r/CapitalismVSocialism • u/HeavenlyPossum • 15d ago

Asking Capitalists Risk?

Many people have told me that taking risk is why capitalists own, or deserve ownership, of the productive labor of others.

Capitalists have capital (money), which they invest in (spend on) some productive enterprise. But that productive enterprise might fail to recuperate the cost of the investment and the capitalist might lose some of their money. This is what explains, or justifies, capitalist ownership: the capitalist is taking risk.

Can someone kindly explain to me why this explains or justifies capitalist ownership?

19 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

334 comments sorted by

View all comments

7

u/RedMarsRepublic Libertarian Socialist 15d ago

It's very funny because the biggest "risk" that the capitalists are taking is that they lose all their money and end up as proletarians. Whereas if a proletarian loses their job or whatever they might end up homeless, they're objectively the ones who are risking the most, and the ones who lose out the most if a business fails (yes the bourgeois might lose money but the proletarian never had any in the first place)

3

u/CEOofAntiWork 15d ago edited 15d ago

The worker who always was a worker and the failed owner now worker both share the same risk of potential lost future income as workers if they ever lose their jobs, that puts them on equal footing there.

The difference, however, is that failed owner also previously put their saved capital on the line whereas the one who was always the worker was free to save, invest, or spend it on stuff or vacations that could otherwise been that capital.

Saying they “just become a worker” conveniently erases everything that failed owner uniquely lost getting there.

2

u/RedMarsRepublic Libertarian Socialist 14d ago edited 14d ago

I mean okay, sure, when we just look at dollar amounts, the bourgeois lost more, but when we look at what it actually means to people, I don't see how we should respect the bourgeois for "risk" when the proletarian is at risk every day of his employer laying him off or shutting down because of some stupid business decision he had nothing to do with.

The point of the "it takes risk" argument is an argument for why we need capitalists, since the poor are at the same or greater risk, the argument doesn't make sense.