What is the goal of capitalism?

[Red Front]

You are just fooling yourself

The chinese dictatorship has been communist since Mao created it in the 1920’s

Under communism individuals have no rights and no value except to serve the state

That's not communism, that's the capitalist rhetoric against communism. This is the definition of communism:

"Communist societies also promote the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state.[7][8][9] Communists often seek a voluntary state of self-governance but disagree on the means to this end."

Source:

Communism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Go to any encyclopedia and you will see the same definition:

"Marx identified two phases of communism that would follow the predicted overthrow of capitalism: the first would be a transitional system in which the working class would control the government and economy yet still find it necessary to pay people according to how long, hard, or well they worked, and the second would be fully realized communism—a society without class divisions or government, in which the production and distribution of goods would be based upon the principle “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Marx’s followers, especially the Russian revolutionary Vladimir Ilich Lenin, took up this distinction."

Source:

Communism | Definition, History, Varieties, & Facts | Britannica

Communism, political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society.

www.britannica.com

Socialism is the revolutionary process that leads to a communist society, without a state, socioeconomic classes or the need for money. That's communism. The definition that you are pulling out of your ass, ignoring all of the encyclopedias, dictionaries and more importantly the writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin, isn't communism. It's "communism" in your little mind, because you're an imbecile, who doesn't care about the truth, but that isn't communism. It's only "communism" for you.

Mak-7 ​

 

[Mac-7]

That's not communism, that's the capitalist rhetoric against communism. This is the definition of communism:

"Communist societies also promote the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state.[7][8][9] Communists often seek a voluntary state of self-governance but disagree on the means to this end."

Source:

Communism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Go to any encyclopedia and you will see the same definition:

"Marx identified two phases of communism that would follow the predicted overthrow of capitalism: the first would be a transitional system in which the working class would control the government and economy yet still find it necessary to pay people according to how long, hard, or well they worked, and the second would be fully realized communism—a society without class divisions or government, in which the production and distribution of goods would be based upon the principle “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Marx’s followers, especially the Russian revolutionary Vladimir Ilich Lenin, took up this distinction."

Source:

Communism | Definition, History, Varieties, & Facts | Britannica

Communism, political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society.

www.britannica.com

Socialism is the revolutionary process that leads to a communist society, without a state, socioeconomic classes or the need for money. That's communism. The definition that you are pulling out of your ass, ignoring all of the encyclopedias, dictionaries and more importantly the writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin, isn't communism. It's "communism" in your little mind, because you're an imbecile, who doesn't care about the truth, but that isn't communism. It's only "communism" for you.

View attachment 802183
Mak-7 ​

The only arguement you have left are personal insults

I win

 

[Cellblock2429]

China is only communist in name, not in practice. If you knew the definition of communism, you would know that communism doesn't include markets. Socialism can include markets, but China has privatized so much of its production that it can hardly be called socialist. Western European countries are more socialistic than China.

Since the GOP often identifies AOC and Bernie Sanders as "commies", for promoting progressive policies, that are taken for granted in Western Europe, as normal, then it logically follows, that Western Europe is "commie", or at the very least socialist. Socialism is everywhere and in the not-too-distant future due to advanced automation and artificial intelligence, it will become necessary. Non-profit production or socialism, will eventually become a necessity.

/----/

 

[Red Front]

The only arguement you have left are personal insults

I win

Learn to think you moron. I can insult you and still be correct. One of the reasons I never tell Todd or any of the other capitalist apologists that are constantly insulting me, that they've lost the debate on account of insulting me, is because that's a logical fallacy. The fact that Todd and others like him, insult me, doesn't render their arguments wrong. They might be right, despite of them insulting me. You know what I do when they insult me? I just return the favor and insult them back. That's all.

You're ignoring all of the points that I make and continue repeating your cheap polemic, like a mindless automaton. You have no regard for any of the evidence that I present, completely ignoring it, and just continue repeating the same capitalist drivel, without addressing any of the points that I made. So you deserve to be called out for your bullshit and insulted. If you behave like a disingenuous, cynical shithead, you deserve to be insulted. Your opponent isn't wrong, on account of insulting you. Learn to think rationally.

 

[Mac-7]

Learn to think you moron. I can insult you and still be correct. One of the reasons I never tell Todd or any of the other capitalist apologists that are constantly insulting me, that they've lost the debate on account of insulting me, is because that's a logical fallacy. The fact that Todd and others like him, insult me, doesn't render their arguments wrong. They might be right, despite of them insulting me. You know what I do when they insult me? I just return the favor and insult them back. That's all.

