What is the goal of capitalism?

[Red Front]

Deliver higher quality for lower cost while competing away extraordinary returns

The purpose of capitalism is to make as much money as possible, for the lowest cost possible. Making money, that's about it. Nothing other than that.

 

[Red Front]

You said trillions. You lied.

There's no such thing as a "free market" or the "invisible hand" that magically regulates the economy without any government involvement or intervention.

Obviously. And?

Yes trillions have been spent in the service of capitalists and their vested interests at the expense of the American public. That's my point and you're lying if you assert anything else.

So if capitalists need the government to conduct their business and generate profits, why assume that the working class doesn't need the government to invest in them too? Anytime I say anything about the government doing something for the public good, you fire a stupid: "Oh Yeah because the Soviet Union....Gulag, Stalin....Durrrrr". The government shouldn't spend, to do anything that benefits or elevates the working class, it should only facilitate the capitalists. No, I disagree.

 

[Red Front]

I never argued against capitalists making a profit,

You just did, when you said "The workers are already producing more than they're paid"

what I do say is that full-time workers need to be paid a living wage,

Workers are dying at their jobs?

Yes, indeed, workers are getting paid less than what they produce. When did I ever claim that fact warrants capitalists not generating a profit? The fact is that capitalism relies upon wage labor, those who produce and deliver the goods and services that are sold in the marketplace, getting paid less than the market-worth of what they produce. How did you infer from that, that I believe capitalists shouldn't make a profit? If our society relies on capitalism to mass produce the goods and services that everyone consumes then of course, capitalists need to make a profit. Learn to understand what you read.

Some workers do die in the workplace, but that's irrelevant to the point that full-time workers must get paid a living wage. Do you know what a living wage is? I already defined it in that post. Wages that allow employees to pay their bills. You know, food, rent, phone bill, transportation. etc. Live a decent life. If you're unable to understand that, well that's your problem, not mine. You can remain in your ignorance.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The purpose of capitalism is to make as much money as possible, for the lowest cost possible. Making money, that's about it. Nothing other than that.

That's uninformed.

So a restaurant would "make as much money as possible" by serving yesterdays leftovers, right?

 

[Red Front]

That's uninformed.

So a restaurant would "make as much money as possible" by serving yesterdays leftovers, right?

If you serve yesterday's "leftovers", you'll have a crap product that may make people sick to their stomachs. So it's not in your financial interest to sell crap. If yesterday's leftovers, tasted great and the danger of making people sick wasn't present, and people didn't mind, then yeah, it behooves you to sell yesterday's leftovers. Of course, it must also be legal to sell yesterday's leftovers, for you to do it, but if it's legal, and the leftovers taste great and can't make anyone sick and people don't care, then you should do it because that will increase your profits.

Capitalism is all about private capital accumulation. Making money.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The purpose of capitalism is to make as much money as possible, for the lowest cost possible. Making money, that's about it. Nothing other than that.

Providing people with goods they willingly want to buy while employing people
who are willing to earn the wage they're offered. Horrible, just horrible.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes trillions have been spent in the service of capitalists and their vested interests at the expense of the American public. That's my point and you're lying if you assert anything else.

So if capitalists need the government to conduct their business and generate profits, why assume that the working class doesn't need the government to invest in them too? Anytime I say anything about the government doing something for the public good, you fire a stupid: "Oh Yeah because the Soviet Union....Gulag, Stalin....Durrrrr". The government shouldn't spend, to do anything that benefits or elevates the working class, it should only facilitate the capitalists. No, I disagree.

Yes trillions have been spent in the service of capitalists and their vested interests at the expense of the American public. That's my point

It's your claim, now post your evidence.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, indeed, workers are getting paid less than what they produce. When did I ever claim that fact warrants capitalists not generating a profit? The fact is that capitalism relies upon wage labor, those who produce and deliver the goods and services that are sold in the marketplace, getting paid less than the market-worth of what they produce. How did you infer from that, that I believe capitalists shouldn't make a profit? If our society relies on capitalism to mass produce the goods and services that everyone consumes then of course, capitalists need to make a profit. Learn to understand what you read.

Some workers do die in the workplace, but that's irrelevant to the point that full-time workers must get paid a living wage. Do you know what a living wage is? I already defined it in that post. Wages that allow employees to pay their bills. You know, food, rent, phone bill, transportation. etc. Live a decent life. If you're unable to understand that, well that's your problem, not mine. You can remain in your ignorance.

