What is the goal of capitalism?

[Red Front]

57 pages and some on this thread have made novel sized posts.
The goal of capitalism is a monopoly. That's it.

Of course, that's one of the primary objectives. To own as much of the market as possible. Capitalist don't just compete but FIGHT, even KILL, as in shed blood, to control as much of the market as possible. When that's not feasible, they form oligopolies. You'll have a few capitalists, controlling an industry or market, often with the assistance of a corrupt state apparatus, paid off with their armies of lobbyists, legally (sometimes illegally) bribing politicians in the halls of government throughout the country, at the local, state and federal levels. Monopolies, oligopolies, cronyism, is endemic and an inevitable condition of capitalist-run economies.

The so called "free market" is a pink unicorn that glows in the dark. It's a capitalist apologist fantasy, that has never materialized and will never exist in the future.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What do dairy farmers and milk being sold in stores have to do with what he said? Elaborate.

Always and necessarily robbery.

You robbing when you buy milk, or are you robbed?

 

[dblack]

Capitalism has no "goal". Goals are held by the people. There are as many as there are people buying and selling.

 

[Red Front]

Always and necessarily robbery.

You robbing when you buy milk, or are you robbed
Dairy Farms as Capitalist Enterprises:

• If a dairy farm is owned and operated by a single family or individual who does all the work themselves, they wouldn't necessarily be seen as capitalists in the Marxist sense. They are both the owner and the laborer.
• However, if the owner of the dairy farm hires workers to do the labor (milking cows, maintaining the farm, etc.) and pays them a wage, while the owner profits from selling the milk or other dairy products, then the owner would be seen as a capitalist. This is because they are extracting surplus value from the labor of the workers. The difference between the value the workers produce (in the form of milk, cheese, etc.) and the wages they are paid is the surplus value, which the capitalist appropriates as profit.

1. Private Property vs. Personal Property:
   
   • In Marxist theory, there's a distinction between "private property" and "personal property."
   • Private Property: Refers to the means of production that are owned and controlled by individuals or entities (capitalists) for the purpose of generating profit. This would include factories, machinery, and, in the context of this discussion, large dairy farms that employ workers to produce goods for sale.
   • Personal Property: Refers to items owned by individuals that aren't used to generate profit. This would include personal belongings like clothes, books, and even small subsistence farms or gardens that are used to produce food for personal consumption and not for sale.
   • A dairy farm would be considered "private property" if it's used to produce dairy products for sale, especially if it employs workers to do so. If someone simply owns a few cows and produces milk only for their family's consumption, that is more akin to "personal property."

It's important to note that not all Marxists or communists would necessarily view every dairy farmer as a capitalist. The classification would depend on the specific relationship between the farmer, the means of production (the farm and the cows), and any laborers they might employ. The broader point in Marxist theory is to critique the exploitation inherent in the capitalist mode of production, where those who own the means of production can extract value from the labor of others.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

• If a dairy farm is owned and operated by a single family or individual who does all the work themselves, they wouldn't necessarily be seen as capitalists in the Marxist sense. They are both the owner and the laborer.
• However, if the owner of the dairy farm hires workers to do the labor (milking cows, maintaining the farm, etc.) and pays them a wage, while the owner profits from selling the milk or other dairy products, then the owner would be seen as a capitalist. This is because they are extracting surplus value from the labor of the workers. The difference between the value the workers produce (in the form of milk, cheese, etc.) and the wages they are paid is the surplus value, which the capitalist appropriates as profit.

1. Private Property vs. Personal Property:
   
   • In Marxist theory, there's a distinction between "private property" and "personal property."
   • Private Property: Refers to the means of production that are owned and controlled by individuals or entities (capitalists) for the purpose of generating profit. This would include factories, machinery, and, in the context of this discussion, large dairy farms that employ workers to produce goods for sale.
   • Personal Property: Refers to items owned by individuals that aren't used to generate profit. This would include personal belongings like clothes, books, and even small subsistence farms or gardens that are used to produce food for personal consumption and not for sale.
   • A dairy farm would be considered "private property" if it's used to produce dairy products for sale, especially if it employs workers to do so. If someone simply owns a few cows and produces milk only for their family's consumption, that is more akin to "personal property."