You're ignoring all of the points that I make and continue repeating your cheap polemic, like a mindless automaton. You have no regard for any of the evidence that I present, completely ignoring it, and just continue repeating the same capitalist drivel, without addressing any of the points that I made. So you deserve to be called out for your bullshit and insulted. If you behave like a disingenuous, cynical shithead, you deserve to be insulted. Your opponent isn't wrong, on account of insulting you. Learn to think rationally.

You insult people because we dont accept the same bs and screwy logic that was fed to you

That obviously pisses you off

 

[Red Front]

You insult people because we dont accept the same bs and screwy logic that was fed to you

That obviously pisses you off

Again, more of your stupid, irrational comments. You disagreeing with me by addressing the points that I make and telling me why the evidence that I present is wrong, won't incur my insults. I appreciate and respect honest criticism of my views, and will never insult someone who does that. If you insult me by ignoring everything that I write to you, regurgitating the same baseless assertions, without evidence or even as much as a good, rational argument, then you deserve for me to insult you right back. I will call you out for your disingenuous responses. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

 

[Mac-7]

Again, more of your stupid, irrational comments. You disagreeing with me by addressing the points that I make and telling me why the evidence that I present is wrong, won't incur my insults. I appreciate and respect honest criticism of my views, and will never insult someone who does that. If you insult me by ignoring everything that I write to you, regurgitating the same baseless assertions, without evidence or even as much as a good, rational argument, then you deserve for me to insult you right back. I will call you out for your disingenuous responses. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

I go straight to the bottom line

All your excuses for the failure of communism add up to a big zero

Communism failed in the Soviet Union and China

 

[Red Front]

I go straight to the bottom line

All your excuses for the failure of communism add up to a big zero

Communism failed in the Soviet Union and China

The "bottom line" is that you disingenuously ignore all of the points that I made in response to your flippant dismissal of communism and socialism. You ignore what communism actually is, conjuring up your own self-serving, personal definition. You're unable to give a fair assessment of Soviet history, pretending the Soviets accomplished nothing. You rely on irrational arguments that assert failure in the past under horrible conditions, equates to failure forever under all conditions.

The monarchists of the 17th century used the same arguments against Republicans and the mercantile class that you are dishonestly and irrationally resorting to now. The idea that one day, capitalism would replace feudalism, was considered a laughable pipe dream by the European ruling elites. Well, capitalists got the last laugh, because when the technology was available for the capitalist class to industrialize the economy, they became the ruling elite, acquiring even more power than the kings and nobles of Europe. The economy shifted from the trade of textiles and raw agricultural products to mass industrial production and the trade of raw materials for industrial manufacturing.

The mercantile, capitalist class didn't become powerful industrialists until the conditions permitted them to industrialize, and replace feudalism, and most of the royal aristocracy. Capitalism established republics, in place of absolute monarchies. Did that happen overnight? No. So why do you demand that communism replace capitalism, overnight, to prove itself a viable successor to capitalism? Why do you suffer from such an irrational, disingenuous assessment of history?

The fact that the socialist Soviet experiment of the 20th century failed, doesn't imply that other socialist attempts to establish a centrally planned economy will likewise fail. The circumstances we're in today might actually facilitate if not necessitate the adoption of a centrally planned, state-run socialist economy. All of the evidence is pointing in that direction, due to advanced automation and artificial intelligence.

More, most economies in the modern, industrialized world, have mixed economies. They have market capitalism, with socialism. Some Western European countries, like Germany, Spain, and Portugal, have socialist majorities in their parliaments. Their governments are being led by democratic socialists.

Look at the way these GOP, FOX News right-wingers are constantly accusing AOC and other progressive democrats, like Bernie Sanders, of being "commies". They declare progressives as "commies", because these progressive Democrats, are for universal Medicare, tuition-free education, labor unions, housing for the poor, a $15 minimum wage, paid sick leave, paid maternity leave, women's rights, LGBTQA+ rights..etc. The exact same policies are taken for granted in most of the industrialized world. According to these GOP - FOX News Hannity, right-wingers, all of Western Europe is "commie".

Communism according to Karl Marx, Engels, and Lenin, is a society without a state (or with a small state), with no socioeconomic classes or the need for money. Not even the USSR, was communist according to Karl Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Socialism is the process that leads to a stateless society, without classes or need for money. That revolutionary process might include markets, in the consumer goods and services sector of the economy, it will always include a state, and at least some central planning. The mixed economies of Western Europe, are for all intents and purposes, in the earliest stage of communism, being led by socialist parties and politicians. If AOC and Bernie are "commies", then Western Europe is 100% commie.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why not? You can accomplish many things, then in the end fail or suffer defeat. That doesn't imply that you won't win in the future or that conditions won't improve, allowing you to flourish. You're disingenuous and irrational. Why won't communism, ever succeed, even with advanced technology?

