What is the goal of capitalism?

[Red Front]

Poverty is much greater among people with very low productivity than among those with very high productivity.

So, no link?

Poverty is prevalent among the productive in labor markets that capitalists exploit for dirt-cheap labor (i.e. third world/global south/the consumed) and likewise in the United States (the consuming, capitalist empire/the main consumer) where only about 6% of the working class is unionized (as opposed to 1/3rd in the 1950s and 60s) and the poor struggle to survive, sometimes working two jobs to stay afloat.

Nonetheless, it's still the working-class that produces everything in this world hence it's they who are truly productive, not those who prosper off of the labor of others. Those who exploit human labor with their capital, are unproductive, worthless parasites. The working-class needs to take control of the means of production as soon as possible.

 

[Red Front]

I didn't ignore your humorous points.

Capitalism forces most people to sell themselves to capitalists and work under their totalitarian-run enterprises.

LOL!

See.

You're not addressing them, hence you're losing the debate. You don't win debates by only laughing at and ignoring the points your opponent makes.

Capitalism indeed forces the vast majority of people to sell their labor-power (lives) to wealthy capitalists, in order to survive. Most of humanity is enslaved, working under a small privileged socioeconomic class of totalitarian, exploitative capitalists, without much leverage or say on how their work environment is run. There's no democracy in the current capitalist enterprise, it's run like a dictatorship. Capitalists pay their human labor less than what they actually produce, not just to cover the cost of doing business, but for their mansions and fleets of Ferraris. They live in opulence and security at the expense of others.

The bottom line of capitalist production is profits, not meeting people's needs. That's why you can have 17 million vacant homes and apartments in the US and 700 thousand homeless people. That's why you can have a warehouse full of food and people still starve because they don't have the money to pay for it, or it's not "commercially viable" to ship the food to the people that need it. Capitalist production is completely based on the private accumulation of capital, at whatever cost, even if it means supporting an unnecessary war, in order to sell weapons to the government/s involved in the conflict.

That's capitalism and although it is better than chattel slavery and feudalism, it's time for it to step down and let democratic, worker-owned production take over (i.e. socialism). Those who work the enterprise own it together and decide how the workplace is run.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

"The Invisible Hand" Is the One Picking Your Pocket

There is a Third Way. Both Capitalism and Socialism are products of a spoiled, bossy, and decadent hereditary ruling class. Obviously, the employees create the value of the investment, so only they should share in the profits, treating the capitalization as a fixed expense like a bank loan. But the toxic plutocracy controls all thoughts on economics.

Employees DO share in the profits, they're called WAGES. If a company doesn't create a profit, that company will not have employees for very long.

 

[Red Front]

Employees DO share in the profits, they're called WAGES. If a company doesn't create a profit, that company will not have employees for very long.

Profits are not overhead. The cost of doing business includes wages, not the mega-yacht fund. Production doesn't need profits, when the workers own and run the enterprise. It's good to have a profit, that can be reinvested into the company. It's important, but a worker-owned and democratically run cooperative is more likely to withstand a crisis than a privately owned business, whose only purpose is to make a profit for its owner/s. The functional mission of a worker-owned cooperative may just be job security. Having a decent paying job and that's it. It's not to get rich, but to be able to work and meet one's needs.

As a worker-owner of a cooperative, the most expensive element of your overhead as an owner of a private business is considered my profits. Labor is the most costly component of a privately owned business, which is considered part of the overhead or cost of doing business. The worker-owners of a cooperative, see their wages as the profits. The reward, of their labor. It's their income. Co-ops have a competitive edge over privately owned businesses. They're more robust and versatile, able to withstand a crisis, much better than a privately owned enterprise.

 

[Oddball]

Profits are not overhead. The cost of doing business includes wages, not the mega-yacht fund. Production doesn't need profits, when the workers own and run the enterprise. It's good to have a profit, that can be reinvested into the company. It's important, but a worker-owned and democratically run cooperative is more likely to withstand a crisis than a privately owned business, whose only purpose is to make a profit for its owner/s. The functional mission of a worker-owned cooperative may just be job security. Having a decent paying job and that's it. It's not to get rich, but to be able to work and meet one's needs.