It's important to note that not all Marxists or communists would necessarily view every dairy farmer as a capitalist. The classification would depend on the specific relationship between the farmer, the means of production (the farm and the cows), and any laborers they might employ. The broader point in Marxist theory is to critique the exploitation inherent in the capitalist mode of production, where those who own the means of production can extract value from the labor of others.

Lots of words, still no answer.

Are you the robber when you buy milk, or are you robbed?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

• If a dairy farm is owned and operated by a single family or individual who does all the work themselves, they wouldn't necessarily be seen as capitalists in the Marxist sense. They are both the owner and the laborer.
• However, if the owner of the dairy farm hires workers to do the labor (milking cows, maintaining the farm, etc.) and pays them a wage, while the owner profits from selling the milk or other dairy products, then the owner would be seen as a capitalist. This is because they are extracting surplus value from the labor of the workers. The difference between the value the workers produce (in the form of milk, cheese, etc.) and the wages they are paid is the surplus value, which the capitalist appropriates as profit.

1. Private Property vs. Personal Property:
   
   • In Marxist theory, there's a distinction between "private property" and "personal property."
   • Private Property: Refers to the means of production that are owned and controlled by individuals or entities (capitalists) for the purpose of generating profit. This would include factories, machinery, and, in the context of this discussion, large dairy farms that employ workers to produce goods for sale.
   • Personal Property: Refers to items owned by individuals that aren't used to generate profit. This would include personal belongings like clothes, books, and even small subsistence farms or gardens that are used to produce food for personal consumption and not for sale.
   • A dairy farm would be considered "private property" if it's used to produce dairy products for sale, especially if it employs workers to do so. If someone simply owns a few cows and produces milk only for their family's consumption, that is more akin to "personal property."

It's important to note that not all Marxists or communists would necessarily view every dairy farmer as a capitalist. The classification would depend on the specific relationship between the farmer, the means of production (the farm and the cows), and any laborers they might employ. The broader point in Marxist theory is to critique the exploitation inherent in the capitalist mode of production, where those who own the means of production can extract value from the labor of others.

Where'd you go?

Are you the robber when you buy milk, or are you robbed?

 

[Red Front]

Lots of words, still no answer.

Are you the robber when you buy milk, or are you robbed?

Why would the paying consumer be a robber or get robbed by purchasing milk at the store? No not at all.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why would the paying consumer be a robber or get robbed by purchasing milk at the store? No not at all.

Ringo said, under capitalism, a transaction is "Always and necessarily robbery"

What is the goal of capitalism?

Lift the sanctions. /——/ There are plenty of countries where Cuba can buy anything it wants or needs. Problem is the slave state is dirt poor.

www.usmessageboard.com

Looked like you agreed. Do you agree?

 

[Red Front]

Ringo said, under capitalism, a transaction is "Always and necessarily robbery"

What is the goal of capitalism?

Lift the sanctions. /——/ There are plenty of countries where Cuba can buy anything it wants or needs. Problem is the slave state is dirt poor.

www.usmessageboard.com

Looked like you agreed. Do you agree?

All transactions under capitalism aren't robbery. I believe he was referring to the exploitative aspect of surplus value, where the worker is paid less than what they produce. I wouldn't however say the paying consumer is being robbed or robbing anyone for purchasing the milk from the capitalist at the store because he or she is living under capitalism and needs to consume goods to live. You either buy goods or die.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All transactions under capitalism aren't robbery. I believe he was referring to the exploitative aspect of surplus value, where the worker is paid less than what they produce. I wouldn't however say the paying consumer is being robbed or robbing anyone for purchasing the milk from the capitalist at the store because he or she is living under capitalism and needs to consume goods to live. You either buy goods or die.

Thanks for explaining where the actual commie was mistaken.

I believe he was referring to the exploitative aspect of surplus value, where the worker is paid less than what they produce.

Why do you feel the worker has a stronger claim on the "surplus value" than the employer?

 

[Red Front]

Thanks for explaining where the actual commie was mistaken.

I believe he was referring to the exploitative aspect of surplus value, where the worker is paid less than what they produce.

Why do you feel the worker has a stronger claim on the "surplus value" than the employer?

When I refer to "surplus value" and assert that the worker should have a stronger claim to it than the employer, it's not just due to numbers or even purely economics. It's about the intrinsic value of human beings and their labor.

1. Inherent Worth of Labor: Every piece of machinery, every tool, and every office relies on human labor to function and produce. In the capitalist framework, while capital (like machinery) has value, it's the workers who imbue it with life, essentially creating its true value. They contribute their time, skills, physical and intellectual efforts, not to speak of often risking their health and even their lives. Without them, no production would occur. So, shouldn't they, the primary living force behind this creation of value, be entitled to a fairer share of the produced wealth? I'd say yes indeed.
2. Inequality of Power Dynamics: Capitalist structures lead to a small class of privileged individuals possessing the means of production, while a vast majority only have their labor power/life to sell. This results in a significant power imbalance. Employees often have little say in their working conditions, the hours they work, or even in the strategic decisions of the for-profit business enterprises that they work for. This lack of agency contradicts the democratic principles we hold dear in political life, and it's not unreasonable to expect those same principles to extend into our workplaces where we spend much of our waking hours. Much of our life is spent in the workplace,
3. Primitive Accumulation: Historically, there's ample evidence to suggest that capitalist interests, often with the support or direct involvement of state mechanisms, have driven people away from self-sufficiency. By dispossessing communities of their lands and traditional means of livelihood, these forces pushed individuals into urban centers. Stripped of their self-reliance, they became dependent on wages in an economy they had little control over. This orchestrated movement not only undermined community structures and traditional ways of life but also created a vast, often desperate workforce ready to be employed under terms heavily favoring the capitalist class. The consequence? Wage stagnation, economic inequality, and heightened job insecurity.
4. Commodification of Humans: Capitalism, in many ways, reduces humans to commodities in the labor market. The value of a person's life force, their very essence, becomes tethered to market dynamics. Such reductionist thinking strips away the human experience, creativity, and potential, making people merely a resource to be exploited for maximum profit.
5. Democratic Workplaces: Democracy shouldn't be limited to just politics; it should permeate our daily lives, especially the workplace where we spend a significant portion of our lives. Workers, who intimately understand the nuances of their job and its challenges, should have a say in decisions that directly impact them. A democratic approach to workplaces would not only ensure better working conditions
6. Parasitic Relationship: It's essential to question a system where the few can benefit excessively from the efforts of the many. If the capitalists profit mainly by extracting surplus value from the workers, it creates an unbalanced, parasitic relationship. Such a system not only perpetuates inequality but also fosters resentment, instability, and societal discord.
7. Collective Ownership and Collaboration: Mass production is undeniably a collaborative endeavor. It involves the combined efforts of various individuals, each contributing their labor. Therefore, the fruits of such collective labor should benefit all participants, not just a select few who generally, with few exceptions, aren't doing any of the physical labor.

So those are just some of the issues we communists have with capitalism.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When I refer to "surplus value" and assert that the worker should have a stronger claim to it than the employer, it's not just due to numbers or even purely economics. It's about the intrinsic value of human beings and their labor.

View attachment 819813​

1. Inherent Worth of Labor: Every piece of machinery, every tool, and every office relies on human labor to function and produce. In the capitalist framework, while capital (like machinery) has value, it's the workers who imbue it with life, essentially creating its true value. They contribute their time, skills, physical and intellectual efforts, not to speak of often risking their health and even their lives. Without them, no production would occur. So, shouldn't they, the primary living force behind this creation of value, be entitled to a fairer share of the produced wealth? I'd say yes indeed.
2. Inequality of Power Dynamics: Capitalist structures lead to a small class of privileged individuals possessing the means of production, while a vast majority only have their labor power/life to sell. This results in a significant power imbalance. Employees often have little say in their working conditions, the hours they work, or even in the strategic decisions of the for-profit business enterprises that they work for. This lack of agency contradicts the democratic principles we hold dear in political life, and it's not unreasonable to expect those same principles to extend into our workplaces where we spend much of our waking hours. Much of our life is spent in the workplace,
3. Primitive Accumulation: Historically, there's ample evidence to suggest that capitalist interests, often with the support or direct involvement of state mechanisms, have driven people away from self-sufficiency. By dispossessing communities of their lands and traditional means of livelihood, these forces pushed individuals into urban centers. Stripped of their self-reliance, they became dependent on wages in an economy they had little control over. This orchestrated movement not only undermined community structures and traditional ways of life but also created a vast, often desperate workforce ready to be employed under terms heavily favoring the capitalist class. The consequence? Wage stagnation, economic inequality, and heightened job insecurity.
4. Commodification of Humans: Capitalism, in many ways, reduces humans to commodities in the labor market. The value of a person's life force, their very essence, becomes tethered to market dynamics. Such reductionist thinking strips away the human experience, creativity, and potential, making people merely a resource to be exploited for maximum profit.
5. Democratic Workplaces: Democracy shouldn't be limited to just politics; it should permeate our daily lives, especially the workplace where we spend a significant portion of our lives. Workers, who intimately understand the nuances of their job and its challenges, should have a say in decisions that directly impact them. A democratic approach to workplaces would not only ensure better working conditions
6. Parasitic Relationship: It's essential to question a system where the few can benefit excessively from the efforts of the many. If the capitalists profit mainly by extracting surplus value from the workers, it creates an unbalanced, parasitic relationship. Such a system not only perpetuates inequality but also fosters resentment, instability, and societal discord.
7. Collective Ownership and Collaboration: Mass production is undeniably a collaborative endeavor. It involves the combined efforts of various individuals, each contributing their labor. Therefore, the fruits of such collective labor should benefit all participants, not just a select few who generally, with few exceptions, aren't doing any of the physical labor.