Why not?

Because they both suck.

That doesn't imply that you won't win in the future or that conditions won't improve, allowing you to flourish.

Why would things work in the future, Dorothy? You clicking your heels together?

Why won't communism, ever succeed, even with advanced technology?

It doesn't work because there are no incentives. Except for the gulag.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Respectfully disagree. Capitalism can mostly function quite well without socialism, but it does require effective government oversight.

That government "oversight" is plenty of good regulation, law enforcement..etc. All of that costs money and when capitalists are left to their own devices and lust for profits and power, the result is monopolies, cronyism, boom, and bust cycles (i.e. "the business cycle"), requiring the government to save the economy with public funds, a.k.a. "bailouts". You can deny it, but that' the reality.

Why should the American people allow private business owners, a few billionaires to own all of the infrastructure of our country, including its vital resources, utilities..etc? The industries that are vital to our nation's infrastructure, like energy, mining, all of the utilities that we rely on, our military-industrial complex, and finance, should be nationalized and owned by the American public through their democratic government.

I have VA benefits, and you may not know the quality of care that we have through government-run healthcare, but it's good. Yes, it could be better, but you improve it by funding it and making the necessary adjustments. We should have a VA-type system, for everyone in America. Privately owned and run healthcare can still exist, but there should be a government healthcare system for all Americans, not just veterans. No one is complaining about the healthcare our active duty military personnel is receiving, because it's great care. There's no reason why local and state governments funded by the federal government, can't offer everyone healthcare. I also believe in medical freedom. If you can afford it, use private healthcare.

Which unfortunately we don't have in this country and neither does/did the USSR or China. I think it is true however that when policies and programs are put in place that helps everybody, such as the interstate highway system, roads and bridges and such, then capitalism flourishes better.

Not just that, we have to provide everyone in America with a Bill Of Economic Rights. Food, housing, healthcare, an education, and employment, should be considered human rights. Rights everyone is born with. No one in America should starve, be homeless, uneducated, and unemployed. If you can't find a job in the private sector, you should have one in the public sector.

But it is by no means going to collapse every few years, that is nonsense.

That's exactly what happens, every few years. Check it out. Google "government bailouts" and "boom and bust economic cycles". Our government bailsout big industries to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars to keep our economy from collapsing. Without the government bailouts, our economy would be in ruins. There would be war, due to the extreme inequality and austerities that the public would be subjected to. Laissez-faire capitalism leads to abject poverty for tens of millions of people, decimating the economy. Monopolies, cronyism and a concentration of wealth and power at the top are endemic symptoms of capitalism.

Here are just a few of the bailouts, there are many more:

1. 1900-2000:
   1. 1933 - Emergency Banking Act
      • Cause: To stabilize the banking system during the Great Depression.
   2. 1971 - Lockheed Bailout
      • Cause: Lockheed Corporation faced bankruptcy due to cost overruns and problems with the L-1011 Tristar airplane.
   3. 1974 - Franklin National Bank Bailout
      • Cause: The bank failed due to mismanagement and fraud.
   4. 1980 - Chrysler Bailout
      • Cause: Chrysler Corporation faced financial difficulties due to high fuel prices, competition, and recession.
   5. 1984 - Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Bailout
      • Cause: Continental Illinois suffered significant losses due to bad loans.
   6. 1989 - Savings and Loan Crisis
      • Cause: Savings and loan associations suffered from bad loans and financial mismanagement.
   7. 2000-2021:
   8. 2001 - Federal Reserve Response to Dot-Com Bubble Burst
      • Cause: The Federal Reserve lowered interest rates to mitigate the economic downturn following the bursting of the dot-com bubble.
   9. 2001 - Airline Bailouts Post 9/11
      • Cause: Airlines faced financial difficulties following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
   10. 2008-2009 - Financial Crisis Bailouts
       • Cause: The financial crisis of 2008 was due to the collapse of the housing bubble.
   11. 2009 - Automotive Industry Bailout
       • Cause: The automotive industry was severely impacted by the financial crisis of 2008 and the recession.
   12. 2008 - Bear Stearns Bailout
       • Cause: Bear Stearns faced collapse due to its heavy exposure to subprime mortgages and was acquired by JPMorgan Chase with government assistance.
   13. 2008 - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Bailout
       • Cause: These government-sponsored enterprises faced insolvency due to exposure to the U.S. housing market.
   14. 2020-2021 - Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act
       • Cause: The COVID-19 pandemic caused widespread economic disruption.

