Does capitalism have an end goal?

Question

Occasionally I find that things such as "incentives" in a capitalist economy are as if they would be directed to a certain outcome or certain outcomes. E.g. that profit incentives matter only in so far the firm or the individual finds profit motivating and the incentives vanish when they cannot be motivated by profit any more. Also this can perhaps be seen so that the firm innovates or produces only so much until their profit motive is satisfied and halts after that.

If we then think of this kind of fulfilling the profit motive in a societal scale, then does capitalism have an end? Is there some goal that its pushing forward to, given that it stresses these incentives?

Alternatively, if there are no incentives, it can be claimed that "progress" is halted. Which implies that "progress" is meaningful (because halting it is not wanted)? What then does this progress progress to? Why is it meaningful?

Answer 1

A Libertarian may say that Capitalism's end goal is to provide personal economic growth through production and sale in the market. This in turn provides a wealth of goods from which all the masses can acquire from the market.

However, to a Marxist, Capitalism also has a conflict induced purpose focused on allowing Capitalists to maintain power and control in society. This is not necessarily true, however is historically true to a significant degree.

If we say that the first phase of modern Capitalism emerged with the onset of the industrial age. That is, up until this time, production was directly related to labor, and therefore labor was a relatively fixed term. Thus, as industrial production outpaced human capabilities, labor then became an abstraction separate from the physical production of a product. To produce at this new rate, one had to first invest in the machinery - termed "the Means of Production". This initial investment linked access to capital, which is unevenly distributed in society, to Capitalism. Those people who controlled the Means of Production were termed Capitalists or "the Bourgeoise"

Marx argues that, separate from the Bourgeoise, there is a second class that forms - "The Proletariat". It is comprised of the people who offer their labor in the market place in exchange for receive an income.

Marx's argument continues to describe how the two groups are structured at odds with each other, but that is not necessary material for this question, unless you agree with his position, and include maintaining class division as another end goal of Capitalism as institutionalized by the Bourgeoisie.

Answer 2

Short answer: no.

Long answer: Capitalism isn't a static concept, it's a term made up to describe an aspect of many economic implementations around the world today. Those economic implementations vary wildly.

Historically, capitalism can't have an end goal because it's origin doesn't point to any single actor or body. Rather, I'd describe it as a by-product of human nature. Even before the phenomenon became linked with the state system we were, behaviorally, capitalistic. That is, wanting to exploit our environment toward the end of survival / child-rearing.

What we're seeing now isn't so much the birth of a particular mode of production, but rather the behavioral tendency being tied up with the state and codified with a more robust legal apparatus.

And so while it can be comforting to imagine that economies around the world are intentional and centrally organized, this is actually not the case. Political science goes pretty deep on the rise of the state system and capitalism, but a broader explanation is beyond the scope of this answer.

One thing I'll add, however, is that Capitalism works toward the end of our quality of life (the life of the one capitalizing) in the short term. But I'd describe Capitalism in this sense as an effect, our natural tendency to capitalize is the cause. So if any aim can be identified, this is it, but Capitalism is a result, our behavior is the ultimate cause.

Answer 3

According to Marx, who remains one of the most astute and comprehensive critics of Capitalism, it is a system of social organization that has only the abstract quantitative "goal" of the self-accumulation of "value," which is measured by, though not the same as, money.

He used the simple formula M-C-M' to describe the process of money becoming Capital becoming more money, etc. There is no "end" goal, or eschatology, simply the eternal repetition of this process. The process, to capitalist apologists, continually elevates production and the general living standard. Such progress is then measured by a rising stock market and GDP.

This is all very well, except for the internal contradictions that Marx and others have analyzed. And as philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre has pointed out, this means there is no "common good" to provide political, social, or moral orientation. There is only self-interest on a mass scale and a continual division and accumulation property, which is presumably transformed, "as if by an invisible hand" into the greater good.

Moreover, the division of "surplus value" is highly unequal between owners of capital (major shareholders) and owners of labor (employees), and this inequality will only increase, causing social stresses. Without going into detail, Marx also diagnosed other necessary ills such as overproduction, waves of unemployment, and periodic collapse, such as the Great Depression.