Yes, indeed, workers are getting paid less than what they produce.

Obviously. And? Is this some sort of recent discovery?

The fact is that capitalism relies upon wage labor, those who produce and deliver the goods and services that are sold in the marketplace, getting paid less than the market-worth of what they produce.
Yup.

How did you infer from that, that I believe capitalists shouldn't make a profit?
Because you post this..."Yes, indeed, workers are getting paid less than what they produce" , like it's a bad thing.

Some workers do die in the workplace,

Is their cause of death, low wages?

but that's irrelevant to the point that full-time workers must get paid a living wage.

Why must they? Who made that into a law? Who decided what "a living wage" is?

Wages that allow employees to pay their bills. You know, food, rent, phone bill, transportation. etc. Live a decent life.

What kind of food? How much rent? Land line or cell phone? iPhone or burner?
Corvette, Chevette or bus? Menthols? Courvoisier? Bud Light?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Capitalism is all about private capital accumulation. Making money.

By making products people want to freely purchase. At a price people will willingly pay.

 

[dblack]

By making products people want to freely purchase. At a price people will willingly pay.

The core conceit of socialism is that capitalists make "money for nothing", that they are just "leeches" on the backs of labor. Socialists pretend we can just remove capitalists and private property from the equation and workers will finally get paid what they're worth.

But that pretense runs into reality when they try it. Someone has to do the very real work that capitalists do - eg deciding how to organize resources and labor effectively. That work needs to happen in any complex economy. Socialism doesn't eliminate the need for such decision making. It just transfers the responsibility from private property owners, motivated by profit, to politicians, motivated by ?.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The core conceit of socialism is that capitalists make "money for nothing", that they are just "leeches" on the backs of labor. Socialists pretend we can just remove capitalists and private property from the equation and workers will finally get paid what they're worth.

But that pretense runs into reality when they try it. Someone has to do the very real work that capitalists do - eg deciding how to organize resources and labor effectively. That work needs to happen in any complex economy. Socialism doesn't eliminate the need for such decision making. It just transfers the responsibility from private property owners, motivated by profit, to politicians, motivated by ?.

They aren't very bright.

 

[Red Front]

Yes, indeed, workers are getting paid less than what they produce.

Obviously. And? Is this some sort of recent discovery?

The fact is that capitalism relies upon wage labor, those who produce and deliver the goods and services that are sold in the marketplace, getting paid less than the market-worth of what they produce.
Yup.

How did you infer from that, that I believe capitalists shouldn't make a profit?
Because you post this..."Yes, indeed, workers are getting paid less than what they produce" , like it's a bad thing.

Some workers do die in the workplace,

Is their cause of death, low wages?

but that's irrelevant to the point that full-time workers must get paid a living wage.

Why must they? Who made that into a law? Who decided what "a living wage" is?

Wages that allow employees to pay their bills. You know, food, rent, phone bill, transportation. etc. Live a decent life.

What kind of food? How much rent? Land line or cell phone? iPhone or burner?
Corvette, Chevette or bus? Menthols? Courvoisier? Bud Light?

Again, it doesn't matter if my opinion is that capitalism is a racket that pays the people who do most of the work, less than what they're producing. The racket can't function without capitalists generating a profit, and if society relies on this capitalist system to produce all of the goods and services that it consumes, then capitalists must make a profit for consumers to get access to the goods and services that they need. I realize that capitalism doesn't work any other way, and if society relies on capitalism for its goods and services then capitalists must generate a profit. I believe capitalists musk make a profit, despite my negative sentiments towards that fact.

If capitalists are going to exist, I would prefer for the workers to be the capitalists working in a worker-owned, democratically-run cooperative. In that case, the workers themselves, collectively are the capitalists, who compete in the market with other worker-owned cooperatives. I don't believe that's the ideal, most efficient, and effective system of production, but at least it's better than what we have now. It would be a transitional system, into a hi-tech, highly automated and computerized, centrally planned, marketless, non-profit system of production, a.k.a. communism. I believe that inevitably society will be forced by necessity to become communist.

The rest of your questions and comments are just pedantic gobbledygook. Disengenious nonsense.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again, it doesn't matter if my opinion is that capitalism is a racket that pays the people who do most of the work, less than what they're producing. The racket can't function without capitalists generating a profit, and if society relies on this capitalist system to produce all of the goods and services that it consumes, then capitalists must make a profit for consumers to get access to the goods and services that they need. I realize that capitalism doesn't work any other way, and if society relies on capitalism for its goods and services then capitalists must generate a profit. I believe capitalists musk make a profit, despite my negative sentiments towards that fact.

