Maryland abolishes death penalty.

[kandrathe]

... blah blah blah capitalism sucks...

I think we can tell who has drunk the Koolaid.

The one sensible thing I could glean was "There is no such thing as a "Marxist" society."

This is probably unfortunate since it appears that it would be magical, if only the everyday citizen could comprehend how we'd all get to do whatever we wanted without concern since all of our needs would be taken care of. It's bewildering that we are just so darned stupid that we cannot figure this out.

Take my children for example; I live in a small commune. Its me, my wife, and my two boys. They are very eager and willing to take advantage of all the upsides, but drag their feet, procrastinate, and attempt to get out of doing all the hard things. The result is that the responsible people (my wife and I) end up doing most of the work in our kibbutz, while the irresponsible ones (my two boys) get most of the benefits. Why does this not reflect the nature of ALL society? You describe Socialism as having cured this, but you fail to explain how? Nobody has to shovel the coal, and we all get to be ballet dancers, and rock stars? C'mon, its magic. Admit it.

What motivates comrade Petr to work hard in the socialist world? Does he get more? If he gets more does this not create inequity, and there we go descending into classes again? How do you eliminate the free rider problem? Forced labor? Under capitalism, if you and I work at the same place, and I outperform you, I get promoted and you get fired. Now, I find this competition for jobs also distasteful, but there is no simple explanation of how to match the worker to the work that needs to be done. Only by comparing one worker against another can you determine which has more value and whether their contribution is worth the money you pay for it. In that way, we are living cogs in the machinery of production.

One of my boys gets to clean the windows, and the other has to change our the litter box. I would say under Capitalism it is in fact more fair in that I exchange labor for money, and then money for goods. What is my labor worth? Whatever someone is willing to pay for it. What are goods worth? Whatever someone is willing to pay for them. This is the price mechanism, which is an invaluable economic tool that balances supply and demand, both for labor, and goods. As I acquire skills and specialties, they are mine, and so I can negotiate with prospective employers for higher wages. This puts the onus of keeping myself employable, and valuable on me. What is not readily answered by Capitalism alone is what to do with people who have no vocational value. So, rather than icily watch them starve out on the streets, we care for them -- and under Bill Clinton's "Welfare to work program", we get those workers back into the productive saddle.

And, as for class struggle... It has lost its meaning in a post industrial age. My children are dirt poor, and so they are in the destitute dependency class. When they are 18 they will still be poor, and will hopefully be in college. By the time they are in their 20's or 30's they may be middle class, or upper middle class. After that, depending on the choices and opportunities they get they could possible become upper class. Meanwhile, I will get old, and won't be able to work anymore, so I will get poorer as I burn through any remaining savings after putting them through school. In my life, I've probably already peaked, but who knows, there may be some opportunity out there for me yet too. The point is that you've failed to show or account for the massive amount of mobility. Yes, there is a 1%, and a 10%, but the population of who is in it changes over time. We don't have the post-agrarian landed gentry anymore. Whatever happened to Sean Quinn?

Capitalists do diddly squat. Mmmhmmm. Are you sure? There are some silver spoon trust fund brats I'd like to kick in the teeth, but by and large most billionaires actually did something substantial to earn it. There are numerous examples; Bill Gates, Oprah, Roman Abramovich, Steve Jobs, Li Ka-shing, Sheldon Adelson, etc. etc. etc. No. No. No, you say. They were just lucky. Really? I've got my complaints about the system, but not mobility and entrenchment.

"Again this comparison of Marxism to religions is just silly."

Right, because you entirely missed the fact that Marxism has to do just what you say religion does. That it, "convince their followers that their particular doctrine is the right way of life" Because people are just flocking to the stupendous Marxist system... Right? And... While you might find value in having the world described scientifically, that doesn't mean those that describe it unscientifically do not similarly find the same value. For most people it matters very little if we described gravity scientifically as a force of attraction, or mystically that the Earth just loves us and refuses to let us go. Either way, we're all just stuck here.

I say Marxism has no frame work, and you claim "stupendous and logical system of analysis for understanding ". Right. So it has no framework by which to run a society. Just a way of analysing things which pretty much always results in the answer being "Capitalism Sucks!" Why doesn't this work? We are trapped in our fetishes! We must cleanse ourselves of our Capitalist thoughts. Say three hail Engels and four comrade Marxs... Then, essentially you cave to "the future is too hard to predict" What? What will we eat tomorrow? Whatever we planted last month. Not really hard. Not really.

I say, "people like to own stuff" and you ignore that and point out the inequity. But, let me just hop on your straw man for a minute. Show me where any non-capitalist system has generated wealth for the workers.

I say, "coercion is bad", and you ignore that every attempt at communism so far has resulted in repression and coercion. Is coercion bad? I'd say yes. Even in the system we are in now.

I say "illiterate people don't read or understand Marx". You blame that on all the capitalist schools... wait. They're government run. "The U.S. average per student expenditure for public elementary and secondary schools in 2011–12 fall enrollment
was $10,834. States with the highest per student expenditures: New York ($18,616), Vermont ($18,571), New Jersey ($18,485), Alaska ($17,032), and Rhode Island ($16,683). Arizona ($6,683), Utah ($6,849), Nevada ($8,247), Oklahoma ($8,285), and Idaho ($8,323) had the lowest per student expenditures (H-11). " Hint: It has nothing to do with Capitalism. We know teachers aren't getting paid $215K per classroom, so the bulk of the cost of educating a child is going to overhead (indirect costs).

And, where oh, where did Marx ever explain how his workers paradise would resolve the exploitation of nature?