Today, we would also add the social-environmental effects of the various "externalities" of capitalist production, from plastic waste and carbon exhaust to global migrations, altered landscapes, and capitalist interventions into national political systems.

So, Capitalism does not have an "end goal" in a Christian or Hegelian sense, but it does have a telos, one that is simply its own abstract accumulation. This may have many benefits, especially for individual owners of capital. But, as many have pointed out, it is a powerful global system that has no necessary correlation to human goals, whether individual or social.

Capitalism is, of course, enmeshed with other systems that may constrain or be destroyed by it. But as abstract self-accumulation it is entirely indifferent to whether its profits come from brilliant new technologies and medicines or from utter destruction, war, and disease. We can even see this plainly in the frequent disconnect between the stock market and the news, whether "good" or "bad." Capital has its purposes, but they are only coincidentally human.

Answer 4

While not a goal per se (as rationalized by the other respondents), I'd argue that unbridled (i.e. without external controls or regulatory strictures) capitalism will ultimately devolve into fascism where, through mergers, acquisitions, anticompetitive behaviors, etc., a single entity would become the sole source for all products and services, and government would operate as its marketing arm.

UPDATE

To be clear, while I do understand that capitalism is an economic principle rather than a form of government, my supposition is based upon observations of recent U.S. history which suggest that the U.S. form of representative democracy is swiftly being replaced by a plutocracy.

And as power is concentrated into fewer and fewer entities, without the checks provided by governmental regulation, the logical result of this process would be a single commercial entity that has completely captured the means of production and through its total control over the market, supplanted a plutocracy shared among a few entities with a single source of power and control, a fascist "uber-corporation".

"Capitalism degenerates into fascism when the precarious ally with the powerful to dominate the powerless. - Umair Harque (Why) Capitalism Degenerates Into Fascism

Of particular interest to me (and from which I partially reached my supposition) is Thomas Piketty's 2013 book Le Capital au XXIe siècle (the 2014 English translation of which is titled "Capital in the Twenty-First Century") which has garnered much interest and commentary:

"That is why Piketty has made such a huge impact: He has starkly and convincingly outlined the stakes for future generations. Either we'll have a new birth of reformed capitalism, with his preferred progressive wealth tax and other institutions, or we'll have wealth concentration on such a colossal scale that it will threaten the democratic order." - Ryan Cooper Why everyone is talking about Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century

"At a time when the concentration of wealth and income in the hands of a few has resurfaced as a central political issue, Piketty doesn’t just offer invaluable documentation of what is happening, with unmatched historical depth. He also offers what amounts to a unified field theory of inequality, one that integrates economic growth, the distribution of income between capital and labor, and the distribution of wealth and income among individuals into a single frame. ... Capital in the Twenty-First Century is an extremely important book on all fronts. Piketty has transformed our economic discourse; we’ll never talk about wealth and inequality the same way we used to." - Paul Krugman Why We’re in a New Gilded Age

"Will the world of 2050 or 2100,” Piketty asks, “be owned by traders, top managers, and the superrich, or will it belong to the oil producing countries or the Bank of China?” Actually, the answer doesn’t much matter. Whatever the exact makeup of this global plutocracy, democratic capitalism will be replaced by something more like Putin’s or Xi’s cronyist authoritarianism — unless populist progressive forces can implement a global wealth tax ASAP. And if that can’t happen right away, 80 percent top income-tax rates would be a solid first step. - James Pethokoukis The New Marxism

And Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page's Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens:

"If policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."

And finally, this alarming quote from a scion of the "new economy" which seems to invoke the spectre of fascism:

"The fate of our world may depend on the effort of a single person who builds or propagates the machinery of freedom that makes the world safe for capitalism." - Peter Thiel The Education of a Libertarian

Answer 5

I'd say the end goal of capitalism realistically is to make so much money that money doesn't motivate you anyway... and also so that you can afford enough taxes to let poor people be happy as well.