If capitalists are going to exist, I would prefer for the workers to be the capitalists working in a worker-owned, democratically-run cooperative. In that case, the workers themselves, collectively are the capitalists, who compete in the market with other worker-owned cooperatives. I don't believe that's the ideal, most efficient, and effective system of production, but at least it's better than what we have now. It would be a transitional system, into a hi-tech, highly automated and computerized, centrally planned, marketless, non-profit system of production, a.k.a. communism. I believe that inevitably society will be forced by necessity to become communist.

The rest of your questions and comments are just pedantic gobbledygook. Disengenious nonsense.

Again, it doesn't matter if my opinion is that capitalism is a racket that pays the people who do most of the work, less than what they're producing.

Doing most of the work with somebody's stuff, right?

The racket can't function without capitalists generating a profit,

Communism couldn't function and they never generated a profit.

How come the capitalist racket pulled hundreds of millions out of poverty and the communist racket trapped hundreds of millions in poverty?

The rest of your questions and comments are just pedantic gobbledygook.

Broke that pedantic gobbledygook off in your commie ass.

 

[Red Front]

The core conceit of socialism is that capitalists make "money for nothing", that they are just "leeches" on the backs of labor. Socialists pretend we can just remove capitalists and private property from the equation and workers will finally get paid what they're worth.

But that pretense runs into reality when they try it. Someone has to do the very real work that capitalists do - eg deciding how to organize resources and labor effectively. That work needs to happen in any complex economy. Socialism doesn't eliminate the need for such decision making. It just transfers the responsibility from private property owners, motivated by profit, to politicians, motivated by ?.

The core conceit of socialism is that capitalists make "money for nothing", that they are just "leeches" on the backs of labor. Socialists pretend we can just remove capitalists and private property from the equation and workers will finally get paid what they're worth.

The conceit of capitalism is that a certain socioeconomic class of wealthy owners and employers (exploiters), should have the right to exploit human beings, reducing them to the means of production, and commodifying them in a "labor market" as mere commodities. These rich exploiters, rent human labor for eight, ten, and twelve hours daily to produce and deliver goods and services for their employer's private pursuit of profits (i.e. capital). The bottom line of capitalist production is profits, not meeting the needs of workers or consumers (the workers and consumers are the same people).

WAGE LABOR/WORKERS = PAYING CONSUMERS/CUSTOMERS/THE MARKET​

As communists, we want to eliminate private property while preserving and increasing personal property. We define private property as any property that is used to exploit others for a profit by selling the goods and services produced and delivered by human labor. We believe human beings shouldn't be commodified or reduced to the means of production by a socioeconomic class of private property owners, who own the means of production.

Adam Smith in his book "Wealth Of Nations", identifies capitalists as "masters":

"What are the common wages of labor, depends every where upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labor.

It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen."

Communists say "No gods, No masters". Production should be democratic or personal (craftsman, producing and owning his or her products), but never exploitative and dictatorial. Those who do the work, should at the very least, collectively own the means (facilities, machinery) of production and whatever is produced. Mass production is a social endeavor, not a private one, hence it must be to meet the needs of the community and done through a democratic cooperative, with that purpose in mind, rather than to generate private profits.

All managers in the workplace, including government officials and the bureaucrats they appoint, should be accountable to the democratically run worker councils, a.k.a. "soviets" in Russian. As an American communist, I often use the term "worker-councils" although I like the Russian term "soviet" better. I like the simplicity of it and how it sounds. It upsets the capitalists and their cronies when they hear it, hence more reason to use it.

We should be governed in this country by American Soviets, capable of electing and recalling delegates (government officials) at any time. We don't have to wait for elections, we create them whenever we need them through a simple process of getting worker signatures and then holding a council meeting and election. That's also how we "impeach" or recall incompetent or corrupt government officials or demand an inquest for bureaucrats while threatening the politicians who appointed them with impeachment. The original soviet system is ingenious and much more democratic than what we have now here in the United States.

But that pretense runs into reality when they try it. Someone has to do the very real work that capitalists do - eg deciding how to organize resources and labor effectively. That work needs to happen in any complex economy. Socialism doesn't eliminate the need for such decision making. It just transfers the responsibility from private property owners, motivated by profit, to politicians, motivated by ?.

