not money itself but the legalization of private property.

[lulks]

thanks for the help. i just said that the workers still produce everything and risk doesn't produce any value. so their risk shouldn't be rewarded. it's like rewarding people for going bungee jumping.

[RadioRaheem84]

The whole issue of "risk" is an excuse for the capitalist to charge a wage and receiving more profit as an interest for the investment. He justifies it as since he put all of his money into the factory, then he deserves the surplus while the worker did not take a risk and thus deserves a wage. Pure marginal crap. This defense only came after Marx laid the smackdown on classical economics and bourgeoisie economists had to invent a whole new neo-classical school, dropping LTV altogether in favor of marginalist theory. They admit to a surplus (and exploitation) and are now trying to find ways to defend exploitation. Risk/Investment = interest payment/surplus.

Always remember that ownership does not entail value or the creation of any value, The capitalist with his capital doesn't create any value but merely transfers one form of value (capital) to another (parts, labor, factory). He still needs to exploit workers to get his "interest" payment on the "risk" he took.

[robbo203]

Put it this way. The "risk" that the capitalist supposedly has to contend with does not bear any relationship to what he or she gets as an unearned income. So there is a bit of a logical fallacy at work here. You cannot explain or justify the high income enjoyed by the capitalist in terms of the "risk" faced becuase a risky investment could equally result in financial loss. Why should one then cite "risk" as a "reason" for "high incomes" in the sense that it is because the capitalist faces a risk that he or she ought to enjoy a high income? Evidently this cannot be so because in trying to justfiy such high income in these terms - i.e. that they should get it because they face a risk - paradoxically eliminates the concept of "risk" and with it the possibility that they might suffer a financial loss....

In any case, this whole idea of risk needs to be put in context given the widespread application of the principle of "limited liability". As someone else said, its the workers who suffer much more as a consequence of the capitalists' risky investments that backfire on them. With the loss of their jobs, the workers also face the possibility of losing their homes and more besides. Limited liability protects the capitalists to an extent.

I like to respond tongue-in-cheek to such arguments, by pointing out that if the capitalists are complaining about the huge risks they are undertaking in investing "their" capital (which we workers produced for them!) for our benefit in the form of jobs etc, well then they will surely have no objection to us relieving them of the enormous burden of psychological stresss imposed upon them by making the means of prpduction the common property of everyone. Thereby socialising the "risk" and not "unfairly" inflicting it on a few;)

[ZeroNowhere]

The working class takes a large risk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932010) by maintaining capitalism. Now, risk is hardly virtuous when it is unproductive and unnecessary, and therefore let us free not only the worker, but the capitalist, from these oppressive risks. In fact, let us even free the small capitalist, who takes far more risk than most large capitalists, but strangely enough does not prosper equally and generally fails. By abolishing money, and consciously setting forth to abolish poverty, let us also free the risk-taking thief (have you ever tried robbery?) from the want that breeds him.

[AK]

Defending the risk taking by capitalists is stupid for a cappie to do. It just shows that they have a disregard for workers' livelihoods and lives by taking such reckless careless risks.

[chegitz guevara]

Why should we reward risk taking?

[flobdob]

All of the above and more. The "risk" argument is nonsense and doesn't explain the origin of profit; it simply attempts to justify it's existence. I take a risk whenever I cross a road, it doesn't mean that if I don't get run over I will recieve a juicy lump of profit when I get to the other side.

[mikelepore]

When he said "There's a reason a capitalist is compensated a certain amount. The entrepreneur takes a risk to do so." - That's not even a part of *capitalist* economic theory. Their official explanation for why the capitalist makes a profit is that the capitalist was clever enough to arrange situations such that there would be some money left over, after the business has paid all of its necessary expenses, allowing the owners of the business to pocket the difference. It would requires some voodoo action-at-a-distance to say the capitalist experienced risk, and that produced the remote social conditions such that that there would be some money left over in the business after all the expenses were paid.

[RadioRaheem84]

I like to respond tongue-in-cheek to such arguments, by pointing out that if the capitalists are complaining about the huge risks they are undertaking in investing "their" capital (which we workers produced for them!) for our benefit in the form of jobs etc, well then they will surely have no objection to us relieving them of the enormous burden of psychological stresss imposed upon them by making the means of prpduction the common property of everyone. Thereby socialising the "risk" and not "unfairly" inflicting it on a fewhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/wink.gif Excellent point Robbo! I remember a libertarian author using this as an excuse to exploit workers. Apparently, the "Maalox drinking boss" under stress that his investment in the factory will pay off, deals with the hassles of ownership while the worker does not and thus only deserves a mere wage for this marginal contribution to production.

Relieving the boss of such a "stressful" and hard job would be the most humane thing the workers could do for an individual under such pressure.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Here's the point you have to emphasize: MODERN CAPITALISM IS NOT A FREE MARKET. Buying into this propaganda is probably the major weakness of socialist thinking.

Now, if by entrepeneur he means a small proprietor who works primarily by the sweat of his own brow - the guy who owns a convenience store; or a guy who comes up with something no one thought of before - I don't know, the guy who invented the Snuggie or some shit...they do useful things for society. They'd be doing the same things in a socialist economy, under slightly different circumstances.