As a worker-owner of a cooperative, the most expensive element of your overhead as an owner of a private business is considered my profits. Labor is the most costly component of a privately owned business, which is considered part of the overhead or cost of doing business. The worker-owners of a cooperative, see their wages as the profits. The reward, of their labor. It's their income. Co-ops have a competitive edge over privately owned businesses. They're more robust and versatile, able to withstand a crisis, much better than a privately owned enterprise.

Then put your money and actions where you Marxist alligator mouth is, and start building successful co-ops.

Until then, all you are is yet another lip-flapping rotter, who expects to do the bare minimum, if anything at all, to get by.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Poverty is prevalent among the productive in labor markets that capitalists exploit for dirt-cheap labor (i.e. third world/global south/the consumed) and likewise in the United States (the consuming, capitalist empire/the main consumer) where only about 6% of the working class is unionized (as opposed to 1/3rd in the 1950s and 60s) and the poor struggle to survive, sometimes working two jobs to stay afloat.

Nonetheless, it's still the working-class that produces everything in this world hence it's they who are truly productive, not those who prosper off of the labor of others. Those who exploit human labor with their capital, are unproductive, worthless parasites. The working-class needs to take control of the means of production as soon as possible.

Poverty is prevalent among the productive in labor markets that capitalists exploit for dirt-cheap labor (i.e. third world/global south/the consumed)

The labor is dirt cheap because it is low productivity.

The working-class needs to take control of the means of production as soon as possible.

What are you waiting for? Unionize your work place and then seize it. Post your results here.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're not addressing them, hence you're losing the debate. You don't win debates by only laughing at and ignoring the points your opponent makes.

Capitalism indeed forces the vast majority of people to sell their labor-power (lives) to wealthy capitalists, in order to survive. Most of humanity is enslaved, working under a small privileged socioeconomic class of totalitarian, exploitative capitalists, without much leverage or say on how their work environment is run. There's no democracy in the current capitalist enterprise, it's run like a dictatorship. Capitalists pay their human labor less than what they actually produce, not just to cover the cost of doing business, but for their mansions and fleets of Ferraris. They live in opulence and security at the expense of others.

The bottom line of capitalist production is profits, not meeting people's needs. That's why you can have 17 million vacant homes and apartments in the US and 700 thousand homeless people. That's why you can have a warehouse full of food and people still starve because they don't have the money to pay for it, or it's not "commercially viable" to ship the food to the people that need it. Capitalist production is completely based on the private accumulation of capital, at whatever cost, even if it means supporting an unnecessary war, in order to sell weapons to the government/s involved in the conflict.

That's capitalism and although it is better than chattel slavery and feudalism, it's time for it to step down and let democratic, worker-owned production take over (i.e. socialism). Those who work the enterprise own it together and decide how the workplace is run.

Capitalism indeed forces the vast majority of people to sell their labor-power (lives) to wealthy capitalists, in order to survive.

Communism indeed forces the vast majority of people to give their labor-power (lives) to wealthy nomenklatura, in order to survive.

Most of humanity is enslaved, working under a small privileged socioeconomic class of totalitarian, exploitative capitalists, without much leverage or say on how their work environment is run.

Most of humanity is enslaved, working under a small privileged socioeconomic class of totalitarian, exploitative communists, without much leverage or say on how their work environment is run.

There's no democracy in the current capitalist enterprise, it's run like a dictatorship. Capitalists pay their human labor less than what they actually produce, not just to cover the cost of doing business, but for their mansions and fleets of Ferraris. They live in opulence and security at the expense of others.

There's no democracy in the current communist enterprise, it's a dictatorship. Communists pay their human labor less than what they actually produce, not just to cover the cost of doing business, but for their mansions and fleets of Zils. They live in opulence and security at the expense of others.

 

[Oddball]

 

[task0778]

View attachment 810940

Same thing arguing with a democrat, except they want your money.

