I would like to comment on the line from Marx that was posted a while back: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution".
In effect, this is capitalism. By mandate, it's communism. Marx, or at least the socialist left that followed, believed that capitalism created an ever perpetuating class of haves at the expense of the have-nots. By now we know this isn't true. We still do have some supposed "haves" and some supposed "have-nots", but we know that capitalism isn't the cause of this and we also know that capitalism is the most effective known solution to this. Regardless, the rise of the socialist left didn't have the history or sound economic theory that we do today, so it developed a different theory, one that says since the assumption is that freedom creates more power disparity, the solution to the problem of haves and have-nots is mandates. This coincides with why every iteration of socialism since its birth has restricted freedom and supported centralized powers with welfare agendas.*
Capitalism is the opposite. It says freedom is good and it has been demonstrated to be more effective than any imaginations at promoting prosperity for the have-nots. That's not an embellishment; poor people have smart phones. Capitalism has been enormously more effective than even Adam Smith could have fathomed. The concept economists have for why this could be the case is exactly what Marx wanted: each according to his contribution. Economists view capitalism's effectiveness mostly emerging from the meritocracy it creates, where workers are capable of getting more by contributing more.
Marx was right in that each should get according to his contribution. But his prescription was antipodal. Capitalism is what effects this meritocracy; socialism is what strips it away.
*The more aggressive versions of socialism have been violent. It should be noted that in socialism, violence isn't ideologically wrong. It is extremely effective at subverting freedom and installing states that can enact the socialist paradigm. Baked into the philosophy is the idea that if violence creates such a state, it's good. The Bolshevik revolution was not a bastardization of socialist philosophy like many today would claim. It was standard engagement of the philosophy. Perhaps a way to see how this is the case is that capitalism is ideologically against violence, while socialism requires a monopoly on violence to engage its agenda.
Reply With Quote