Risk

[Redistribute the Rep]

Alright, we've all heard this argument at some time or another: the capitalist deserves to own the means of production because he takes a risk by investing in it. What are some good counter arguments to this?

[jake williams]

As a moral argument, it's completely made up. It presupposes a right to privately hold means of production and the logic is circular (at best).

As a practical argument - ie. if profit margins are too low, for example because of taxes on profits, then private investment will be insufficiently stimulated - it's kind of accurate, to a degree; but insofar as it is accurate, it's an argument against social democracy, not socialism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

But why would we even respond to this argument? I mean, people used to argue that slaveowners "deserve" to own slaves because they feed and clothe them, and the "objection" was as pointless then as it is now. There's no neutral, supra-class standpoint from which we can judge who deserves what, but class standpoints formed by the concrete contradictions in the present society... from our standpoint, the capitalist deserves to be expropriated and little else.

[Remus Bleys]

Leaving aside the idiotic individualist moralism that one could respond to, you really have to wonder what is the risk? Imperialism has rendered the economy monopolized and as a result of this there's no risk. Bailouts, driving out any and all competition and the destruction of many of the petty bourgeoisie kinda makes it impossible for a serious risk to be taken by the "capitalist' (even the "capitalist" is different then they were years ago*). #RealDomination
*this isn't to say that capitalism has dramatically changed rendering the old workers movement moot - we are still on the same road as always.

[RedMaterialist]

Alright, we've all heard this argument at some time or another: the capitalist deserves to own the means of production because he takes a risk by investing in it. What are some good counter arguments to this?

I think the argument is more that the capitalist deserves to make a profit, without producing anything, because she risked her money. Marx addressed this argument in Chapter 7 of Capital. When shown that no additional value appeared to have been created during the production process the capitalist says:

'Our capitalist, who is at home in his vulgar economy, exclaims: "Oh! but I advanced my money for the express purpose of making more money." The way to Hell is paved with good intentions, and he might just as easily have intended to make money, without producing at all.'

The "risk" argument now admits that the capitalist doesn't produce anything, but still expects a reward only for advancing or risking her money.

I guess one answer to the risk argument is to ask why should society pay the capitalist for gambling, when the result is economic catastrophe? Let the socialists take the money and invest it rationally. Besides, there is no risk when the taxpayers are forced to bail out the capitalists when they fail.

[The Jay]

Alright, we've all heard this argument at some time or another: the capitalist deserves to own the means of production because he takes a risk by investing in it. What are some good counter arguments to this?

Do Capitalists take risks? Yes, they do. What do they risk? They risk money, time, and through those social bonds. Most do risk these things, not counting the super rich this is. The problem comes with what they do while risking these things.

They exploit workers. That is the issue. They maintain control of the means of production as best they can and through this they are able to use the workers to attempt to make more money off of them than they invested.

Do capitalists have to contemplate opportunity costs? To a degree they do in terms of effective investment for the growth of their personal portfolios. What they leave out when they risk is simple: they try to cut their risks where ever they can. This is why they will seek workers willing to undercut each other. This is why they try to shake off union organizers. This is why they will try to get around regulation.

They do risk, but at what costs do they put that risk on others. Again the answer is: whatever they think will do this.

[blake 3:17]

Workers risk their bodies performing labour.

[The Jay]

Workers risk their bodies performing labour.

While true, this would be an ineffective argument imo. They will reply with the OSHA and NLRB response as always. It would just lead the conversation into being an attack on the risk of the capitalist vs that of the worker into a defense and argument for regulation. The goal should be to attack the exploitative practices of the bourgeois and not just labor safety.

[Always Curious J]

Everything involves risk. Many immoral and frankly deplorable things involve the perpetrator taking risk. Slavery involves risk on the part or the master. Murder involves risk on the part of the murderer. Feudalism involves risk on the part of the lord. Risk doesn't justify things, including capitalism.

[Thirsty Crow]

Alright, we've all heard this argument at some time or another: the capitalist deserves to own the means of production because he takes a risk by investing in it. What are some good counter arguments to this?
It's apples and oranges.

This so called argument is a mere justification. On the other hand, communists address real effects of what is so justified and aim to facilitate working class organization for the fight against it.

The former relies on a necessarily abstract set of moral standards, used to judge human activity. This alone is more than enough to assess its merit in explaining stuff.

So, you need no counter arguments really, and this especially relates to so called arguments that take up this terrain of "risk"; all you need is to disentangle the absurd premises behind it and force debate on your terrain - the real effects of capital.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Winning the lottery is not a laudable feat, whether it's Lotto 649 or capitalism at large.

[jake williams]

Maybe I'll phrase my point differently: the argument from "risk" isn't really a moral argument in the first place.

It's simply an argument that capitalists won't invest in higher-risk activities without higher returns. This is basically true - given the choice between investing $100 on something with a 50% chance of making a profit, or a 25% chance of making a profit, there is no capitalist that would pick option B without that profit being higher.

The point is, the argument has nothing to do with justifying capitalism, private profit, or private control of the means of production. It's simply a factual description of the dynamics of the capitalist economy, one that isn't worth refuting because it's basically correct.

Furthermore, the argument isn't even that "capitalists should receive a profit" - the argument is "capitalists who make higher-risk investments need to receive higher profits (than capitalists who make lower-risk investments)".