 

[Quentin111]

Under socialism, the main problem for ordinary citizens is how to get the right goods? Under capitalism, the main problem for poor people is where to get money to buy goods?

 

[Red Front]

Capitalism indeed forces the vast majority of people to sell their labor-power (lives) to wealthy capitalists, in order to survive.

Communism indeed forces the vast majority of people to give their labor-power (lives) to wealthy nomenklatura, in order to survive.

Most of humanity is enslaved, working under a small privileged socioeconomic class of totalitarian, exploitative capitalists, without much leverage or say on how their work environment is run.

Most of humanity is enslaved, working under a small privileged socioeconomic class of totalitarian, exploitative communists, without much leverage or say on how their work environment is run.

There's no democracy in the current capitalist enterprise, it's run like a dictatorship. Capitalists pay their human labor less than what they actually produce, not just to cover the cost of doing business, but for their mansions and fleets of Ferraris. They live in opulence and security at the expense of others.

There's no democracy in the current communist enterprise, it's a dictatorship. Communists pay their human labor less than what they actually produce, not just to cover the cost of doing business, but for their mansions and fleets of Zils. They live in opulence and security at the expense of others.

Communism indeed forces the vast majority of people to give their labor-power (lives) to wealthy nomenklatura, in order to survive.

How so?

Most of humanity is enslaved, working under a small privileged socioeconomic class of totalitarian, exploitative communists, without much leverage or say on how their work environment is run.

Really? How so?

There's no democracy in the current communist enterprise, it's a dictatorship. Communists pay their human labor less than what they actually produce, not just to cover the cost of doing business, but for their mansions and fleets of Zils. They live in opulence and security at the expense of others.

There's no currency or wages in communism. You're referring to socialism? Explain how this is the case and where this is happening now.

 

[Red Front]

Under socialism, the main problem for ordinary citizens is how to get the right goods? Under capitalism, the main problem for poor people is where to get money to buy goods?

Can you elaborate?

 

[Red Front]

Poverty is prevalent among the productive in labor markets that capitalists exploit for dirt-cheap labor (i.e. third world/global south/the consumed)

The labor is dirt cheap because it is low productivity.

The working-class needs to take control of the means of production as soon as possible.

What are you waiting for? Unionize your work place and then seize it. Post your results here.

How do you define "productive" and "low production"?

The working class needs to seize the government, turning it into a democracy, including all of the business enterprises. The people who work the business should own and run it. We already tried "cooperating" with the capitalists, through FDR's New Deal and the labor unions, until the capitalists got their "big break" with Reagan, busted the unions, and gutted our manufacturing base, turning our economy from manufacturing to finance/wall street and retail. There's no way to reform capitalism or collaborate with it, it has to be defeated and dispatched forever.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How so?



Really? How so?



There's no currency or wages in communism. You're referring to socialism? Explain how this is the case and where this is happening now.

How so?

The people worked, the nomenklatura lived in luxury.

Really? How so?

You think the people had leverage when it came to following the Five-Year Plans?

There's no currency or wages in communism

And yet, miraculously, the poor got little and the elites got a lot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How do you define "productive" and "low production"?

The working class needs to seize the government, turning it into a democracy, including all of the business enterprises. The people who work the business should own and run it. We already tried "cooperating" with the capitalists, through FDR's New Deal and the labor unions, until the capitalists got their "big break" with Reagan, busted the unions, and gutted our manufacturing base, turning our economy from manufacturing to finance/wall street and retail. There's no way to reform capitalism or collaborate with it, it has to be defeated and dispatched forever.

​

How do you define "productive" and "low production"?

You can be the hardest working farmer in the history of the world, but if you're
planting seeds by hand with a sharp stick and no pesticides, fertilizers or irrigation,
your productivity is probably going to be pretty low.

That means, despite all your hard work, you won't end up with much food (production).

The working class needs to seize the government, turning it into a democracy, including all of the business enterprises.

Are you Tracy Chapman?

The people who work the business should own and run it.

