What is the goal of capitalism?

[Toddsterpatriot]

• View attachment 811054

Reactions:Toddsterpatriot

What's so funny? Be specific.

Commies giving economic advice.

 

[Red Front]

Commies giving economic advice.

What specifically are you disagreeing with?

 

[initforme]

Capitalism is about the conflict that exists between employer and employee. It is an adversarial relationship.

 

[Red Front]

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.

Do unproductive people deserve to be rich?

Unproductive in the sense of lack of resources, which is now your new definition based upon what you said about the hard-working poor in third-world countries. As human beings, they should have the right to meet their basic needs, something that you deny. No one has the right or deserves to be rich at the expense of others' labor, human dignity, and lives. Whoever works the enterprise, should own and run it. Democracy should exist in politics and in the workplace. Mass production is a social endeavor, not a private one.

Sounds like they could use more capitalism.

They don't have capitalism? What do they have?

Low productivity, low profits.

Do you actually believe American capitalists close their factories in the US and move them abroad to "unproductive" labor markets?

Commies are the ones trying to impose austerity.

You're the ones pushing for a government handout to save capitalism, not us.

 

[dblack]

There's no currency or wages in communism

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

Not with true communism. Under true communism everyone is equally poor.

 

[Leo123]

Unproductive in the sense of lack of resources, which is now your new definition based upon what you said about the hard-working poor in third-world countries. As human beings, they should have the right to meet their basic needs, something that you deny. No one has the right or deserves to be rich at the expense of others' labor, human dignity, and lives. Whoever works the enterprise, should own and run it. Democracy should exist in politics and in the workplace. Mass production is a social endeavor, not a private one.

Under Capitalism, one can own and run their own business. Many employees get rich working for corporations and even use that money to make more money and get richer than their employer. Capitalism does not require labor without pay.

They don't have capitalism? What do they have?




Do you actually believe American capitalists close their factories in the US and move them abroad to "unproductive" labor markets?

Draconian government taxation and regulation drives capitalists to countries with less expensive overhead.

You're the ones pushing for a government handout to save capitalism, not us.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Unproductive in the sense of lack of resources, which is now your new definition based upon what you said about the hard-working poor in third-world countries. As human beings, they should have the right to meet their basic needs, something that you deny. No one has the right or deserves to be rich at the expense of others' labor, human dignity, and lives. Whoever works the enterprise, should own and run it. Democracy should exist in politics and in the workplace. Mass production is a social endeavor, not a private one.



They don't have capitalism? What do they have?




Do you actually believe American capitalists close their factories in the US and move them abroad to "unproductive" labor markets?



You're the ones pushing for a government handout to save capitalism, not us.

Unproductive in the sense of lack of resources,

which is now your new definition based upon what you said about the hard-working poor in third-world countries.

No change in the definition.

As human beings, they should have the right to meet their basic needs,

They have every right to try to meet their basic needs.

something that you deny.

I'd never deny that.

No one has the right or deserves to be rich at the expense of others' labor, human dignity, and lives.

I thought you said Stalin wasn't that bad. Changing your tune already?

Whoever works the enterprise, should own and run it.

I breathlessly await the reports of your success.

They don't have capitalism?

Not enough, based on your description.

What do they have?

Too much socialism?

Do you actually believe American capitalists close their factories in the US and move them abroad to "unproductive" labor markets?

It depends on the factory.

You're the ones pushing for a government handout to save capitalism, not us.

Which government handouts am I pushing for?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not with true communism. Under true communism everyone is equally poor.

Or dead, don't forget all the dead needed to spread that much equality.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Under Capitalism, one can own and run their own business. Many employees get rich working for corporations and even use that money to make more money and get richer than their employer. Capitalism does not require labor without pay.

Draconian government taxation and regulation drives capitalists to countries with less expensive overhead.

Under Capitalism, one can own and run their own business. Many employees get rich working for corporations and even use that money to make more money and get richer than their employer. Capitalism does not require labor without pay.