Your first, opening statement was somewhat accurate and this one is even more thoughtful and intelligent. Yes, hierarchies, and leadership are unavoidable in human society. We need leadership, but those leaders should be accountable to those whom they lead and govern. No gods, No masters. I believe in God, but not gods or human masters.

We eliminate the profit motive that commodifies and exploits human labor within a dictatorially-run workplace, placing the means of production in the hands of those who produce and deliver the goods and services. Mass production is a social enterprise, not a private one, hence the workers must own and operate the facilities of production, collectively. Private property, as defined earlier, is eliminated, and personal property is protected and increased.

In communism, The state becomes a revolutionary management tool in the hands of the working class (94% of the population), rather than under the control of the capitalists (6% of the population). The state is always a dictatorship, but under communism, it must be the dictatorship of the "proletariat" or the dictatorship of the working class (94% of the population democratically runs the roost, rather than just 6% as we have now under capitalism). We the proletariat, collectively, as a community, are the masters, not the capitalists (i.e. bourgeoisie). Everything we produce is to meet the needs of our comrades (brothers and sisters), not for private profits.

If you have any questions, let me know.

 

[Red Front]

Again, it doesn't matter if my opinion is that capitalism is a racket that pays the people who do most of the work, less than what they're producing.

Doing most of the work with somebody's stuff, right?

The racket can't function without capitalists generating a profit,

Communism couldn't function and they never generated a profit.

How come the capitalist racket pulled hundreds of millions out of poverty and the communist racket trapped hundreds of millions in poverty?

The rest of your questions and comments are just pedantic gobbledygook.

Broke that pedantic gobbledygook off in your commie ass.

To the extent that society allows capitalists to own private property that is used to exploit human labor, yes, workers are producing stuff, using the facilities and machinery owned by the capitalists. As communists, we believe those who produce and deliver the goods and services should collectively own and run the facilities and machinery of production.

Mass production is a social enterprise, not a private one. We're against private property, and reducing human beings to commodities in a labor market or the means of production. Personal property is fine, but not private property. You can go to my previous posts to read my definition of private property.
Communist function, without the need for profits.

Your statement is incorrect, and ironic since it's capitalism that creates mass poverty and gross inequality, wars..etc. Scarcity in abundance is one of the hallmarks of capitalism. You can have warehouses full of food and people still starve, because they don't have the money to purchase the food. You can have an abundance of vacant homes and apartments, but people are still homeless. You can have more than enough electricity and other utilities, but people are still in the dark and drinking contaminated water. Capitalism creates wealth for a small % of the population and plunges the rest into poverty.

The working class in the United States became the aristocracy of labor, after WW2. America came out of the war unscathed compared to the Europeans and most of Asia. It became the manufacturing hub of the world providing needed materials and products for the reconstruction of several large nations.

The USD became the world's reserve currency, hence world trade conducted its transactions through the American economic system, allowing American workers to have the highest standard of living in the world. The American "middle-class" was the aristocracy of labor, the citizens of the new American empire.

​

America consumes and consumes, and consumes, and Americans think that because they live generally well in the empire (the nation that consumes the most), capitalism around the world is the same as it is in the United States.

List of largest consumer markets - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The American consumer was for many decades the means through which the world's most powerful capitalist elites and imperialists, generated their wealth. Their customer base was the best-paid workers in the world, with the most benefits, and the highest standard of living.

So Todd you have this warped idea that capitalism in America is the same as it is in the third world, in the nations that are consumed by Western imperialists (American, Canadian, and European capitalist imperialists). The consumer capitalist nation and the consumed nations under capitalism are not the same.

​

For the last 40 years or so, the American consumer and worker have been feeling the pinch of right-wing, supply-side economics that gutted the American manufacturing base and workforce, turning the American economy from a manufacturing-based economy to a Wall Street, finance economy. Working-class Americans are suffering because of that, so unfortuantely the good old days are gone.

Todd, you have a very 1950s view of capitalism. That golden era of America's economy and "good capitalism" (with a happier, unionized, blue-collar workforce, able to pay its bills with only one breadwinner, and mom staying at home, baking cookies for the kids for when they come back from school) is mostly gone. For most Americans, those days are over.

People like you killed it starting in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan.

​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

To the extent that society allows capitalists to own private property that is used to exploit human labor, yes, workers are producing stuff, using the facilities and machinery owned by the capitalists. As communists, we believe those who produce and deliver the goods and services should collectively own and run the facilities and machinery of production.

Mass production is a social enterprise, not a private one. We're against private property, and reducing human beings to commodities in a labor market or the means of production. Personal property is fine, but not private property. You can go to my previous posts to read my definition of private property.
Communist function, without the need for profits.

Your statement is incorrect, and ironic since it's capitalism that creates mass poverty and gross inequality, wars..etc. Scarcity in abundance is one of the hallmarks of capitalism. You can have warehouses full of food and people still starve, because they don't have the money to purchase the food. You can have an abundance of vacant homes and apartments, but people are still homeless. You can have more than enough electricity and other utilities, but people are still in the dark and drinking contaminated water. Capitalism creates wealth for a small % of the population and plunges the rest into poverty.

View attachment 926306

The working class in the United States became the aristocracy of labor, after WW2. America came out of the war unscathed compared to the Europeans and most of Asia. It became the manufacturing hub of the world providing needed materials and products for the reconstruction of several large nations.

View attachment 926309​

The USD became the world's reserve currency, hence world trade conducted its transactions through the American economic system, allowing American workers to have the highest standard of living in the world. The American "middle-class" was the aristocracy of labor, the citizens of the new American empire.

View attachment 926311​

America consumes and consumes, and consumes, and Americans think that because they live generally well in the empire (the nation that consumes the most), capitalism around the world is the same as it is in the United States.

List of largest consumer markets - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The American consumer was for many decades the means through which the world's most powerful capitalist elites and imperialists, generated their wealth. Their customer base was the best-paid workers in the world, with the most benefits, and the highest standard of living.

So Todd you have this warped idea that capitalism in America is the same as it is in the third world, in the nations that are consumed by Western imperialists (American, Canadian, and European capitalist imperialists). The consumer capitalist nation and the consumed nations under capitalism are not the same.

​

For the last 40 years or so, the American consumer and worker have been feeling the pinch of right-wing, supply-side economics that gutted the American manufacturing base and workforce, turning the American economy from a manufacturing-based economy to a Wall Street, finance economy. Working-class Americans are suffering because of that, so unfortuantely the good old days are gone.

Todd, you have a very 1950s view of capitalism. That golden era of America's economy and "good capitalism" (with a happier, unionized, blue-collar workforce, able to pay its bills) is mostly gone.

View attachment 926305​

People like you killed it starting in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan.

​

As communists, we believe those who produce and deliver the goods and services should collectively own and run the facilities and machinery of production.

Well yeah, because you're morons.

We're against private property, and reducing human beings to commodities in a labor market or the means of production.

You'd rather reduce human beings to commodities in a gulag.

Your statement is incorrect, and ironic since it's capitalism that creates mass poverty and gross inequality, wars..etc.

Capitalism creates mass poverty? Where?

You can have warehouses full of food and people still starve, because they don't have the money to purchase the food.

You can have warehouses full of food and people still starve, because they don't toe the party line.

Capitalism creates wealth for a small % of the population and plunges the rest into poverty.

Before capitalism there weren't masses of people in poverty? Where is this fantasy land where all was well and then capitalism ruined it?

So Todd you have this warped idea that capitalism in America is the same as it is in the third world,

No, I really don't. But I do know that third world capitalism does more good for more people than third world communism.

 

[Red Front]

As communists, we believe those who produce and deliver the goods and services should collectively own and run the facilities and machinery of production.

Well yeah, because you're morons.

We're against private property, and reducing human beings to commodities in a labor market or the means of production.

You'd rather reduce human beings to commodities in a gulag.

Your statement is incorrect, and ironic since it's capitalism that creates mass poverty and gross inequality, wars..etc.

Capitalism creates mass poverty? Where?

You can have warehouses full of food and people still starve, because they don't have the money to purchase the food.

You can have warehouses full of food and people still starve, because they don't toe the party line.

Capitalism creates wealth for a small % of the population and plunges the rest into poverty.

Before capitalism there weren't masses of people in poverty? Where is this fantasy land where all was well and then capitalism ruined it?

So Todd you have this warped idea that capitalism in America is the same as it is in the third world,

No, I really don't. But I do know that third world capitalism does more good for more people than third world communism.