Think globally, act locally.

Stop yer yappin' and seize your employer already!!!
All you have to lose are your chains.

 

[Red Front]

How so?

The people worked, the nomenklatura lived in luxury.

Really? How so?

You think the people had leverage when it came to following the Five-Year Plans?

There's no currency or wages in communism

And yet, miraculously, the poor got little and the elites got a lot.

The people worked, the nomenklatura lived in luxury.

No, they didn't live in "luxury", the vast majority of them didn't live much better than the average Soviet professional. There was also more accountability through the communist party for Soviet leadership than there is for capitalists in the American workplace. Anyway, what does that have to do with socialism in the United States in the 21st century? Nothing. More of Todd's irrelevant, evasive maneuvers and acrobatics.

Soviet Russia was in a state of war throughout its history with very powerful enemies and when a country is at war, democracy suffers (power is centralized and more authoritarian). Here in the US during WW2, our "free market" economy was on lockdown. Price controls, rationing, labor and production mandates, factories had to produce certain goods and services, whether the capitalists liked it or not.

You're comparing Soviet Russia, a newly formed nation, invaded by the US in 1918, and 14 other countries, including Nazi Germany in WW2, not to speak of 40+ years of a nuclear Cold War, arms race, you're comparing all of that, with modern, high-tech American, peacetime, peace-loving socialism. It's like comparing apples and macaroni.

America has a different history, set of material conditions and level of development, culture, and values, that don't resemble Soviet Russia, at all. A completely different situation and context.

The USSR disarmed its citizens, which is a complete violation of Marxism. Marxism is a worker-controlled democracy, where the people are armed, to the teeth. We already have an armed citizenry here in America, no one is going to disarm the American people. American socialism will be 100% democratic, grass-roots rule, through worker-councils. Russian Soviet workers didn't really have unions. Their "unions" were controlled by the government, like China's current "labor unions". That's not Karl Marx or Freidreck Engels. Have you ever read their works?

"Trade unions in the Soviet Union, headed by the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions (VTsSPS or ACCTU in English), had a complex relationship with industrial management, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and the Soviet government, given that the Soviet Union was ideologically supposed to be a state in which the members of the working class both ruled the country and managed themselves.

During the Russian Revolution and the Russian Civil War that immediately followed, there were several ideas about how to organize and manage industries, and many people thought that the trade unions would be the vehicle of workers' control of industries. By the Stalinist era of the 1930s, it was clear that the party and government were dominant and that the trade unions were not permitted to challenge them in any substantial way.[1] In the decades after Stalin, the worst of the powerlessness of the unions was past, but Soviet trade unions remained something closer to company unions, answering to the party and government than to truly independent organizations.[2] "

That's not a worker-controlled democracy or "proletarian dictatorship". The so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat", is another way of saying democracy, the grassroots rule of the working class, through worker councils. The state is always dictating, but it's either dictating on behalf of the will of the people or on behalf of a privileged, unaccountable elite, buried in multiple layers of bureaucracy, hence untouchable and undemocratic.

Do you think the people had leverage when it came to following the Five-Year Plans?

They had some input and influence on the government. Stalin wasn't as "dictatorial" or totalitarian, as he is portrayed in the West. He actually lost a few elections and didn't get what he wanted on several occasions. That is explained in the video beneath the "capitalist video".

A capitalist video on Soviet democracy:

​

A communist perspective:

​

And yet, miraculously, the poor got little and the elites got a lot.

No not really. Even Western academics admit that the average Soviet citizen's standard of living was better than it was before socialism. Was it equal to the American middle-class standard of living? No, not even close. The United States came out of WW2 unscathed compared to Russia, Western Europe, and Japan (it helps being between two vast oceans when you're fighting a world war). It became the manufacturing hub of the world, providing everything needed to rebuild these war-torn countries. The USD was made the reserve currency of the world, after WW2. The world traded in dollars. That was a real "boost" for American power and its economy.