I know a guy started working for his boss in high school, writing code, paid hourly.
Got a degree, became salaried. Moved into management, helped him sell the company.
Helped him buy a new one. Helped him grow and sell that one.

The next one the boss bought; my friend got a percentage.

They sold it a few years ago, my friend got low 8 figures for his share.

Looking for a new opportunity.

 

[Quentin111]

Can you elaborate?

For example, my aunt's husband bought a car in 1986. For this, he was given money by his parents, who kept an apiary (that is, money from the sale of honey). But money alone was not enough - my grandfather (my aunt's father), who worked in the ministry, managed to get this car thanks to his connections. That is, in Soviet times it was impossible just to have money to freely buy a car - you had to use nepotism. But the cars were very expensive. This is the car my uncle bought:

 

[Red Front]

Unproductive in the sense of lack of resources,
View attachment 811087
which is now your new definition based upon what you said about the hard-working poor in third-world countries.

No change in the definition.

As human beings, they should have the right to meet their basic needs,

They have every right to try to meet their basic needs.

something that you deny.

I'd never deny that.

No one has the right or deserves to be rich at the expense of others' labor, human dignity, and lives.

I thought you said Stalin wasn't that bad. Changing your tune already?

Whoever works the enterprise, should own and run it.

I breathlessly await the reports of your success.

They don't have capitalism?

Not enough, based on your description.

What do they have?

Too much socialism?

Do you actually believe American capitalists close their factories in the US and move them abroad to "unproductive" labor markets?

It depends on the factory.

You're the ones pushing for a government handout to save capitalism, not us.

Which government handouts am I pushing for?

They have every right to try to meet their basic needs.

Exactly, and that can entail creating a society that recognizes the inherent value in a person's humanity (in virtue of them being human), affording them the right to food, basic housing, healthcare, education, and employment in the public sector, if they can't secure it in the private sector. Freedom from hunger, homelessness, lack of healthcare, lack of education, with full employment. That's true freedom. Add democracy to that, and we're GOOD.

In the act of trying to meet their needs, human beings can ban all unelected leadership, both in politics and in the workplace, where people spend much of their waking hours. There's nothing wrong with that, if that's what enough people in society want to do. As advanced technology automates production, eliminating wage labor, society will be forced by necessity, to replace capitalism with a non-profit system of production, a.k.a. socialism.

I thought you said Stalin wasn't that bad. Changing your tune already?

Most of the scary campfire stories we hear about Stalin in the West are exaggerations and half-truths at best. Some are outright fabrications.

I breathlessly await the reports of your success.

Not enough, based on your description.

Capitalism hasn't helped them at all.

Too much socialism?

The problem is too little socialism. Western Europe according to your GOP buddies are communists. AOC is a commie and so is Sanders, due to their European-like political platform. It's the capitalists in their pursuit of profits in Ukraine, that are causing Western Europe all of this economic grief. Otherwise, Europe is doing well with socialism.

It depends on the factory.

So the poor do produce a profitable output in these third world countries, or these capitalists wouldn't be building factories there. Make up your mind. Are the poor producing profits or not?

Which government handouts am I pushing for?

Welfare for the full-time employees of multibillion-dollar companies, who refuse to pay their workers a living wage, not to speak of the non-government handouts from workers, when they allow you to exploit them and extract surplus value off of their labor. That's also a handout at a societal level, compliments of the working-class who produce everything in this world.

 

[Red Front]

For example, my aunt's husband bought a car in 1986. For this, he was given money by his parents, who kept an apiary (that is, money from the sale of honey). But money alone was not enough - my grandfather (my aunt's father), who worked in the ministry, managed to get this car thanks to his connections. That is, in Soviet times it was impossible just to have money to freely buy a car - you had to use nepotism. But the cars were very expensive. This is the car my uncle bought:

Throw the stupid gas-guzzling cars out, and replace them with public transit and self-driving electric cars.





​

 

[ralfy]

Why is the 90% giving the 10% their productivity? If they think it isn't fair, they should stop doing that.

They can't because the government, which is the only group that can come up with laws to stop the 10 pct from doing that, works for the 10 pct.

