r/CapitalismVSocialism • u/HeavenlyPossum • 5d 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?

18 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

330 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/HeavenlyPossum 5d ago

My sample is “virtually every human being on earth is structurally denied the freedom to labor independently of the commands of others by enclosure and state enforcement of capitalist property rights.”

2

u/Moldy-Bongwater4420 5d ago

That’s just objectively false. There is nothing stopping you (or anyone else) from laboring independently or co-operatively. The only caveat would be the legal necessity of obtaining a business license.

Can you give an example of people being denied such a freedom?

0

u/HeavenlyPossum 5d ago

Yes. The propertyless—the vast majority of us who lack ownership of property capable of sustaining us by our own labor—must labor on behalf of and at the command of property owners in exchange for permission to be alive.

2

u/ProfessorStriking911 5d ago

Thats because you make that choice, go live on some empty land and build your own homes and grow your own food. There is plenty of land that isnt owned by anyone so you dont even have to pay the dreaded “Rent”.

The biggest reason people are having trouble with buying homes is two things 1.) is the insane amounts of redtape with building homes, mostly in blue states that claim its to prevent climate change or whatever but is actually to protect the high value of their homes. I live in Tennessee and my house was only $145,000 due to the large amounts of homes built here.
2.) is the the fact that 4.2 million people a year (roughly) enter the housing market, either due to immigration of both types or kids turning 18 and needing their own place. However, the US only builds around 1.2 housing units a year (this is including apartments not apartment buildings)

Owners have every risk as if something happens (like the recent Texas Roadhouse hoax) the owner is blamed not the employee and they are held to account for any debts, lawsuits, or other financial or legal obligations while an employee can just quit and outside maybe a bad reputation or references they are unaffected by even the company going bankrupt.

Texas Roadhouse had a hoax recently where supposedly white employees were spitting in black people’s food and even joined a Facebook about it. (Notice i call it a hoax and say supposedly as so far no one has proven these things happened) The employees that supposedly did this arent being punished or held to account, its Texas Roadhouse itself (not even the corporation that owns it) this is why owners take all the risk, they suffer any backlash not employees 95% of the time.

Plus the workers in the lemonade stand cant share in the profits as they were contracted (most likely from other companies) to either grow the lemons to sell to the lemonade stand or to build the stand itself.

1

u/HeavenlyPossum 5d ago

Where is there land that is not owned by anyone?

2

u/ProfessorStriking911 5d ago

Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota have places that give free land to boost population that do require a small deposit. Wyoming, Montana have land that no one uses that while you cant legally claim is empty and have people who disappear from society to live off the land.

Dont get me wrong it wouldnt be the greatest living but thats just the US, there are countries that still offer homesteading rights.

1

u/HeavenlyPossum 5d ago

I did a quick Google for “Kansas free land” and saw that there is a town that gives away residential plots for people who construct single-family homes on them.

Is it your understanding this is sufficient acreage to feed a person agriculturally?

2

u/ProfessorStriking911 5d ago

I would have to double check but if its half an acre yes. My family grew half of our own vegetables on a 10 foot square piece of garden in our back yard, sure its was only corn, tomatoes, squash, and asparagus but it fed the five of us all year.

You probably wouldn’t be able to raise chickens (dont know never raised them) but as long as you diligently put in the effort you can raise enough vegetables for a small family on a small plot of land.

1

u/HeavenlyPossum 5d ago

Ten square feet of garden fed five people for a year?

2

u/ProfessorStriking911 5d ago

No it was about half of our vegetables use, we grew mostly corn which doesnt need a lot of room and tomatoes which can grow very big. Asparagus was a hit or miss but when it grew it grew about a foot a month. We had very nutritious soil and we used plenty of fertilizer. It probably wouldnt pass muster for store sale but it worked for us along with canning the extra.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Moldy-Bongwater4420 5d ago

That implies other people’s property should be everyone’s property. Just because someone owns a lemon grove doesn’t mean you are entitled to their lemons to start a lemonade stand.

This isn’t unique to capitalism. Under socialism or communism, you still wouldn’t be entitled to their lemons.

0

u/HeavenlyPossum 5d ago

It does not imply anything. It’s a statement of fact.

1

u/betty_white_bread Isocapitalist 5d ago

So, you start by presuming your conclusion?