Risking it be legit?

[DaComm]

So I invited a few friends of mine to the website to get engaged in the discusions and theory of the revolutionary left, such as it is. I've seen a few ask me why the risk factor made by capitalists isn't legitimate to dictate the orders of the work-place and to extract massize surplus. So I'll take the liberty of posting it here for all who are curious to find out this great illegitimacy. If the notion is true that risk in Capitalism has any actual relation to income/allows to dictate the going-ons of the place of work, than those trapped Chilean miners who have risked their lives (and not just money mind you) better be filthy rich and be able to have a supreme dictatorship of the company for which they labor once they get out. The fullfilment of such demand is as we know, is impossible under Capitalism, and hence we see hypocrisy in the Capitalist argument of "we took teh risk, so we get da most of teh welth". Likewise, Capitalist "risk" is not a justified reason to extract wealth from commodities made by people other than he, when said people often times risk their personal well-being, whereas the Capitalist risks money, which he has in great abundance. Injustice at it's highest blatancy.

[Revolution starts with U]

Just to play devil's advocate (as this is an issue I have debated w capitalists before), what do you say when they say "yes, but the capitalist takes the largest financial risk?"

[DaComm]

Just to play devil's advocate (as this is an issue I have debated w capitalists before), what do you say when they say "yes, but the capitalist takes the largest financial risk?"

I too have heard that, but when they say that they are missing the point. The fact of the matter is that in Capitalism the "risk factor" involved in your work simply hasn't any connection to your pay. Miners, for example, often get killed in their line of work, but have extremely low wages that have not relatively increased over time, yet I can think of only a few jobs that match the devotion and risk of their labor. Not to mention, that's placing money above the quality of human life; common practice of the Capitalist class.

[Revolution starts with U]

One of the points I like to bring up is that the risk factor (financially) really only comes into play with a self-made entrepreneur. As most capitalists are not self-made (inheritance and benefactors), their risk is minimal.
Capitalist is worth 250mill, miner worth 50k. If capitalist's business goes under he will lose let's say 100mill. If miner gets injured it will cost him 20-40k to fix it (assuming no aid) at the least (probably upwards of millions on a free market). Who has the greater financial risk here?

[communard71]

Capitalists don’t exactly go to debtor’s prison any more for failing. Governments have set up (ironically enough) humongous safety nets to help failed business people should their venture fail (in the U.S-chapter 7, 11, and 13 bankruptcy, the FDIC etc). Plus, I’ve always wondered what percentage of business leaders inherit some level of capital to start off with. I would be willing to bet it’s high.

[Adil3tr]

Haha, chilean miners. Genius

[DaComm]

Haha, chilean miners. Genius

:blushing:.

and Communard a recent statistic has shown that of the top 400 richest in the US, that 50% would have qualified to be in the top 400 at birth.

[communard71]

Wow, 50%. thanks for that.:)
I bet a further 40% would have been born or inherited greater than ordinary wealth. I just wish people realized the pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps model is nearly impossible.

[Nolan]

:blushing:.

and Communard a recent statistic has shown that of the top 400 richest in the US, that 50% would have qualified to be in the top 400 at birth.

Source?

[DaComm]

Source?

The website www.faireconomy.org (http://www.faireconomy.org) did a study concluding that close to 50% of the Forbes top 400 were infact capable of being so even at birth.