 

[dblack]

They can't because the government, which is the only group that can come up with laws to stop the 10 pct from doing that, works for the 10 pct.

Stop them from doing what? Offering jobs?

 

[Red Front]

Under Capitalism, one can own and run their own business. Many employees get rich working for corporations and even use that money to make more money and get richer than their employer. Capitalism does not require labor without pay.

Draconian government taxation and regulation drives capitalists to countries with less expensive overhead.

Under Capitalism, one can own and run their own business.

The cost of entry into the capitalist class is too high for most working-class people. Over half of America is living paycheck to paycheck, hand to mouth. However, if the SBA (Small Business Administration) would start supporting people who want to start a worker-owned cooperative, that would be more likely to succeed and benefit working-class people, but unfortunately, the ruling class hates the idea of workers starting cooperatives and competing with them. It's practically impossible in the US to get an SBA-backed loan or a business loan from a bank to start a co-op.

You're correct, however, that it's easier today to become self-employed by starting an online business. I have a union job, that earns me a great income, but I also own an online business.

Many employees get rich working for corporations....

On what planet? Earth? Are you sure you're not referring to employees and corporations on another planet or dimension?

and even use that money to make more money and get richer than their employer. Capitalism does not require labor without pay.

That's another planet.

Draconian government taxation and regulation drives capitalists to countries with less expensive overhead.

With little taxation and regulation, where labor is dirt cheap and easily exploitable. Yes indeed.

American capitalists who close factories here in America and move them to the third world are doing it out of greed, not need. They should be taxed and hit over the head by a mountain of tariffs, rendering their economic cannabilism unprofitable. Stripping Americans of their good-paying jobs and turning around and selling them foreign manufactured goods. These un-American capitalists don't care what the long-term negative effects of their cannibalistic business practices are upon our economy.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

Obviously the goal of capitalism is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Exactly, and that can entail creating a society that recognizes the inherent value in a person's humanity (in virtue of them being human), affording them the right to food, basic housing, healthcare, education, and employment in the public sector, if they can't secure it in the private sector. Freedom from hunger, homelessness, lack of healthcare, lack of education, with full employment. That's true freedom. Add democracy to that, and we're GOOD.

In the act of trying to meet their needs, human beings can ban all unelected leadership, both in politics and in the workplace, where people spend much of their waking hours. There's nothing wrong with that, if that's what enough people in society want to do. As advanced technology automates production, eliminating wage labor, society will be forced by necessity, to replace capitalism with a non-profit system of production, a.k.a. socialism.



Most of the scary campfire stories we hear about Stalin in the West are exaggerations and half-truths at best. Some are outright fabrications.

View attachment 811114

View attachment 811112​

Capitalism hasn't helped them at all.




The problem is too little socialism. Western Europe according to your GOP buddies are communists. AOC is a commie and so is Sanders, due to their European-like political platform. It's the capitalists in their pursuit of profits in Ukraine, that are causing Western Europe all of this economic grief. Otherwise, Europe is doing well with socialism.



So the poor do produce a profitable output in these third world countries, or these capitalists wouldn't be building factories there. Make up your mind. Are the poor producing profits or not?



Welfare for the full-time employees of multibillion-dollar companies, who refuse to pay their workers a living wage, not to speak of the non-government handouts from workers, when they allow you to exploit them and extract surplus value off of their labor. That's also a handout at a societal level, compliments of the working-class who produce everything in this world.

So the poor do produce a profitable output in these third world countries, or these capitalists wouldn't be building factories there. Make up your mind. Are the poor producing profits or not?

The value they add must be enough to justify the factory. That doesn't mean the workers are highly productive.

Welfare for the full-time employees of multibillion-dollar companies, who refuse to pay their workers a living wage,

Those are handouts for the workers, not handouts for the corporations.

 

[task0778]

Exactly, and that can entail creating a society that recognizes the inherent value in a person's humanity (in virtue of them being human), affording them the right to food, basic housing, healthcare, education, and employment in the public sector, if they can't secure it in the private sector. Freedom from hunger, homelessness, lack of healthcare, lack of education, with full employment. That's true freedom. Add democracy to that, and we're GOOD.

