Why Marxism doesn't work: a demonstration

[SpeedRacer 1]

A microcosm of Marxism

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[akarunway 1]

Quote

A microcosm of Marxism

Well. Today we're pretty much here>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat If it (communism) ever reached level seven it might not be a bad world. Will never happen tho. To many greedy people out there. May they all rot in hell w/ their money. The majority gained illegally.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[SpeedRacer 1]

The natural way of things is that you receive according to your intelligence & hard work.

The Marxist way is that you receive according to your neediness. There is little incentive to be productive in a Marxist system. Instead, there is an incentive to politically convince society of your Neediness, for that is the basis on which you receive any wealth.

Naturally, the whole pie shrinks as a result of this policy, so there is less of the pie to distribute, even if the pie is distributed evenly. That is why Marxist societies ultimately stagnate economically.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[nathaniel 0]

Is there a limit to optimization?

Could you ever imagine a time when automation & machines are able to keep up with or exceed people? If drilling for oil, or growing crops, &c could be 100% mechanized / cybernetic so that productivity gains were saturated & costs were essentially fully optimized down to supply/conversion of raw materials + other factors of production excluding labor...

Would Marxism or state control of mechanized industry then be justifiable?

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[billvon 2,427]

>Could you ever imagine a time when automation & machines are able to
>keep up with or exceed people? If drilling for oil, or growing crops, &c could
>be 100% mechanized / cybernetic so that productivity gains were saturated
>& costs were essentially fully optimized down to supply/conversion of raw
>materials + other factors of production excluding labor...

There are a great many stories/novels that explore this concept; they fall under the heading of "post-scarcity economics." A few notables:

The Diamond Age
Realware
The Culture series
Riders of the Purple Wage

The Economy of Abundance is also a good one. (not fiction)

>Would Marxism or state control of mechanized industry then be justifiable?

If this ever does happen, that question will become largely meaningless. Both Marxism and capitalism are predicated on the economics of scarcity. To recreate capitalism in a post-scarcity society, you have to posit some new material (say, IP, or some artificially scarce material) that can replace money/goods.

[nanook 1]

Not really. that all is based on manufacture; which is part of, but not all of, today's economical need. that is evident in the way production vs. service changed throughout the 20th century and of this recent decade. Since only a developing economy can make money by chiefly manuacturing, there's been a trend of the U. S. sending products to be assembled overseas or in Mexico. Marxism of mechanized industry would be too fragmented and weak to be anything worthwhile.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

The natural way of things is that you receive according to your intelligence & hard work.

The Marxist way is that you receive according to your neediness. reply]

Then there is the way that things really operate. The mediocre get promoted to higher positions because they are given great references by their employers to get rid of them, feeling insecure they employ other mediocre or people to positions under and around them anyone who is intelligent and hardworking they try to keep in their place to
A) Make them look good by having them in their team.
B) To keep them from raising to a level that would show them up.

Therefore, if you want to get ahead and you are intelligent and hard working you have to work for yourself. This is doubly true if you work for a state controlled/run organisation.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

• Quote