The problem with Marxism is not it's stated goal (a classless, stateless society - not a bad direction to head), but in it's method of getting there. Making a stateless society through the state is like fucking for celibacy. No matter how hard you try, it's not going to work.
Here's an idea: If you want a classless, stateless society, why don't we work on the state first, then worry about class. If communism is so much better than market anarchy, then market anarchists would join communes in droves, and your classless society would have been achieved.
Of course, Bakunin was right. Tell it to the Marxists of today and they still won't listen. They won't even display the proper emotional response to show that they comprehend the sentences. To my experience at least...
I can loosely relate to the idea that who Marx was as a person might have resulted in a body of work that ultimately led people down a horrible path, but I can't help but think that the reason Marxism became a religion is not ultimately about Marx. It resembles the claim that Aristotle's doctrines led to the dark ages. Okay, I won't go as far as to associate Marx with Aristotle, but you get the idea.
She simply stated what was right, that people have a right to the wealth they produce, what they do with it is their business.
The problem is, I don't see a complete picture when I take this perspective. For instance, it's ultimately unclear how things get initiated. Who the producer is and what rights they have are mostly determined by the temporary understanding of the interested group. Objective measures don't work well under scrutiny. It's clearer when you create a web site all by yourself, and gets messier as the work involves choices of other persons.
Or, for instance, we can question wealth itself. It's easy to understand the contractual hierarchy, but is there any justification for third persons to recognize the contract between unrelated agents?
So on and so forth... I think the basic fact is, biological boundaries are suitable for defining personhood because of obvious practical reasons, and social structures based on human individuality are more efficient because of this. But there is nothing more to it.
As a side note, it's been stated countless times in my life that it's my duty to carry the burden because I'm the strong person, especially by family and close friends. That's why the story told in Atlas Shrugged made me smile a bit. Yes, being among people who despise the idea of welcoming weakness would be a good thing. It's a good story. Still, mediocre writing skills.