Without government intervention, we wouldn't have an economy.

The American System, involved plenty of government intervention. Without it we wouldn't have industrialized.

American System (economic plan) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1. 1933 - Emergency Banking Act
   
   • Cause: To stabilize the banking system during the Great Depression.

Russia solved that issue. No banking system at all.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In 1980, about 70% of the working class was considered "middle class", whereas today the middle class is about 40% of the working class.

Link?

 

[Red Front]

1. 1933 - Emergency Banking Act
   
   • Cause: To stabilize the banking system during the Great Depression.

Russia solved that issue. No banking system at all.

Central planning.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Central planning.

Failed.

 

[Red Front]

Link?

Why not?

Because they both suck.

That doesn't imply that you won't win in the future or that conditions won't improve, allowing you to flourish.

Why would things work in the future, Dorothy? You clicking your heels together?

Why won't communism, ever succeed, even with advanced technology?

It doesn't work because there are no incentives. Except for the gulag.

Sorry, but you're not making much sense. The motivation is to have access to the goods and services that you consume and use. When automation and artificial intelligence become advanced enough, we will be forced by necessity to adopt a non-profit, centrally planned system of production. The means of production will no longer be in the hands of a few capitalists, but publicly owned and managed. The alternative is for everyone to be dirt poor, living on a UBI (Universal Basic Income), and a few billionaires owning all of the robots and technology. Everyone who once sold their labor power to a capitalist will become worthless, under a capitalist system. We will be living under a type of techno-feudalism. I prefer high-tech central planning, in a socialist economy, where we all own the technology together.

 

[Red Front]

Failed.

Not at all, it turned Russia into an industrial juggernaut and the second-largest economy in the world. A nuclear superpower. All of the Western academics, the experts, who study Soviet history, with few exceptions, admit that the USSR was the second largest economy in the world.

IMF, WORLD BANK AND UN DATA:

You can deny it, like a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist, but that is the consensus.
​

For the sake of argument, let's assume that central planning didn't work in the past, under more primitive conditions, lack of technology..etc. Why would you assume it won't work now or in the future when we have the technology to do all of the accounting, logistics, and manufacturing? Your assumption that it will never work on account of the Soviet Union being defeated is based on poor logic.

 

[Red Front]

Link?

The Shrinking Middle Class

Whether looking at the past 50 years in the United States or at the recent global impact of the pandemic, we see a shrinking middle class.

econlife.com

​

 

[Mac-7]

The "bottom line" is that you disingenuously ignore all of the points that I made in response to your flippant dismissal of communism and socialism. You ignore what communism actually is, conjuring up your own self-serving, personal definition. You're unable to give a fair assessment of Soviet history, pretending the Soviets accomplished nothing. You rely on irrational arguments that assert failure in the past under horrible conditions, equates to failure forever under all conditions.

The monarchists of the 17th century used the same arguments against Republicans and the mercantile class that you are dishonestly and irrationally resorting to now. The idea that one day, capitalism would replace feudalism, was considered a laughable pipe dream by the European ruling elites. Well, capitalists got the last laugh, because when the technology was available for the capitalist class to industrialize the economy, they became the ruling elite, acquiring even more power than the kings and nobles of Europe. The economy shifted from the trade of textiles and raw agricultural products to mass industrial production and the trade of raw materials for industrial manufacturing.

The mercantile, capitalist class didn't become powerful industrialists until the conditions permitted them to industrialize, and replace feudalism, and most of the royal aristocracy. Capitalism established republics, in place of absolute monarchies. Did that happen overnight? No. So why do you demand that communism replace capitalism, overnight, to prove itself a viable successor to capitalism? Why do you suffer from such an irrational, disingenuous assessment of history?

The fact that the socialist Soviet experiment of the 20th century failed, doesn't imply that other socialist attempts to establish a centrally planned economy will likewise fail. The circumstances we're in today might actually facilitate if not necessitate the adoption of a centrally planned, state-run socialist economy. All of the evidence is pointing in that direction, due to advanced automation and artificial intelligence.

More, most economies in the modern, industrialized world, have mixed economies. They have market capitalism, with socialism. Some Western European countries, like Germany, Spain, and Portugal, have socialist majorities in their parliaments. Their governments are being led by democratic socialists.