I do not believe there is any democratic country on Earth that affords everyone the right to food, housing, healthcare, education, and employment in the public sector if they can't secure it in the private sector. Why would anyone work if the gov't provides everything they need? Do you really think that such a scenario is feasible? Freedom means you can decline to work, right? What if the gov't 'gives' you a job working at something somewhere and you decline, what then? Is freedom really free if you have only one choice, to do what you're told?

 

[Red Front]

So the poor do produce a profitable output in these third world countries, or these capitalists wouldn't be building factories there. Make up your mind. Are the poor producing profits or not?

The value they add must be enough to justify the factory. That doesn't mean the workers are highly productive.

Welfare for the full-time employees of multibillion-dollar companies, who refuse to pay their workers a living wage,

Those are handouts for the workers, not handouts for the corporations.

The value they add must be enough to justify the factory. That doesn't mean the workers are highly productive.

Productive enough to justify moving a factory from the US to that other country. Your claim that those workers aren't productive is based on what? What's your metric for that?

The idea of productivity being tied directly to wages is flawed. Wages are often not determined by productivity alone but are influenced by a range of factors, including capitalist greed, living costs, labor laws, unionization rates, and economic inequality. For instance, a garment worker in Bangladesh or a fruit picker in Mexico might work incredibly long hours under strenuous conditions, producing plenty of goods and profits for their employers, and still earn a fraction of what a similarly hardworking individual in a developed country earns.

Moreover, again I remind you, that if we were to go by your assumption that 'productivity' is the only determinant of wages, then it does not justify why many US corporations would outsource their manufacturing jobs to these regions. This is because these corporations recognize the high level of skill, diligence, and indeed, productivity, that workers in these countries can offer, often at much lower wages due to the economic conditions in these countries.

You fail to understand that economic disparity between countries or regions often stems from a complex interplay of historical, political, and economic factors, including colonialism, trade policies, access to education and technology, infrastructure, and more.

So your argument that these workers are 'less productive' is a gross oversimplification and doesn't take into account the systemic factors that impact wages and living standards. Your laissez-faire, Atlas Shrugged, interpretation of reality is quite shallow.

Those are handouts for the workers, not handouts for the corporations.

How so?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Productive enough to justify moving a factory from the US to that other country. Your claim that those workers aren't productive is based on what? What's your metric for that?

The idea of productivity being tied directly to wages is flawed. Wages are often not determined by productivity alone but are influenced by a range of factors, including capitalist greed, living costs, labor laws, unionization rates, and economic inequality. For instance, a garment worker in Bangladesh or a fruit picker in Mexico might work incredibly long hours under strenuous conditions, producing plenty of goods and profits for their employers, and still earn a fraction of what a similarly hardworking individual in a developed country earns.

Moreover, again I remind you, that if we were to go by your assumption that 'productivity' is the only determinant of wages, then it does not justify why many US corporations would outsource their manufacturing jobs to these regions. This is because these corporations recognize the high level of skill, diligence, and indeed, productivity, that workers in these countries can offer, often at much lower wages due to the economic conditions in these countries.

You fail to understand that economic disparity between countries or regions often stems from a complex interplay of historical, political, and economic factors, including colonialism, trade policies, access to education and technology, infrastructure, and more.

So your argument that these workers are 'less productive' is a gross oversimplification and doesn't take into account the systemic factors that impact wages and living standards. Your laissez-faire, Atlas Shrugged, interpretation of reality is quite shallow.



How so?

Productive enough to justify moving a factory from the US to that other country.

Or cheaper enough.

Your claim that those workers aren't productive is based on what?

I didn't say that.

Moreover, again I remind you, that if we were to go by your assumption that 'productivity' is the only determinant of wages,

I didn't say that.

For instance, a garment worker in Bangladesh or a fruit picker in Mexico might work incredibly long hours under strenuous conditions

I already told you the farmer planting seeds with a sharp stick works very hard.

How so?

The handout goes into the hands of the worker.