Home Home page of an Analysis of the Communist Manifesto
Marx Bio Biography of Karl Marx
Engels Bio Biography of Engels
a synopsis of the Communist Manifesto Synopsis
an analysis of the Communist Manifesto Analysis
text of the Communist Manifesto Text

A Letter Regarding this Site

I am not sure I understand all of what you mean in the following paragarphs:

"In essence Marx was wrong not because there was no class struggle. There was indeed class struggle throughout most of history. He was wrong because he could not see that the dialectic process would work to elevate the working class to the entrepreneur class and not pull all of society down to the lowest common denominator.

We are still in the throws of this process. Eventually the efficiencies brought about by the capitalist system, if allowed to operate in a free environment, will provide a high standard of living for most of the world."

What do you mean by, "He was wrong because he could not see that the dialectic process would work to elevate the working class to the entrepreneur class and not pull all of society down to the lowest common denominator"?

Be careful when you write, "Eventually the efficiencies brought about by the capitalist system, if allowed to operate in a free environment, will provide a high standard of living for most of the world." The efficiences you are talking about can occur in a Socialist/Communist system if planned accordingly or adaptively. Capitalism, in a free environment, is a political push for free trade. It will not increase the standard of living for most of the world, because without socialist influence, multinational corporations would not increase those standards in "developing countries". Also, standard of living is relative to technology, population, pollution, and time. An overall increase in the standard of living is very temporary in capitalist systems, unless they find new markets to exploit.

From a resource perspective, a free environment does not exist. A capitalist scenario requires greater environmental damage than all but fascism as of yet.

Sincerely,

Ash

Our Response:

Dear Ash,

You are quite mistaken. The greatest environmental damage in history was done via the mindless and inefficient waste of resources in the Soviet Union over a period of 70 years. The Soviet government also perpetrated the deaths of millions in the name of social advancement. In the U.S. the environment has gotten better because the capitalist economy creates better, cleaner and more efficient ways of dealing with waste.

People complain that the U.S. uses so much of the world's oil resources, but the fact of the matter is that we use it more efficiently than any other nation. This means that we can produce and provide a decent standard of living creating goods shipped all over the world with the lowest ecological footprint. That is what efficiency is all about.

Socialism is naturally inefficient for two reasons. First it takes away the incentive of workers to work to the best of their ability and for entrepreneurs to invest, maintain their property or conserve their resources. Second, the best decisions are made where the action takes place, on the level closest to the need, this means that centralized planning of an economy is necessarily less efficient. The bread lines in the USSR and the grim lifestyle of the "proletariat" everywhere communism has been tried should be proof enough of this maxim.

Hope this clears up any questions you have.

Cordially,

W.J. Rayment

Return to Index

Sites on related subjects:
The Kirov Murder
The Gulf War
Hugo Chavez Bio
Objectivism

How Microscopes Work

LinkToThisPage Button

InDepthInfo
In-Depth Information



| Privacy Statement