What is the goal of capitalism?

[Moonglow]

This is just a philosophical question. Is there a goal for capitalism at all? Is it to maximize personal liberty or production? or is it to maximize well being?

It ain't Nirvana.

 

[Red Front]

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?

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

He doesn't "deserve", or should be entitled to exploit his workers, in any way. You have to modify the question, into a more complex, nuanced question, which may take a short description. Todd could ask:

"The defacto situation under capitalism is that the capitalist class owns the means of production and the working class has to sell their labor power to them for a wage, in order to survive. In view of that reality, how much of the surplus value of their labor, should the working class allow the capitalists to take?"

My answer is:

First of all, the working class, struggling to survive under capitalism, should "combine" (Adam Smith used the word "combine" for UNIONIZE). Adam Smith considered by many to be the "father of capitalism", recognized that the "masters" (capitalists), have more leverage over their workers when negotiating the terms of employment (which of course includes wages and benefits). This is what the father of capitalism wrote in his book "The Wealth Of Nations" about the power dynamic between masters (capitalist employers) and their employees (working class):

" What are the common wages of labour (employees), depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties (employees vs employers), whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen (employees) desire to get as much (money and benefits as possible), the masters (the employers) to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine (unionize) in order to raise (their wages and benefits), the latter in order to lower the wages of labour.

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 (super-PACs, chambers of commerce, industry associations, guilds, armies of lobbyists in the halls of government legally bribing politicians, think/stink tanks writing legislation to hand the lobbyists who then hand those policy "white papers"/"studies"/ even fully-written bills, to politicians, a large contingent of cronies in government serving their vested interests often at the expense of the working class and public at large) ; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen (whether through direct policies that make it illegal for the working class to form unions or through policies that fail to protect employees from their powerful, wealthy employers/masters, when they try to unionize).

We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, or merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long-run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him, but the necessity is not so immediate."
(Book I, Chapter VIII) - EMPHASIS MINE

Adam Smith had enough personal integrity to admit the above circumstances that the working class finds itself in. So Todd, how much can the masters/employers, take from the output of what workers produce? What should the terms of employment be between masters and their servants/employees? Whatever both parties, legally agree upon.

As communists, we consider unionizing labor a revolutionary act (especially under capitalism), that empowers workers to effectively negotiate their terms of employment with more leverage (teeth). As leftists, just as the capitalist masters do, we try to get the government to ensure and protect our rights as workers (our class interests). Taking control of the government to serve our interests, is also a revolutionary act.

Class struggle doesn't necessarily manifest itself in a hot war, with both sides firing bullets at each other. To the extent that we the working class can take control of the means of production and the government, peacefully, without firing a shot, we will always opt for that less violent option.

​

There should be unions for both private-sector labor and public (government) labor. The state should always be under the heel of the people. People should have no masters, only elected leadership and those who are appointed by them (bureaucrats under the authority of elected officials). Capitalist masters shouldn't exist, so they don't deserve to extract "surplus value" from other people's labor, BUT that's the defacto situation at the moment, hence workers should at least be able to unionize to negotiate how deep the capitalist's giant pecker will penetrate their rectums.

​

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?

This is another one of those questions, where you make certain assumptions about "rights" and what people "deserve", based on material conditions that we communists don't recognize as legitimizing the capitalist's legal ownership of the means of production or his exploitation and commodification of human labor. We believe capitalists don't have the right to own the means of production, but rather it should be owned by the workers who work the enterprise. However, as in the last question you asked, I will answer this one in the same way.

The defacto circumstance that we currently find ourselves in under capitalism, is that there's a privileged class of people whose members individually possess more money/capital/resources than working-class people (how they acquired the capital is irrelevant). Because of this, they own the means of production (the facilities, land, machinery, equipment, etc.). The fact that the master/employer legally owns the means of production should have no bearing on how deep his giant dick will penetrate the rectum of his employees. All of that should be negotiated by the master/s and their employees (HUMAN LABOR, not dogs, cats, chimps, HUMAN BEINGS).

