The Capitalist "Self-made man" argument



capitalist ideology has this idea of the self-made man or this person who through their own hard work and ambition skill and intellect um becomes wealthy goes from rags to riches from poverty to wealth they have this very idealized romanticized idea that a guy can just work at a other company then save up some money or maybe take a loan from the bank start a small shop grow it into a bigger business and eventually become a millionaire now of course that's exceedingly rare barely ever happens and that only describes a very small portion of capitalists themselves they use that argument as a justification for why millionaires and billionaires have so much money well while other people don't they say that oh those people deserve their position because of this self-made man argument now of course a large percentage of rich people have always been rich large percentage of them have always been incredibly rich but even a larger percentage of them I think it was in the u.s. at least thirty five percent of people who are rich have always been rich but even a bigger percentage have had a massive head start like like of course depending on your definition of you know how much money does a rich person have like do you have to have a million or two million or ten million whatever but a huge number of the rich people they had at least 1 million dollars to start out with now most people of course don't so the playing field is not level at all um they talk about this risk idea they say that because these entrepreneurs they took a risk they risked everything therefore they deserve the luxury that they live in which is derived from exploiting other people well the risk argument is bullshit because a lot of rich people were always rich and if you are wealthy then you can invest in multiple things at at the same time one of those things fails doesn't really hurt you much one of those things is profitable you get money from it the risk is minimal the the risk argument only applies if you literally start from nothing and take a loan from the bank and start a small company then you pretty much risk everything but those people almost all those people who try that they either go bankrupt or they just stay the same they won't they won't become rich so out of the out of the rich people there's only a miniscule amount of them actually took a substantial risk at all now the risk argument is in itself is just stupid like assuming like it's like the same thing as a like a gladiator battle a gladiator fight like oh this gladiator he risked his life therefore now he wins and he can you know kill other people like assuming that the prize was like to rape a woman like okay you risked everything so now you'll get to rape somebody like that makes no sense why is it still justified just because you risk something you can now exploit other people that makes very little sense to me but the entire entire premise is already false because usually there is no risk people who are actually people who actually make it and are rich usually didn't risk a damn thing now but assuming that okay you start a small company you eventually grow it into a big company you get rich is that still there still think it's some kind of a moral morally sound system because it still relies on other workers you still need a big corporation and this the CEO needs to have hundreds of workers or thousands it relies on the work and exploitation and poverty of thousands of other people the only argument I can think of which they could possibly I mean they could try to deny that which is futile they could try to deny oh there's no exploitation well brings us back to what is exploitation which is another topic they will they will say oh it's not exploitation because they voluntarily chose to you know be exploited because it's like you either either you get a job and are exploited or you live in poverty it's like yeah that you know it's a choice it's like choosing between getting raped and getting murdered I mean not much of a choice but in any case like the degrees are denied which is pointless but if they don't then there's only one argument they could make which is that this person was just better more clever you know than these other people therefore they deserve to live in this luxury which you know it's probably not even true because oftentimes like you don't only need to be skilled and smart and stuff but you also need to be very lucky but assuming that yes they truly deserved they truly were better than everybody else and that's why they got this position they're in like what kind of a Nazi argument is that serious like you can say oh this person hasn't as this incredible lifestyle of luxury which relies on the exploitation of hundreds oh and thousands but they got there because they're so much better than everyone so much more capable I mean only a Nazi would really seriously make that kind of argument and in fact Hitler did make that argument Hitler said that he thinks capitalists deserve their spots because they are they deserve to be leaders they're natural leaders they're naturally more capable so that is the capitalist self-made man argument it's bullshit like Oh anyone can just become a capitalist like the reason people are poor is because they're either stupid or lazy ie fucking subhuman it is like the everybody else is just inferior to the capitalists that's why they're not capitalist themselves I mean that's a Nazi argument the other thing they say is Oh other people are just uh instead of being lazy and stupid ie fucking inferior they're just not willing to take the risk like oh the capitalist just took the risk and that's why they deserve everything other people were just didn't have the balls to take a risk and to try make it big like what kind of sense does that even make because by definition not everybody and not everybody can be a capitalist it's impossible you know for one capitalist you need to have multiple multiple dozens hundreds thousands of workers so obviously it's not a viable solution like oh you're poor well why don't just become a capitalist because you can't because you need to have workers for capitalists otherwise there wouldn't be capitalist it's you know and why did you just take the risk well it's like what kind of like is this fucking lottery like what kind of sense does that make okay you you won the lottery you lost the lottery now that that like determines everything that makes it all rational somehow no that's incredibly moronic that's that's that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard




Comments
  1. Yea 80% of millionaires in the US are first generations. There is an extreme amount of risk in being an entrepreneur. Most people in the US have decent chance of becoming successful. Yes luck is plays a large part but it plays a large part in anything.

  2. my dad is a case which really is the opposite of this argument, he used to be a football player in the USSR and later on he studied business in France in the 90s, and now he is hotel runner, he doesn't own a hotel but he does run one and employs workers, so he is in between a worker and a bourgouis rn and he was always in middle class, he barely got any richer and even is a socialist and prefers the soviet socialism that the USSR had till 1987 over capitalism, but he sadly isn't a communist, but he is a socialist so that's pretty cool too.

  3. I used to believe this mentality, but ever since I saw the damage capitalism has done and I lost faith in it, I found out how this self made man is nothing but a myth. Most of those self made capitalists usually exploited a niche like how televangelists preyed on the poor and uneducated, or how corporate rap artists just make the same song about “bitches liquor hoes” a 1000 times over. Great video dude.

