surplus-value and capital

[ComradeRed]

The guy who owns the factory put up the money for it, does he deserve the profit because he took the "risk" of starting a factory that has a tremendous potentiality to fail?

[percept¡on]

Buying a factory is a risk - but the worst thing that can happen is hill lose all his money and become a worker like the rest of us who don't have access to capital to take risks with.

So does he deserve a god damn thing from us?

[percept¡on]

matter of fact, in response to the broader fallacy of "without entrepreneurs there'd be no jobs for anyone":

If I somehow stored all of the oxygen on Earth in my own personal tank and charged everyone else to breathe, then without me there'd be no air for you ingrates to breathe, and all you do is whine about having to pay for it.

[Faceless]

The guy who owns the factory put up the money for it, does he deserve the profit because he took the "risk" of starting a factory that has a tremendous potentiality to fail?
The Capitalist has saved this money but the people who use this arguement fail to ask, "if it as simple as a proletarian saving to then invest, why is it that the worker does not save?"
The answer is that the worker, with his small wage, must spend immediately to live. The Capitalist does not face this problem. He has that money to invest. In the more advanced, polar Capitalist societies the constant capital:variable capital (means of production:labour power bought) investment is massive and thus the rate of profit low. So you have to invest much to get anything. The Capitalist has such means.
If you are arguing this the Capitalist will no doubt point at some rags to riches hero. These are pure exceptions. There are no five billion gaps in the markets to elevate all workers to petty bourgeois'.

They take a risk that the proletariat do not have opportunity to.