Well yeah, because you're morons.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I beg to differ. We're just not going to allow you and your cronies to exploit human labor and undermine human progress. Advanced automation and artificial intelligence ensure that in the not-too-distant future, society will be forced by necessity to adopt a non-profit, marketless, centrally planned, more democratic system of mass production.

You'd rather reduce human beings to commodities in a gulag.

The criminals who go to the gulag in a communist society, aren't working to produce products and services for private profits. They're serving their sentences which according to communist tradition, is never more than 10 years. So your assertion that we "commodify" criminals in gulags is incoherent gobbledygook.

Capitalism creates mass poverty? Where?

Practically everywhere it exploits cheap labor and resources. The standard of living in those countries is quite low, hence all of the illegal immigration trying to enter into the American empire through its southern border. That's just one example.

You can have warehouses full of food and people still starve, because they don't toe the party line.

You can imagine whatever nonsense you want about communism, that's fine. What you're saying isn't in line with communist ideology but continue believing whatever toots your horn.

Before capitalism there weren't masses of people in poverty? Where is this fantasy land where all was well and then capitalism ruined it?

Socialism or socializing production, by democratizing it, placing it in the hands of the working class, and distributing goods and services to the people to meet their needs will eliminate the poverty that capitalism creates. People shouldn't allow a few capitalists to control the means of production and impoverish them. They should take power away from their masters and establish a true democracy, in both the political and economic spheres.

No, I really don't. But I do know that third world capitalism does more good for more people than third world communism.

Sorry Todd, but you don't have the luxury or option to convincingly argue that while the US and its allies are imposing brutal sanctions upon third-world socialist countries like Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, DPRK-"North Korea" and others. Lift the economic embargoes, stop constantly threatening those developing, socialist countries with war, and let them be, or your claims are vacuous, disingenuous rhetoric, not worth being taken seriously.

When the US eventually adopts a socialist system of production, it won't be in the same position economically or politically as those third-world countries that you often point to in your attempt to discredit socialism. The capitalist empire becoming socialist, will have the freedom and resources to develop without the weight and obstacles created by a hostile, capitalist empire on its back, trying to destroy it. So the US is going to do quite well, with socialism, and shouldn't be compared to anyone else. The circumstances of American socialism are going to be unique and perfect for socialist economic development.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're entitled to your opinion, but I beg to differ. We're just not going to allow you and your cronies to exploit human labor and undermine human progress. Advanced automation and artificial intelligence ensure that in the not-too-distant future, society will be forced to adopt a non-profit, marketless, centrally planned, more democratic system of mass production.




The criminals who go to the gulag in a communist society, aren't working to produce products and services for private profits. They're serving their sentences which according to communist tradition, is never more than 10 years. So your assertion that we "commodity" criminals in gulags is incoherent gobbledygook.



Practically everywhere it exploits cheap labor and resources. The standard of living in those countries is quite low, hence all of the illegal immigration trying to enter into the American empire through its southern border. That's just one example.



You can imagine whatever nonsense you want about communism, that's fine. What you're saying isn't in line with communist ideology but believe whatever toots your horn.



Socialism or socializing production, by democratizing it, placing it in the hands of the working class, and distributing goods and services to the people to meet their needs will eliminate the poverty that capitalism creates. People shouldn't allow a few capitalists to control the means of production and impoverish them. They should take power away from their masters and establish a true democracy, in both the political and economic spheres.



Sorry Todd, but you don't have the luxury or option to convincingly argue that while the US and its allies are imposing brutal sanctions upon third-world socialist countries like Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, DPRK-"North Korea" and others. Lift the economic sanctions, stop constantly threatening those developing, socialist countries with war, and let them be, or your claims are vacuous, disingenuous rhetoric, not worth being taken seriously.

We're just not going to allow you and your cronies to exploit human labor

Offer people jobs? Yeah, that's the worst!

Practically everywhere it exploits cheap labor and resources.

The labor is cheap? Was it cheaper before capitalism? Where?
Where did capitalism increase poverty? Be specific.

The standard of living in those countries is quite low, hence all of the illegal immigration trying to enter into the American empire through its southern border.

People are trying to enter America, where they will be exploited?
Are they all dumber than you? Why don't you contact them, before they risk the trip?
Tell them to stay away, protect them from exploitation, you commie bastard.

You can imagine whatever nonsense you want about communism, that's fine.

Stalin didn't starve millions?

Socialism or socializing production, by democratizing it, placing it in the hands of the working class, and distributing goods and services to the people to meet their needs will eliminate the poverty that capitalism creates.