  4. I can go down to the track and put all my money on a horse. If it wins, does that make me "Better" than other people?

  5. The " self – made man" argument is the most ridiculous thing I ' ve ever seen:
    a, "just start your own business, loan a money, and work hard , you will become capitalist". You are not the only one who do that. There are million of people who are thinking like you right now. Kind of idealist , isn't it ?
    b,"people just don't take enough risk" .First, are you taking risk like you say? I mean the people who say this , are you doing what you said ? 90/100 people won't . You can't make people do that when you don't do it yourself. Second , you can't start your own business if you don't have enough skill , education and money . In fact, most of people in US don't have enough education to be a start – up. And do you know who make you be like that? Capitalist . Income inequality make us don't have money to pay for basic things like education , medical, …What kind of risk can we have ?
    c, the "self – made man" thought was from America . No country like America. They had so much condition about nature, people, history, .. that made they thought about weird thing like " self – made man" . But as Marx and Lenin said , capitalism wasn't free market anymore.They ' ve become monopoly and imperialism . And now by the labor theory of value, we know how they did that. They 've exploited worker to get the surplus value and stuff like that.And now when the capitalist reach their own limit, they would become monopoly as we all knew.

  6. Liberal: But Bill Gates…..

    Me: Well, to make his OS, he put sections of code together which had been developped in open source until then and privatised the whole thing, making others pay for what was freely accessible until then. Then during the 90s pc revolution, Microsoft resorted to brutal business practices to eliminate potential rivals (netscape), pressured hardware manufacturers to integrate Win95 natively, dissuade newcomers and fragment innovation outside of its barriers by hoarding IP as much as possible.
    But yeah, in a sense, he was superior. A superior crook.

  7. While I don't disagree with the belief to attain a Utopian society were people are working for the greater good of each other, the problem is that man is too hell bent on himself for socialism to ever work. Man exploits man regardless of the type of market economy or politics of it all. Sorry all you socialist out there you are lying to yourselves to think man will ever stop exploiting each other and its done with even more vigor within several communist and socialist nations.

  8. The risk argument is laughable. What is the risk for a capitalist? Ceasing to be a capitalist and becoming a mere worker? How does that justify exploitation of workers?

  9. Also, Marx and Engels already dismissed the argument in the fuckin' Manifesto! They pointed out then that the capitalists rely on an army of proletarians at various levels to produce goods and transport the capital to them. It irritates me to no end that people STILL try to use this argument as some sort of "Checkmate!" Marx and Engels ALREADY addressed it!

  10. Look me in the eye and tell me that Trump honestly worked hard for his cash and that he is smart

  11. If someone is handsome, smart, capable and more talented he can fuck you up and your family and their children and both sides morally deserve it, capitalist argument in a nutshell

  12. The risk argument is even dumber when you realize to even take out large loans from banks to start a business, the bank has to determine if you have enough money already for them to think you can pay it back with interest. In other words, you already have to be very wealthy to even take out sufficient loans from a bank, so you didn't risk shit.

  13. The vast majority of "entrepreneurs" come from families with already wealthy backgrounds:
    https://qz.com/455109/entrepreneurs-dont-have-a-special-gene-for-risk-they-come-from-families-with-money/

  14. Hard work does not guarantee a richer life, a safe family or a secure home because your boss takes home the money that you worked your ass off to produce.

  15. The few capitalists who started poor and honest always get to a situation where they had to do something hugely dishonest in order to join the big leagues! The story from rags to riches therefore is just a myth.

  16. +thefinnishboleshevik do you have a degree or work experience in Economics or Business management? Because otherwise your argument is shit, because you don't know about how Economics work. I have made myself very wealthy in a capitalist economy and I have started multiple businesses, after I began with a small herd of sheep, and grew my money and diversified and continued in the same path and now I'm wealthy. Debunk that you communist shit-talking moron.

  17. I dont know why I find these clear logical explanations so funny. I guess its just facts being put in a way that I dont hear other people saying. Good job keep it up

  18. I see the capitalists are angry in the comments, and sometimes, I don't blame them. Communists/socialists have a tendency to act like all businesses are exploitative or all bosses are selfish dicks. These negative generalizations and attitudes are only going to alienate people away from socialism. There are loads caring and hard working bosses and entrepreneurs and there's nothign wrong with wanting to go out and be successful. I would suggest that more education on how profit, and therefore, survival, ends up forcing a capitalist to make decisions that are no longer about helping out the community, eg. a logging company needs to stay competetive and profitable so the ceos hand is forced into making decisions such as total environmental destruction in order to do the "right thing" by his company and employees. Same with any company that extracts resources, without government intervention or regulations (free market bs) the competition within their industry would force them to spend less on making sure their workers were safe, spend less on how they destroy the environment, spend less on waste disposal. No matter how you tweek capitalism it will always put profit before people or the planet itself.

  19. Why don't socialist encourage the establishment of consumers' and workers' cooperatives?
    It is basically self-management in practice.

  20. It has to do with the "replaceability factor". You need one smart capitalist and 100 construction workers to build a skyscraper, but it's much more difficult to replace the smart capitalist (mastermind) behind the operation, whereas it's much easier to replace the construction worker with another construction worker. If you don't like being an 'exploited' construction worker, then learn a skill that makes you irreplaceable, or quit your whining.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *