The point of capitalism is that profits go to those who work hard to earn them. Why would I bust my ass as an employee if you're just sitting on your ass, and you're still going to receive the bulk of the reward?
> The point of capitalism is that profits go to those who work hard to earn them.
No, the point of capitalism -- and for which its critics named it "capitalism" -- is that profits go to those who own capital.
The idea that the proceeds generated by hard work should go to those working hard rather than being captured by capital was sort of the central criticism aimed at the dominant system of the developed world in the 19th century by the critics that gave that system the name "capitalism".
Right; communism isn't "those who work hard reap rewards", but rather "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" (by way of the collective: collect and redistribute).
However, in actual communist countries in the former Eastern Bloc, they also chanted opposite slogans like "let him who does not work, not eat!". Certain "anti-social elements" not making the mimimum effort were not to have their needs met by the collective.
You guys make some good points & jokes, but to clarify, I was objecting to the "profits" part of "profits go to those who work hard to earn them". Under communism, workers own the means of production, so the profits of their labor go to them. Under capitalism, workers get paid a wage but the company profits go to the owners, who generally aren't dripping with blood, sweat, and tears after an initial startup phase.
Under communism, there are still structures that resemble corporations: they are just state-owned. In these corporations there are layers of management, with bosses at the top who earn big salaries. They have access to the flow of money and materials, and use that privilege to their own personal advantage.
Workers owning the means of production under communism is an empty concept. The workers don't actually hold any deeds that show they own some concrete share of anything, with a concrete monetary figure attached to that share.
Proper ownership means that you hold the title to a piece of the pie, and you can cash that out if you want to leave that system. That cannot be under communism, because freely held shares are private ownership. As soon as you have that, some workers will buy out shares from others creating inequality. Speaking of leaving the system: for many people from the Eastern Bloc between the 1940's and 1980's, that meant getting over some barbed wire fence, and losing everything they had. (Conforming that they actually owned nothing.)
The idea that everyone owns everything under communism is purely symbolic. In fact the state owns everything, and those who run the state, who have all the power, effectively are the state, and so they are effectively the owners.