​

I will end this with George Carlin's, humorous, yet prophetic, epic rant about the power dynamic of the relationship between the masters and the working class:

​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He doesn't "deserve", or should be entitled to exploit his workers, in any way. You have to modify the question, into a more complex, nuanced question, which may take a short description. Todd could ask:

"The defacto situation under capitalism is that the capitalist class owns the means of production and the working class has to sell their labor power to them for a wage, in order to survive. In view of that reality, how much of the surplus value of their labor, should the working class allow the capitalists to take?"

My answer is:

​

He doesn't "deserve", or should be entitled to exploit his workers, in any way.

His factory, his equipment, his raw materials etc.
The worker doesn't create his "surplus value" in a vacuum.
So how much of the "surplus value" does the employer deserve to
earn a return on all his investment?

Try to give a straight answer without thousands of extra words of commie pap.

 

[dblack]

He doesn't "deserve", or should be entitled to exploit his workers, in any way.

His factory, his equipment, his raw materials etc.
The worker doesn't create his "surplus value" in a vacuum.
So how much of the "surplus value" does the employer deserve to
earn a return on all his investment?

Try to give a straight answer without thousands of extra words of commie pap.

Under communism, only government officials we the people get to own things.

 

[dblack]

Ultimately, capitalism vs communism comes to down to an appraisal of the value and applicability of "democracy". Communists want every-damned-thing to be subject to majority rule. Capitalists prefer freedom.

 

[Red Front]

He doesn't "deserve", or should be entitled to exploit his workers, in any way.

His factory, his equipment, his raw materials etc.
The worker doesn't create his "surplus value" in a vacuum.
So how much of the "surplus value" does the employer deserve to
earn a return on all his investment?

Try to give a straight answer without thousands of extra words of commie pap.

If you don't understand my answer, too bad. Not my fault. Here:

​

 

[Red Front]

Under communism, only government officials we the people get to own things.

In communism, we have a right to personal property, and can only own the means of production collectively.

 

[Red Front]

Ultimately, capitalism vs communism comes to down to an appraisal of the value and applicability of "democracy". Communists want every-damned-thing to be subject to majority rule. Capitalists prefer freedom.

Capitalists prefer minority rule. The "masters" want everything for themselves.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you don't understand my answer, too bad. Not my fault.

Your whining shows your ignorance of economics and the real world.
If the workers want to get all the "surplus value", they're free to buy the
company from the current owner. Or start their own.

Be careful, they'll probably have to borrow from an evil bank to do that.

You want them to use all that invested capital for free.

You sound like a petulant teenager, stomping your foot while crying, UNFAIR!!!!

With tears and snot running down your face.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Capitalists prefer minority rule. The "masters" want everything for themselves.

Not everything.

You can have "value", but they want all the "surplus value".

 

[Red Front]

Not everything.

You can have "value", but they want all the "surplus value".

They deserve nothing of the output of what is produced because they shouldn't own the means of production in the first place. The fact that the plutocratic government that they control grants them such a right, doesn't make it correct. Those who work in the enterprise should own it collectively.

 

[Red Front]

Your whining shows your ignorance of economics and the real world.
If the workers want to get all the "surplus value", they're free to buy the
company from the current owner. Or start their own.

Be careful, they'll probably have to borrow from an evil bank to do that.

You want them to use all that invested capital for free.

You sound like a petulant teenager, stomping your foot while crying, UNFAIR!!!!

With tears and snot running down your face.

No need to buy anything from anyone or launch a little capitalist dictatorship a.k.a. business enterprise. Capitalists don't have the right to own the means of production or exploit and commodify human labor for profit.