But the really large fortunes in America don't come from small proprietorship or original ideas.

They come from state subsidies, both direct and indirect. From areas like...

1. Finance, Insurance and Real Estate. Massively subsidized through the federal reserve system, the home mortgage tax deduction. Regulated in such a way to advance the interests of the firms themselves not consumers - even mainstream journalists will attest to that. Even Warren Buffett, who's renowned for investing in 'real' industries, has insurance at the core of his holdings.

2. "Intellectual property". AKA government-enforced information monopoly. Argue in favor of it however much you want, it's an artificial constraint on free enterprise. Anyone who made their money this way (e.g. Bill Gates) did it at the point of a Federal Marshall's gun.

3. Energy sector. Does this even need explaining after the Bush admin?

4. Squeezing tax concessions out of localities. It's a hidden subsidy. A lot of firms won't build a store or factory unless they get huge concessions from state and local government (e.g. WalMart).

5. Farm subsidies. Oy vey. "Free market" distorting, leads to dumping and thus Third World peasants driven off their land, not to mention it makes us fat.

6. "Free Trade". IE massively complex trade regulations designed to benefit corporations. Arbitraging 'free trade' agreements is the other part of Wal-Mart's "success".

7. Defense Contracting and "High Tech". Name a 'high tech' success story and I'll show you a business that's hip-deep in the military industrial complex. Like Oracle, whose by far biggest customer is the Pentagon.

Now, is it hard to break into these systems of state-supported accumulation? Fuck yeah. But it's not some kind of part of the natural order.

[red cat]

i was arguing against someone who believes in capitalism. he said that capitalists deserve more because they take risks. this seems wrong to me because taking a risk doesn't deserve that much. but this is what he said

what is the best rebuttal for this?

Workers take a greater risk when they start fighting for the revolution. By the same logic, this means that the proletariat deserves its revolution too.

[mikelepore]

I think you support your "system" because you are lazy

When discussing capitalism versus socialism, mainly if it's a face-to-face encounter, when someone hurls that "you're lazy" remark at me, I usually reply by insulting his ugly family. Then when he acts surprised, I point out that he was the first one to abandon the use of relevant arguments and to head straight for the personal insults, but now he apparently can't take it when someone else responds in the same way.

The actual explanation is this. Their "laziness" trick is a distraction like the magician's sleight-of-hand, look-over-there. They are aware that socialists condemn capitalism because it causes war, racism, pollution, hazardous products, lethal injuries, low quality medical care, political corruption, and a thousand other social problems. They have no defense to offer. All they can hope for is to toss a cheap distraction up into the air, so they say that you're a socialist because you wish that you were the one who had the capitalist's money.

Someone must be incredibly oblivious to think that a remark like "you're lazy" leads to a defense of the capitalist. Capitalists usually acquire their wealth at birth through inheritance, and the whole point of being a capitalist is to be able to to go through life without ever having to lift a finger to do anything that is socially useful.

The conservatives in these debates like to act as though all the mansion dwellers and party goers in the capitalist class were all like Thomas Edison, constantly busy inventing wondrous things. No one could have ever seen a newspaper and really believe that. They say it because they're hoping that *you* have never opened a newspaper.

[Proletarian Ultra]

The conservatives in these debates like to act as though all the mansion dwellers and party goers in the capitalist class were all like Thomas Edison, constantly busy inventing wondrous things. No one could have ever seen a newspaper and really believe that. They say it because they're hoping that *you* have never opened a newspaper.


What's so hard to understand, people?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_8b4R5sEznho/SbbhBK3gz5I/AAAAAAAAIKI/1ytKaS8Wmdw/s400/factory.garment.workers.jpg
Shiftless-ass loafers!!!

http://missionmission.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/monopoly20man.jpg
Hard-working American risk-taker!!!

[Stand Your Ground]

They may take risks, but they do so only to try to better their status, not the peoples.

[CartCollector]

Risk is unnecessary. Investment risk exists because investors don't know what people want. Sure capitalism adapts to demand, but it runs backwards compared to what a sensible system would do. Instead of asking people what they want and producing that, like a sensible system would, investors in capitalism guess what people want and cross their fingers. If people don't want it, they've just wasted their money. In other words, profiting off of 'risk' is profiting off of a feature that could be removed from our economy, and removing it and replacing it with consumption councils (asking people what they want and producing that) would actually make our economy more efficient.

[Psy]

Risk is unnecessary. Investment risk exists because investors don't know what people want. Sure capitalism adapts to demand, but it runs backwards compared to what a sensible system would do. Instead of asking people what they want and producing that, like a sensible system would, investors in capitalism guess what people want and cross their fingers. If people don't want it, they've just wasted their money. In other words, profiting off of 'risk' is profiting off of a feature that could be removed from our economy, and removing it and replacing it with consumption councils (asking people what they want and producing that) would actually make our economy more efficient.

Really the risk mostly comes from compeition among producers as even if a capitalists can read consumers minds they would not know how successful other capitalists will be at garbing market share, add the fact capitalists have the power to transform consumer demand through propaganda (marketing) and it becomes hard to predict market trends.