Cool story bro, but you claimed capitalism created poverty, you still haven't shown your evidence. Were you lying like you were about the trillion-dollar bailouts? Or are you just ignorant, again?

Sorry Todd, but you don't have the luxury or option to convincingly argue that while the US and its allies are imposing brutal sanctions upon third-world socialist countries like Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, DPRK-"North Korea" and others.

Your commie paradise requires capitalists to trade with them?
I thought that less interaction with capitalists would make communism work even better?
Commies keeping away from evil capitalists should be like communism on steroids.
Instead, your shitholes actually get worse. It's funny.

 

[Red Front]

Offer people jobs? Yeah, that's the worst!

Slave masters and feudal lords also offered job opportunities and benefits to their slaves and serfs, but that's irrelevant because, like capitalism, those systems of production were oppressive. The relationship between capitalist employers and their employees isn't that much different than that of a master and a slave, and that's why Adam Smith the father of capitalism, identifies capitalist employers as "masters", as I showed in a previous post. As communists, we declare, "No gods, No masters".

Capitalism is a system of human exploitation that undermines democracy and human progress. It will, just like chattel slavery and feudalism, go the way of the dodo, as advanced automation and artificial intelligence continue to advance, making production more efficient and easier.

The labor is cheap? Was it cheaper before capitalism? Where?
Where did capitalism increase poverty? Be specific.

In every exploited, developing nation in the third world, in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, you'll find the detrimental effects of capitalism, in the form of gross inequality, a low standard of living, lack of regulations for commerce, lack of worker-rights and labor unions..etc. Practically every nation, from Honduras to Congo, is under the heel of foreign colonial powers and capitalist elites.

​

People are trying to enter America, where they will be exploited?

They'll make more money in the empire, and hopefully live a better life. Capitalism essentially is the exploitation of human labor by a wealthy class of private property owners, in pursuit of their profits. However, in the global north or empire workers tend to make more money and enjoy a higher standard of living, hence why people migrate to the north from the global south. It's that simple. Watch the video I embedded above for more information on how that works.

Are they all dumber than you? Why don't you contact them, before they risk the trip? Tell them to stay away, protect them from exploitation, you commie bastard.

The exploitation in the empire is less, due to a more robust government regulatory structure protecting the rights of workers, and workers make more money. That's obviously why they come here.

Stalin didn't starve millions?

No, he never starved anyone. That's nothing more than Western Cold War propaganda.

Cool story bro, but you claimed capitalism created poverty, you still haven't shown your evidence. Were you lying like you were about the trillion-dollar bailouts? Or are you just ignorant, again?

You ignore the evidence presented to you and pretend people are lying. That's your problem, not mine.

Your commie paradise requires capitalists to trade with them?

If the world is mostly capitalist, under the heel and control of the US-run economic system, then when the United States imposes sanctions upon a country, all other capitalist countries fall in line lest they suffer the same fate as the countries that are being sanctioned. Most capitalist countries would trade with Cuba and Venezuela, but they're afraid of the United States, imposing fines and sanctions upon them. They turn poor, developing socialist countries, trying to get on their feet, into international lepers, that no one wants to touch due to American bullying and threats.

Are you aware that any cargo ship that anchors in Cuba or Venezuela, can't anchor in an American port for six months? Cargo ships are expensive and to have them barred from the largest economy in the world, after anchoring in a Cuban or Venezuelan port isn't an option. That undermines their business and trade, hence they avoid Cuba and Venezuela.

Banks around the world are afraid to do business with Cubans and Venezuelans because the US often audits their business transactions and if they see that the bank is doing business with any of these sanctioned countries, they get fined.

I thought that less interaction with capitalists would make communism work even better?

Unfortunately, we don't live in that ideal world where all nations have communist economies. We live in a capitalist-run world, hence communists have to either trade with a few communist nations or with capitalist-run nations willing to do business with communists. As a communist I'm willing to do business with capitalists, provided I'm not under their control and rule, being exploited by them.

Commies keeping away from evil capitalists should be like communism on steroids. Instead, your shitholes actually get worse. It's funny.

Communists have to survive in a world that is mostly run by capitalists, so interacting with them is necessary and unavoidable. If communists are constantly being sanctioned economically, by powerful capitalist empires that control most of the world's trade, and they're threatening other capitalist nations not to trade with communists, then that's going to make the situation much more difficult for communists than it would be if everyone could trade freely, without restrictions and threats.

