that I find it hard to take the folks who'd really like to go the Communist route seriously is that they don't seem to notice an odd discrepancy in their thinking.
All this is just from observation - if I'm wrong, then I'm not going to worry too much about it.
They believe, that since Capitalism is the root of all evil, that it's very important to destroy capitalistic systems of production and distribution in favor of centralized state control of same. I'm not at all clear about WHY state control is supposedly better able to provide for production and distribution of goods. And from observation over the years, such system don't seem to be able to do much aside from offering a minimal level of subsistence and consumer goods... which seem to need to be designed in capitalistic economies and then copied into the communal system to have any real chance of success. (See the LADA, a Fiat knockoff...) Aside from alcohol production, there seems to be very little innovation inside such economies.
On the other hand, Communist systems DO seem to be able to provide a vast underclass, which instead of being exploited by the Capitalist Running Dogs and given jobs at reasonable wages so they can buy consumer goods when they want, instead are worked to provide a subsistence living and (if you're lucky) the chance to get on a list to possibly, eventually buy something like a refrigerator or stereo. For which you should feel grateful, since the state DOESN'T have to do this.
I suppose this is the main reason why Wal-Mart is shown to be an example of the Capitalist Running Dogs (CRD from here on...) exploiting the workers. The workers do work for the company (instead of the state) and are paid by the company (instead of the state) and in a large number of cases buy a lot of their stuff from the store. Wal-Mart has pretty much everything low-end consumers might need or want, at affordable prices and in stock. And there's an employee discount, so it's not like they're paying full-price. The work is not terribly hard, or terribly unsafe. Yet the CRD are exploiting the workers.
The old meme "From each, according to his abilities, to each, according to his needs" doesn't quite work. Who decides what the abilities are, and what the needs are? True, it sounds good when you've got a massive pool of disgruntled/disaffected/unemployed manpower that can be tapped for a revolution on demand. Who DON'T have the basics of life like shelter, food and clothing. But once you get above the subsistence level, there's a little problem because suddenly, instead of simply being content with the occasional meal and a change of clothes and a roof over their head - the poor expoited worker wants MORE out of life.
People are hardwired to expect some reward for their work - more or less immediate reward, too. A guy turning bolts in a factory may be doing an essential job, but is he due more or less reward than the guy who designed the factory? Or the guy who invented the product that he's helping to make? "From each, according to his abilities, to each, according to his needs" doesn't take that into account. 'Need' is a big variable there, and it can't exactly be satisfied by the State above a certain level - because "Need" has this wierd way of turning into "Want". At which point the State takes a look and goes... "Um. You've got what you need, be grateful for that. Get back to work." Want a better pair of shoes? Better house? Better food? Ain't gonna happen...
And what happens when you take an innovator, who really wants to make improvements on 'x' because it'll be fun, safer for the people who use it and more efficient to produce... and tell him thanks for your ideas, here's a piece of meat for your gruel. At what point does the innovator go "Hell with this - I'm not getting what I think I should..." and simply stop?
And what happens to an economy when that attitude is pervasive throughout it?
In the CRD economy, how high you rise is pretty much limited by several factors. First - what do you know that's worth paying for? Second - how high do you want to go? Third - how do you market for it?
Let's face it - the reason why most long-term minimum wage workers are getting minimum wage is because they won't put themselves out to earn more. They don't KNOW anything worth paying more than a subsistence wage. Chalk this right up with the folks who refuse to learn in high school because it'd be 'acting white', the biggest obstacle to their advancement is an overwhelming sense of self-importance and the insistence that it doesn't matter if they're not doing a good job, someone ought to be paying them big bucks anyway.
Knowlege is power. You need power to climb. How high do you want to go?
Bill Gates is a shining example of this. Starting with a frayed shoestring, he now controls the OS that runs most of the world. He had goals, he had aims - he had the drive and ambition to grow his company to unbelieveable prominence - all based on something essentially immaterial.
But boy, he was able to market the hell out of it. He employs thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people. He essentially started an entire commercial field, grabbing computer primacy from DEC and IBM. The changes from DOS 1.0 to today's WinXP/Vista are such that I wouldn't have believed them possible if I hadn't lived them - think of going from the Wright Flyer to the SR-71 in five years.
But in a Communist economy? You'd barely be at DOS 3.2. No innovation, no drive, no freedom to adopt the best tools for the job means there's not going to be much progress, if any.
In the end, what the folks advocating a switch from CRD economies to Communist systems realize that they're screwed unless they can really, REALLY convince people that their system is better in measureable ways. And they can't... not with the current state of things. 4.5% unemployment? Cheap consumer goods? Loads of entertainment? Hard to get a revolution going when the people are pretty satisfied with their lot - and you're not entertaining enough to get their attention for long enough to convince them they're totally screwed by the CRDs.
J.
