Cornel, I will see what I can find. However, the ruins and misery from Karl Marx's ideology are strewn around the world, from the old Soviet Union to China, India and much of Africa and South America. Some, like India, which had a committment to democratic principles learned from the Brits, did not go to the extremes of communism, but all of the victimized countries, with the possible exception of Myanmar, N. Korea and Cuba, have thrown Marxism into the dustbin of history, where it belongs.
The defect in Marxism lies in the contempt and lack of respect for the average citizen. A small cabal of elites sought to tell everyone else what was good and bad for them. Since being controlled by someone else is not the normal human condition, this led inevitably to totalitarianism, since that was the only way to keep the proletariat under the control of the ideas of the elites. The bureaucrats that ran the day to day affairs had no incentive to solve any problem, as this would make them obsolete. Results always trend down to the least common denominator. The simple beauty of the free-enterprise system is that the decisions are made by millions of individual buyers and sellers, each looking out for their own long-term interests, which includes the self-serving need to be good stewards of their assets and resources and the environment around them. Incompetence, inefficiency and inconveniences are never tolerated for very long, because it is in someone's economic interest to fix it. Competition forces efficiency, and obsolescence leads to renewal retraining and re-directed effort, keeping the pot boiling as it were. The result is the rising tide that lifts all boat. In the US, the closest system to a pure free-enterprise system in a country of any size, the one thing everyone can count on is that competition will ensure that things will change, almost always for the better over the long run. --- cornel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mario, > > Thank you for your response. While I can find hundreds of references which > basically debate with the ghost of Marx as a great thinker, I wonder if you > can provide some references which see him utterly negatively in the > specific way you have described? I would welcome such info.
