I have been saying since high school that if we took humans out of the discussion, I think Marxism would be a great system. But the moment you add people it breaks down. The same is true of Capitalism. It works great until you add people. Pretty much any economic theory works that way. That’s why we keep coming up with new ones.
The problem, of course, is people. We don’t have the computing power to put in all the variables the motivate, drive, influence, and effect the “human experience.” I don’t particularly like math because I had a few teachers who knew one method and only one method. And that method didn’t make sense to me. They tried to beat me into that zero-shaped hole…
Capitalism rewards Triple-A personalities. The people willing/able to put in 65 hours a week. It hurts those who don’t have enough spoons to fight day-in and day-out for their “due” or even their own existence. It gives benefit to someone who wants to come up through the ranks of education and class and better themselves. To work, it requires that everyone have access to education – preferably a similar/equivalent education.
Marxism does not reward exceptional-ism. It works in ant farms, or subsistence groups where life is dependent on everyone helping in their own ways and strengths. How do you value actors or writers in a economy where “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs“ – and who gets to decide what is the ability and the need? Do we need tv or movies? What about video games? Or Windows vs Apple vs Linux brand pcs (I can make arguments for each of these in given scenarios)?
These may not be the most extreme ends of the spectrum, but I think they are damn close to those ends. The pendulum needs to find a good middle point – taking care of the weakest in society while still encouraging people to strive to do their best, test limits, and innovate our world.