The (relatively) Short Reason Why Marxism NEVER Works.....

"Humans must be sustained day after day in their ecology-economy, or they will perish. Surplus humans can, of course, be kept by the efforts of others, if not by themselves, but that that status itself can have morbid consequences for those so kept, singly or collectively, by others. Too many humans for their ecology-economy to sustain on the basis of each individual human’s efforts within that ecology-economy creates a human ecological-economic crisis."   (H. M. Stuart of Alexandria Blog)

.

.

.

That ties in very well with your earlier observation of Marx’s foundational dictum, that “...the latest today being that Louis Blanc’s phrase “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is as easily the sustaining mantra of the predator, the beatitude purred by the tiger as she lovingly munches on the young herbivore, as it may be supposed to be anything else.”

That “communal” dictate has NEVER led to a “fairer, more sustainable economy,” it leads inevitably and unavoidably to an ecology/economy peopled almost entirely by gluttonous citizens with chronic bad-backs, that is people with VERY high NEEDS, with a VERY low capacity for WORK.

It leads to that because it rewards that - people with high NEEDS levels and low OUTPUT capacities.

On the other hand, a society predicated upon a dictum like, “Those who do not work, shall not eat,” is one that rewards productive effort and punishes sloth, disability and feebleness, regardless of whether those so punished are capable, thus deliberately indolent, or not.

As Marxism would ultimately pits a shrinking number of producers against a swelling tide of parasitic indigents. It makes enemies of those whose livelihoods depend on cooperative effort (labor and management). The unavoidable and unenviable result of that is either the mass extermination of the indigents or “useless eaters,” OR the horrific enslavement of the most productive in the name of some amorphous and immoral “greater good,” it is feared that its antithesis (the free and unfettered market) would leave no business and thus no subset of jobs secure and it would punish the disabled right along with the shiftless and lazy in perpetual "social Darwinism."

That misplaced fear, seems to be why most of our current problems seem borne of "good intentions. In seeking to protect established industries and all the established jobs that come with them, government and business entered into a partnership (in around 1912).

Unfortunately, such partnerships are always rooted in a short-sighted vision, of what's best for those established concerns is also best for the people...and by extension the government.

That's rarely if ever true, or at least not true for very long.

Inevitably such partnerships choke off new technologies and new innovations and the hungrier, leaner upstarts that might supplant these established enterprises (and yes, all those established jobs) in their cribs. That also winds up choking off the source of what would've been even more new jobs and more new products IF "nature were simply allowed to run its course."

Darwin observed the natural state of all life...adaptation via crisis, with the weakest left behind, or as Aristotle observed it even more tersely, "The strong take advantage of the weak and the smart (clever) take advantage of the strong."

Looking to sidestep the destruction of "the weak" through the evolutionary process is NOT necessarily a "noble goal." I think Nietzsche made a very good case for that in his "The AntiChrist." Evolution can ONLY lead to "the better" IF the weak and dysfunctional are pared off...amd left behind." (NOTE: "the weak" may not be the unemployed or underemployed at all. They may be in that state due to the ills of an unworkable economic system, but the strong ALWAYS adapt and overcome...the weak, whether in boardrooms or trailer-parks will ultimately be exposed)

BUT, even if it is conceived (by general consensus) that avoiding the unpleasant aspects of evolutionary transformation at all costs is a noble or laudable goal, we STILL can't simply look on "anything that circumvents natural selection" as "to the good."

Marxism is one primitive and highly flawed attempt to circumvent what some see as "the abuses of evolution." In fact, it appears to replace the abuses of Darwinism with even more terrible and terrifying abuses and dislocations.

Sometimes there is simply no "humane" way to do what must be done.

For instance, it is ironic that it's the "civilized" West (Europe and America) that is right now being riddled with violent crime. Sweden and France both have ceded entire regions over to their Third World populations. Sweden, which has about the population of New York City has rape, armed robbery and assault rates far higher than New York City!

Arab-Muslim countries represent 7 of the top ten nations with the lowest violent crime rates on the globe.

Hmmmmm....WHY would one think that is?

Well, maybe because the West is now "too civilized" to punish real miscreants effectively, too timid, unsure and introspective to question the validity of the alleged "rage of the underprivileged," to treat thugs as society needs them to be treated.

In the West, a mass murderer, IF put to death at all, is put to death in a manner that is far more painless and humane then that which most cancer patients suffer.

In the Arab-Muslim world a mere rapist (no murder, certainly no multiple murders) is buried up to his waist, covered with a sheet and savagely stoned onto death in full view of the entire community, young and old, men, women AND children.

Is it any wonder why the Arab-Muslim world has a lower violent crime rate?

Again, sometimes there is simply no "humane" way to do what must be done.