So those are just some of the issues we communists have with capitalism.

When I refer to "surplus value" and assert that the worker should have a stronger claim to it than the employer, it's not just due to numbers or even purely economics. It's about the intrinsic value of human beings and their labor.

Workers have worth.

Why do you feel the worker has a stronger claim on the "surplus value" than the employer?

 

[Red Front]

When I refer to "surplus value" and assert that the worker should have a stronger claim to it than the employer, it's not just due to numbers or even purely economics. It's about the intrinsic value of human beings and their labor.

Workers have worth.

Why do you feel the worker has a stronger claim on the "surplus value" than the employer?

I answered the question. You may not acknowledge that fact but others will, hence why I participate in this discussion. Even when Todd is disingenuous and pretends I didn't adequately answer his question, there are others who will read what I wrote and draw plenty of value from it.

 

[dblack]

It's about the intrinsic value of human beings and their labor.

There's no such thing. Value isn't objective. It depends on the person doing the evaluating.

 

[Red Front]

There's no such thing. Value isn't objective. It depends on the person doing the evaluating.

Yes, some people recognize the value of human beings and their labor, and others like yourself won't, placing more value on wealth than on work. I see more value in human work and toil, in their drudgery than in the wealth of an exploiting, capitalist parasite, drawing an income from the labor of others.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I answered the question. You may not acknowledge that fact but others will, hence why I participate in this discussion. Even when Todd is disingenuous and pretends I didn't adequately answer his question, there are others who will read what I wrote and draw plenty of value from it.

I answered the question.

No, you didn't. Does the employer have any claim on surplus value?
How much? 100%? 50%? Less? Why?

 

[Red Front]

I answered the question.

No, you didn't. Does the employer have any claim on surplus value?
How much? 100%? 50%? Less? Why?

The exploiter/"employer" and owner of the means of production, shouldn't even exist. Capitalism should go the way of the dodo.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The exploiter/"employer" and owner of the means of production, shouldn't even exist. Capitalism should go the way of the dodo.

View attachment 819900​

The "exploiter" deserves 0% of the "surplus value"?

 

[Red Front]

The "exploiter" deserves 0% of the "surplus value"?

The exploiter shouldn't own the means of production or be in a position to extract any surplus value from anyone. The people who work in the enterprise should own it together and elect their managers. Assuming markets still exist and such businesses are still operating, before fully transitioning to a marketless, non-profit system of production. To the extent that such businesses exist, they should be owned by the people who work them, not by a class of privileged, wealthy capitalist elites/parasites who exploit human beings, living off of other people's labor.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The exploiter shouldn't own the means of production or be in a position to extract any surplus value from anyone. The people who work in the enterprise should own it together and elect their managers. Assuming markets still exist and such businesses are still operating, before fully transitioning to a marketless, non-profit system of production. To the extent that such businesses exist, they should be owned by the people who work them, not by a class of privileged, wealthy capitalist elites/parasites who exploit human beings, living off of other people's labor.

The exploiter shouldn't own the means of production

But he does. So how much of the surplus does he deserve?

The people who work in the enterprise should own it together and elect their managers.

They currently don't own all the capital of the business, the employer does.
Based on the investment of all that capital, how much of the surplus does he deserve?