The American worker was the "aristocracy of labor", with the highest standard of living. Best paid, with the most benefits and assets. It was incredibly impressive, what the American working class accomplished between 1941 and 1980. Why the heck would any American in his right mind, want to adopt Soviet socialism, in view of the prosperity they experienced after WW2?

The United States became incredibly wealthy and powerful, yet ironically, it occurred with a 90% top tax rate, and the highest-paid CEOs at that time, only made about 30 times more than the lowest-paid workers in their companies. Today CEOs make 1000 times more than their average worker.

Walmart CEO Made Over 1,000 Times What Workers Did

Do public company CEOs make too much? Walmart's CEO made almost 1,080 times the median compensation of the retailer's workers.

247wallst.com

​

In the golden age of the US economy,1/3rd of the American workforce was unionized. In other words, it was kind of "leftist", in its political attitude towards economics and its workforce. That all changed when the ruling elite managed to get Ronald Reagan into the White House.

The Trickle Down, Doesn't Trickle.

 

[Red Front]

How do you define "productive" and "low production"?

You can be the hardest working farmer in the history of the world, but if you're
planting seeds by hand with a sharp stick and no pesticides, fertilizers or irrigation,
your productivity is probably going to be pretty low.

That means, despite all your hard work, you won't end up with much food (production).

The working class needs to seize the government, turning it into a democracy, including all of the business enterprises.

Are you Tracy Chapman?

The people who work the business should own and run it.

Think globally, act locally.

Stop yer yappin' and seize your employer already!!!
All you have to lose are your chains.

We started this discussion on poverty and its supposed lack of production with you claiming that the poor in the US deserve to be poor due to being unproductive. You're now not blaming the poor's lack of productivity, to something wrong that they've committed or refuse to do? You're now admitting that it is lack of resources that causes poverty, not lack of a good work ethic. Correct?

In the third world, there's a lack of resources and people are desperate for a job that will feed and house them. American and European capitalists exploit such labor markets because workers in those countries will work for peanuts. They are productive because they generate profits for their foreign capitalist employers (i.e. exploiters).

Todd, just keep yappin' and imposing austerities upon the American working class, because you ensure that socialism will be the economic system America adopts in the not-too-distant future. It's inevitable, although if capitalism, wasn't so flippantly indifferent to the needs of the working poor and middle-class in this country, it would take us longer to establish a socialist economy, but you're fast-tracking it. Thanks for ensuring socialism in America is applied soon. Continue with your extreme right, Atlas Shrugged broadcasts, it only helps socialism.

 

[Red Front]

• 

Reactions:Toddsterpatriot

What's so funny? Be specific.

 

[Oddball]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We started this discussion on poverty and its supposed lack of production with you claiming that the poor in the US deserve to be poor due to being unproductive. You're now not blaming the poor's lack of productivity, to something wrong that they've committed or refuse to do? You're now admitting that it is lack of resources that causes poverty, not lack of a good work ethic. Correct?

In the third world, there's a lack of resources and people are desperate for a job that will feed and house them. American and European capitalists exploit such labor markets because workers in those countries will work for peanuts. They are productive because they generate profits for their foreign capitalist employers (i.e. exploiters).

Todd, just keep yappin' and imposing austerities upon the American working class, because you ensure that socialism will be the economic system America adopts in the not-too-distant future. It's inevitable, although if capitalism, wasn't so flippantly indifferent to the needs of the working poor and middle-class in this country, it would take us longer to establish a socialist economy, but you're fast-tracking it. Thanks for ensuring socialism in America is applied soon. Continue with your extreme right, Atlas Shrugged broadcasts, it only helps socialism.

We started this discussion on poverty and its supposed lack of production with you claiming that the poor in the US deserve to be poor due to being unproductive.

Do unproductive people deserve to be rich?

In the third world, there's a lack of resources and people are desperate for a job that will feed and house them.

Sounds like they could use more capitalism.

They are productive because they generate profits for their foreign capitalist employers (i.e. exploiters).

Low productivity, low profits.

Todd, just keep yappin' and imposing austerities upon the American working class

Commies are the ones trying to impose austerity.