Maryland abolishes death penalty.

[kandrathe]

As promised, a reply. Hopefully this clears up some misconceptions.

Perhaps they are not misconceptions. Still, in the midst of the French Revolution, a band of Marxists who temporarily for a few month wrest control does not seem to be good conditions for measures, nor present a stellar record for Marxist success. Their is no evidence to suggest these people were immune to corruption either.

Whether we exchange labor for fiat money, or labor for goods directly; if there is an opportunity to get more by doing less, people will attempt that course. When you can measure things, like a ton of coal shoveled, fine. But, most labor that is done now (in the information age) is very subjective. How do you value labor, comparing a person who checks groceries to perhaps a person to clerks a photo store? How would you value a web designer, as opposed to a software programmer? Is there a rate of exchange of labor for food? Or, do you just feed everyone, clothe everyone, house everyone, and then subject them to whatever labor needs to be done? All these things are overly complicated without a capitalist framework, and deny the individual reasonable freedoms, such as pursuing their own interests. What if I don't like farming, or shoveling coal, even though I may be very good at it? The problems that arose in implementing Marxism were that there is little to no framework. It expects everyone to embrace a selfless mindset, when in fact we are inherently self-centered creatures. For many people it takes great effort, and often a level of maturity to commit selfless acts.

Karl Marx was one of the great European philosophers of the 19th century. In the context of rapid industrialization and an ever growing inequality between rich and poor, Marx identified capitalism as the source of this misery and spelled out a theory of historical materialism. Much of this same insight endures today as deeply relevant for understanding our human society. He emphasized that capitalism arose from certain economic and social conditions, and that it would inevitably be made obsolete by a new way of life. In creating this world-view, Marx did a good job weaving the strands of philosophy, political economy and science, aiming to deconstruct the functions of capitalism and to reveal its contradictions. His goal was that we would overcome it and create a better future. Some people like, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc. saw it and bought in. Maybe at first it wasn't cynical, but it became a means to attain power. Being coerced/murdered by Stalin, is no better than being coerced/murdered by Fascists and "Corporations". Marx failed. He failed because there is no vision for how a Marxist society will function. Mostly, it fails because it depends on the illiterati to understand what Marx wrote. Most people in my college courses read Marx enough to pass the tests, and write a paper on it. They never really got it. Maybe you do, but that makes you really rare. And, rarer still is that you are a "believer".

"All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one’s need." (Acts 2:44-45)

Marx wasn't the first person to propose a level of selfless communal sacrifice. The apostles shared a common belief that the world as they knew it was soon ending, and so they would "shed their earthly bonds" and store their treasures in their heavenly kingdom. What plagues modern religion and Marxism is its need to convince the adherent to toss away your worldly goods and individualism and follow a new path. Before Christ, there was Chuang Tzu, who said "Do not race after riches, do not risk your life for success, or you will let slip the Heaven within you." Or, Lao Tzu, who said "Be content with what you have; rejoice in the way things are. When you realize there is nothing lacking, the whole world belongs to you."

Also, in common. Once Stalin, and the Catholic church gained enough power, participation was no longer optional. They implemented it by forced coercion, or death. I think we'd agree this is a mistake.

Finally, Marx was entrenched with industrialism, which he saw as a good thing which created stuff that workers wanted, stuff like shoes, and clothing. But, Marx and Capitalists share a zeal which is wasting our natural resources, polluting and poisoning our planet, and quickly making the world unlivable. Again, selfish people destroy the commons, whether it is under Capitalist, or Marxists, there is little focus on environmental concerns.

In summary then, a) no workable framework, b) people like to own stuff, c) coercion is bad, d) illiterate people don't read or understand Marx e) bad for the planet

“Once again the dead are walking in our midst – ironically, draped in the name of Marx, the man who tried to bury the dead of the nineteenth century.” – Murray Bookchin

Is there such a thing as "Zombie Marxists"?

P.S. When I said we tend to not be as good as we think we are.... I was thinking about this research I had recently read: Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Enhancement in Self-Recognition This is a study of self perception, and the upshot is that the psychological phenomenon of self-enhancement also extends into other aspects of being. We aren't as pretty/handsome as we believe, nor as smart, or witty.