The working class should own the means of production collectively and strip capitalists of their ability to exploit human beings for profit and control government policy. As a society, we should discard capitalism as our mode of production and adopt a non-profit, highly computerized, automated, centrally planned system of production. Politically we should also move towards a bottom-up, council democracy, comprised of people's councils. This new government will employ the latest technology, allowing the public to easily and effectively participate in the political process.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They deserve nothing of the output of what is produced because they shouldn't own the means of production in the first place. The fact that the plutocratic government that they control grants them such a right, doesn't make it correct. Those who work in the enterprise should own it collectively.

they shouldn't own the means of production in the first place.

Shouldn't? LOL!

You're free to buy your own means of production here in the US,
not like in the USSR where they would execute you if you tried to do such a thing.
But instead of exercising that right and then giving your employees all the value
they produce, you whine like a little bitch.

Those who work in the enterprise should own it collectively.

Get all your little whiney bitch friends together and do it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No need to buy anything from anyone or launch a little capitalist dictatorship a.k.a. business enterprise. Capitalists don't have the right to own the means of production or exploit and commodify human labor for profit.

The working class should own the means of production collectively and strip capitalists of their ability to exploit human beings for profit and control government policy. As a society, we should discard capitalism as our mode of production and adopt a non-profit, highly computerized, automated, centrally planned system of production. Politically we should also move towards a bottom-up, council democracy, comprised of people's councils. This new government will employ the latest technology, allowing the public to easily and effectively participate in the political process.

​

Capitalists don't have the right to own the means of production or exploit and commodify human labor for profit.

And then you woke up, swearing to never do drugs again.

 

[Red Front]

Capitalists don't have the right to own the means of production or exploit and commodify human labor for profit.

And then you woke up, swearing to never do drugs again.

You or your progeny will be waking up in the near future, guaranteed...

ADVANCED AUTOMATION/ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE = NO MORE CAPITALISM. WAKE UP!​

 

[Red Front]

they shouldn't own the means of production in the first place.

Shouldn't? LOL!

You're free to buy your own means of production here in the US,
not like in the USSR where they would execute you if you tried to do such a thing.
But instead of exercising that right and then giving your employees all the value
they produce, you whine like a little bitch.

Those who work in the enterprise should own it collectively.

Get all your little whiney bitch friends together and do it.

Those who work the productive enterprise should own it collectively and run it democratically. All leadership, whether in politics or in the workplace, should be elected or appointed by those who are elected.

You can continue whining about how you supposedly have the right to be a parasite dictator, but nonetheless, you don't have that right. You capitalists live off of other people's labor, like leeches. That's what you are. A worthless middleman/leech, that the world doesn't need.

​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Those who work the productive enterprise should own it collectively and run it democratically. All leadership, whether in politics or in the workplace, should be elected or appointed by those who are elected.

So do it. Instead of whining like a little bitch failure.

 

[Red Front]

So do it. Instead of whining like a little bitch failure.

You're suffering from a horrible case of cognitive dissonance. All you can do is yawn, out of fear...

Not only is advanced automation and artificial intelligence, eliminating capitalism, but practically the whole world is moving to the left and preparing for a post-capitalist economy. Capitalism is going the way of the dinosaurs, within the next 20, maybe 30 years tops. I'm being quite conservative when I say 20 or 30 years, because I wouldn't be surprised if capitalism collapses within the next 10 or 15 years. Before 2040.

 

[dblack]

Capitalists prefer minority rule. The "masters" want everything for themselves.

Another false dichotomy. Lack of majority rule isn't minority rule. It's just lack of rule. Liberty. Something socialists find abhorrent because they are, essentially, authoritarians. They just excuse their zeal for totalitarian government by leaning on democracy, as though that makes it okay. It doesn't.

 

[Red Front]

Another false dichotomy. Lack of majority rule isn't minority rule. It's just lack of rule. Liberty. Something socialists find abhorrent because they are, essentially, authoritarians. They just excuse their zeal for totalitarian government by leaning on democracy, as though that makes it okay. It doesn't.

You want minority rule and we want the rule of the majority. You hate democracy, the rule of the people, because you want a plutocracy, where the vested interests of the rich rule, at the expense of the public. You love tyranny in government and in the workplace. Capitalist authoritarian rule is what you want.