So again, you don't have much of an argument against communism, when the US, the world's capitalist empire and hegemon, is imposing brutal sanctions on developing socialist countries and threatening them with war. When the US isolates these developing socialist countries by threatening everyone who chooses to trade and establish normal diplomatic relations with them, that's an act of war. No one can reasonably expect these small, developing countries to properly develop, while at war with the world's current most powerful capitalist empire.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Offer people jobs? Yeah, that's the worst!

Slave masters and feudal lords also offered job opportunities and benefits to their slaves and serfs, but that's irrelevant because, like capitalism, those systems of production were oppressive. The relationship between capitalist employers and their employees isn't that much different than that of a master and a slave, and that's why Adam Smith the father of capitalism, identifies capitalist employers as "masters", as I showed in a previous post. As communists, we declare, "No gods, No masters".

Capitalism is a system of human exploitation that undermines democracy and human progress. It will, just like chattel slavery and feudalism, go the way of the dodo, as advanced automation and artificial intelligence continue to advance, making production more efficient and easier.

The labor is cheap? Was it cheaper before capitalism? Where?
Where did capitalism increase poverty? Be specific.

In every exploited, developing nation in the third world, in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, you'll find the detrimental effects of capitalism, in the form of gross inequality, a low standard of living, lack of regulations for commerce, lack of worker-rights and labor unions..etc. Practically every nation, from Honduras to Congo, is under the heel of foreign colonial powers and capitalist elites.

​

They'll make more money in the empire, and hopefully live a better life. Capitalism essentially is the exploitation of human labor by a wealthy class of private property owners, in pursuit of their profits. However, in the global north or empire workers tend to make more money and enjoy a higher standard of living, hence why people migrate to the north from the global south. It's that simple. Watch the video I embedded above for more information on how that works.



The exploitation in the empire is less, due to a more robust government regulatory structure protecting the rights of workers, and workers make more money. That's obviously why they come here.



No, he never starved anyone. That's nothing more than Western Cold War propaganda.



You ignore the evidence presented to you and pretend people are lying. That's your problem, not mine.




If the world is mostly capitalist, under the heel and control of the US-run economic system, then when the United States imposes sanctions upon a country, all other capitalist countries fall in line lest they suffer the same fate as the countries that are being sanctioned. Most capitalist countries would trade with Cuba and Venezuela, but they're afraid of the United States, imposing fines and sanctions upon them. They turn poor, developing socialist countries, trying to get on their feet, into international lepers, that no one wants to touch due to American bullying and threats.

Are you aware that any cargo ship that anchors in Cuba or Venezuela, can't anchor in an American port for six months? Cargo ships are expensive and to have them barred from the largest economy in the world, after anchoring in a Cuban or Venezuelan port isn't an option. That undermines their business and trade, hence they avoid Cuba and Venezuela.

Banks around the world are afraid to do business with Cubans and Venezuelans because the US often audits their business transactions and if they see that the bank is doing business with any of these sanctioned countries, they get fined.



Unfortunately, we don't live in that ideal world where all nations have communist economies. We live in a capitalist-run world, hence communists have to either trade with a few communist nations or with capitalist-run nations willing to do business with communists. As a communist I'm willing to do business with capitalists, provided I'm not under their control and rule, being exploited by them.



Communists have to survive in a world that is mostly run by capitalists, so interacting with them is necessary and unavoidable. If communists are constantly being sanctioned economically, by powerful capitalist empires that control most of the world's trade, and they're threatening other capitalist nations not to trade with communists, then that's going to make the situation much more difficult for communists than it would be if everyone could trade freely, without restrictions and threats.

So again, you don't have much of an argument against communism, when the US, the world's capitalist empire and hegemon, is imposing brutal sanctions on developing socialist countries and threatening them with war. When the US isolates these developing socialist countries by threatening everyone who chooses to trade and establish normal diplomatic relations with them, that's an act of war. No one can reasonably expect these small, developing countries to properly develop, while at war with the world's current most powerful capitalist empire.

In every exploited, developing nation in the third world, in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, you'll find the detrimental effects of capitalism, in the form of gross inequality, a low standard of living, lack of regulations for commerce, lack of worker-rights and labor unions..etc. Practically every nation, from Honduras to Congo, is under the heel of foreign colonial powers and capitalist elites.

Any evidence that they were better off before capitalism came and offered them jobs?