The concept sounds so wonderful when you first hear it: “From each according to his ability…” Isn’t that a great idea? Why you simply do the best you can at whatever you are good at. Some of us are better at writing and teaching and flying jets, so that is what we will do. Others are better at retailing crack cocaine, robbing fast food marts, and playing basketball in back alley lots with a “forty” in a brown paper bag on the side and a “nine” in their waistband in case the other guys drive by.
Then “…to each according to his need.” That’s the sweet part. You’re going to get what you need! A house, even if you don’t have the income to pay the mortgage; a car, so you can look phat when you roll the ‘hood; some bling so the bitches dig ya; and healthcare paid in case you get stabbed or shot during the night. You do what you want to do and you get what you want.
The problem is that it is too difficult to determine what you need. What I think I need is a lot more than what you might think is appropriate for me. I’m not happy simply having the bare minimum. I’m greedy. I want it all and I want it for my family as well. I feel fulfilled or in psycho-babble terms, self-actualized, when I’ve got more than you do. The catch is that I don’t expect the government to do it for me. I understand that I have to prepare myself to succeed and then I have to devote myself to applying my skills if I am to achieve my greedy goals.
Poor Marx didn’t live long enough to see his utopian concept play out. The co-optation of the idea by Lenin and Engels followed by the implementation of Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and the rest failed miserably. Shortages rather than success were the norm. If you know you will get what you need, if your state-established need is less than you thought it would be, and if your level of effort doesn’t impact the result, then the system fails.
That is why the new euphemism for Marxist principles, “redistribution of wealth” is such a thin lie. It appeals to the basic demands of the venal masses with the idea of taking from the rich who don’t deserve their prosperity and giving to the majority who didn’t earn it. Check this discussion and note particularly the Obama quote about “spreading the wealth around”:
You can feel confident that you are correct if you interpret “spreading wealth around” as taking from me and giving to you. That is something that might garner votes, but it cannot succeed for any length of time as a policy of government. It has been tried repeatedly in the last hundred years and has failed abysmally every time.
1 comment:
"It has been tried repeatedly in the last hundred years and has failed abysmally every time."
Not to mention that Marxism has ALWAYS led to violence and a police state to make it "work."
Marxism sets the clock back to a time before the concept of checks and balances. In effect, it is a theology mixing state and religion. In the case of Marxism that religion is Marx's theory and the pseudo-scientific three card monte that "proves" it.
Post a Comment