Ta'Samsca'Rial

Hmmm.. I begin to see the flaw with Marx.
His view that whoever controls the method of production within society inevitably shapes the society is probably correct. His mistake was to believe that the acquisition of all power over production to the state would empower the population who make up that state. What he instead did was to produce a new type of person, the beurocrat, who while not possessing the capital does, by his position within the state aparatus, control how it is employed, shaped and weilded.

Further more, it would appear that socialism should instead be a path taken before the capitalist stage to ensure the state produces certain industries to generate capital in the face of international competition, or possibly a state after capitalism once so much capital exists the population can viably afford vast state-produced healthcare and so on.

Given a fourth ingredient in the economy is emerging, that is seperate from capital, land and labour, that being knowledge, one might conclude that the natural marxist progression is towards a state run under by the class of people who manage and control information for their own purposes. I shall name them the academiites. The question however is whether these shall possess a culture which is notably different from the Bourgeoisie of which many possess close connections despite the fact they do not possess any great source of capital and instead extract a living through some percieved service in expanding the available knowledge of the world.

__________________