Then nobody has to work, because government-employed gunmen (a.k.a. Police) force robot owners to feed everybody, and everybody pays robot-owners with their universal basic income.

Answer 6

On some views in political philosophy, the value capitalism is meant to promote is self-ownership, a Lockean ideal. A classic statement of a position along these lines is given in Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974).

Answer 7

That depends on how you define "capitalism" and how you define "end goal".

For example in some narratives forwarded by apologists of capitalism, capitalism is described as a meritocracy, aristocracy, technocracy or any other variety of a prosperity gospel or it's mirror image. Like instead of seeing the vast inequality among people as a problem those narratives argue that those who are better off are simply "better" or vice versa that being better off is a sign of being "better". Where "better" can mean anything from "physically stronger" and "more capable" to "more moral" or whatnot.

So to those, capitalism, the economic system responsible for this inequality due to it's mode of production, isn't solving any problem and therefore doesn't have an inherent "end goal" but is just promoting the best people into positions of power.

Now you could argue whether "power" itself is a suitable method of problem solving or whether a top-down planned approach only really works for problems that we've already solved and only need to optimize and whether ANY problem has been solved to that level at all. And how cruel that would end up being if that a) doesn't work or b) only works for the "commander" who treats the rest as slaves in it's plan. How that whole narrative of wealth as a sign of competence is shaky at best and how you could count numerous examples where that narrative doesn't fit at all.

However that would imply that either capitalism and the inequality it produces will either "wither away" when the "big problem" that "requires the best to lead" is finally solved.

Or this is a permanent structure where you're always either leading (the minority of people) or following (the majority of people). At which point we're back at a conservatism where the structural hierarchy of inequality is presented as a "natural order" or "how it's supposed to be". A concept that is very antithetical to human history and pretty much fallen out of favor once education levels and transparency of the political process made it obvious how little that concept actually worked.

However that is just the apologists narrative for why the inequality produced by capitalism is secretly fine. The more fundamental problem is that it DOES creates and/or intensifies existing inequalities, which is a problem pretty ingrained in it's mode of production. So despite all these narratives likely being "false" or rather irrelevant to how capitalism actually works, there somehow needs to be a legitimization for why inequality is a thing because that creates some social tension and conflict.

And how does it work? Well if all expenses of capital are meant to return a profit and more capital= more profit then sooner or later everything would be in the hands of 1 person.

Which creates 2 problems. A) How would that person keep that, which likely entails that they have to share their wealth with underlings to prevent having to share it with even more people and B) What does it even mean to own everything.

So A) is largely a technological limitation. Like the limit of feudalism was largely the call of duty of the empire or in other words probably something like the speed of horses, ships and carrier pigeons. Which necessitates lower
aristocrats and fief managers who gained ownership and autonomy for loyalty. Now with capitalism the state takes the monopoly of violence and is omnipresent so that the necessity for fief managers to have ownership and autonomy has decreased. Or in other words you can have a global empire without owning it as a state. The state is just supposed to uphold the status quo.

Which is again where you need narratives to convince the sovereigns of these states (often the people) why the status quo should be tolerated in the first place. So despite technically being about economics capitalism is also a socio-political construct. As it needs a state to protect the status quo upon which it relies, so it must either convince, bribe, coerce, threaten or be the state.

And B) suppose it does become this omnipresent force of nature that owns everything then people are still in need of things. So unless the system possess the ability to produce without them,to kill/control and prevent them from rioting against the system it needs to give these people a way to survive.

And here there are again different scenarios. Like people could be forced to work towards their own enslavement and genocide. Like your supposed to automate a systems so that it is able to work without you and without your consent and is able to effectively suppress you.

Or you're supposed to continuously innovate and generate new products to please your overlords in exchange for everyday necessities. Maybe they even realize that giving you more stuff and autonomy grants better results, thus reducing inequality or they don't care for novelty all that much and rather keep the inequality.

The problem is that capitalism itself is just a paperclip maximizer or maybe a "profit" maximizer. So what it actually ends up doing depends on the human element in it and that is to some extend less predictable.