Look at the way these GOP, FOX News right-wingers are constantly accusing AOC and other progressive democrats, like Bernie Sanders, of being "commies". They declare progressives as "commies", because these progressive Democrats, are for universal Medicare, tuition-free education, labor unions, housing for the poor, a $15 minimum wage, paid sick leave, paid maternity leave, women's rights, LGBTQA+ rights..etc. The exact same policies are taken for granted in most of the industrialized world. According to these GOP - FOX News Hannity, right-wingers, all of Western Europe is "commie".

Communism according to Karl Marx, Engels, and Lenin, is a society without a state (or with a small state), with no socioeconomic classes or the need for money. Not even the USSR, was communist according to Karl Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Socialism is the process that leads to a stateless society, without classes or need for money. That revolutionary process might include markets, in the consumer goods and services sector of the economy, it will always include a state, and at least some central planning. The mixed economies of Western Europe, are for all intents and purposes, in the earliest stage of communism, being led by socialist parties and politicians. If AOC and Bernie are "commies", then Western Europe is 100% commie.

There you go with your long-winded monologues

Communism is zero for as many places as its been tried

And if it ever comes to America it will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs

Because eventually top down state rule is always a failure

Humans must have a reason to work beyond serving the goals of the state

 

[Red Front]

There you go with your long-winded monologues

Communism is zero for as many places as its been tried

And if it ever comes to America it will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs

Because eventually top down state rule is always a failure

Humans must have a reason to work beyond serving the goals of the state

You don't want a thorough analysis of the issues, but rather to just exchange short, irrelevant comments. That's what you do. I don't really respond for your sake, I do it for the sake of others, who unlike you, might be genuinely interested in the truth. I write to sincere truth seekers.

People work to eat and have a roof over their heads. It's not to "serve the state". You keep ignoring that in communism there is no state. You have your own personal definition of communism.

Socialism is the early stage of communism, and that is everywhere. The whole world is moving to the left economically. You can put your head in the sand, but that's the truth. Western Europe by the metric set by the GOP and FOX Hannity is "commie". If AOC and Bernie Sanders are "commie", then Western Europe is 100% commie.

 

[Mac-7]

You don't want a thorough analysis of the issues, but rather to just exchange short, irrelevant comments. That's what you do. I don't really respond for your sake, I do it for the sake of others, who unlike you, might be genuinely interested in the truth. I write to sincere truth seekers.

People work to eat and have a roof over their heads. It's not to "serve the state". You keep ignoring that in communism there is no state. You have your own personal definition of communism.

Socialism is the early stage of communism, and that is everywhere. The whole world is moving to the left economically. You can put your head in the sand, but that's the truth. Western Europe by the metric set by the GOP and FOX Hannity is "commie". If AOC and Bernie Sanders are "commie", then Western Europe is 100% commie.

You are just making excuses for failure and implying it will be better next time when much smarter commies like you are in charge

But I’m not an impressionable teenager with no life experiences to guide me, and I see the sales pitch for what it really is

 

[Cellblock2429]

That's not communism, that's the capitalist rhetoric against communism. This is the definition of communism:

"Communist societies also promote the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state.[7][8][9] Communists often seek a voluntary state of self-governance but disagree on the means to this end."

Source:

Communism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Go to any encyclopedia and you will see the same definition:

"Marx identified two phases of communism that would follow the predicted overthrow of capitalism: the first would be a transitional system in which the working class would control the government and economy yet still find it necessary to pay people according to how long, hard, or well they worked, and the second would be fully realized communism—a society without class divisions or government, in which the production and distribution of goods would be based upon the principle “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Marx’s followers, especially the Russian revolutionary Vladimir Ilich Lenin, took up this distinction."

Source:

Communism | Definition, History, Varieties, & Facts | Britannica

Communism, political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society.

www.britannica.com

Socialism is the revolutionary process that leads to a communist society, without a state, socioeconomic classes or the need for money. That's communism. The definition that you are pulling out of your ass, ignoring all of the encyclopedias, dictionaries and more importantly the writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin, isn't communism. It's "communism" in your little mind, because you're an imbecile, who doesn't care about the truth, but that isn't communism. It's only "communism" for you.

View attachment 802183
Mak-7 ​

/----/ You keep pushing your slave state while ignoring its obvious failures.

Soviet Union - Perestroika, Economic Crisis, and Gorbachev Leadership​

The economic stagnation of the late Brezhnev era was the result of various factors: the exhaustion of easily available resources, especially raw materials, and the growing structural imbalance of the economy due to the distorting effects of the incentive system, which paralyzed initiative and dissuaded people from doing an honest day's work.