I don’t know, these articles were kind of weak. Also I’m finding that these articles [morals of capitalism] refer to the welfare state (a pitiful attempt of trying to use capitalism to promote a socialists state) and not to communism itself.
It also assumes that improvements in technology and science won’t occur in a communist state. It also assumes that government regulation is bad, yet it was the government that played a vital part in trying to improve the lives of the worker during the Industrial Revolution (ex. safety regulations). Then it makes a statement, that under a “free market” everybody can have a career as a “neurosurgeon.” Yet it does not take into account the over saturation of the job market in the particular area if everybody wants to be one.
The Myth of Socialism is also flawed. “In practice though the same problems plague both as freedom becomes necessarily usurped and trampled on due to abuse of power, economic impossibility, and unforeseen and unintended variables among other things.” A pretty general definition? Again, this assumes a number of things: abuse of power (probable, depending on the leaders), unforeseen variables (right….), and economic impossibility (not specific).
Infeasibility of communism? Bossk’s phrase, “Two paragraph essay.” Yep that’s real in depth.
“Typically comprised of those who have extensively studied Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky’s writings (and often little more),”
This assumes that communism is static and inflexible. It makes no attempts at new age communist writers (independent – many communist parties are more Stalinist than communist).