Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
Here's where we tend to disagree, my friend. I see "socialism" as a philosophical overlay to the existing economic system (as opposed to practiced communism, which is a usurpation of the existing system). Communism, per se, can never work (and never has). Marx saw socialism as a transitional phase. I believe he was wrong.

I see socialism as a guiding principle - not a "band aid to capitalism" but as a fully-fledged partner. As with any successful process, there is a tension between individual and societal needs/desires. Successful government, in my view, seeks to keep these forces in balance. If the balance tips too far one way OR the other the society fails.

Indeed we do disagree, old friend, for a very simple reason: you cannot have it both ways. The basis of Socialism (as understood by Marx) was the transfer of economic and political power (via the means of production) from the capitalist to society as a whole. The opposition between Wage Labour and Capital dooms Capitalism to implode.
Quote
The ideas that are expressed in the essay have a very thorough economic contemplation about them as he put aside some of his materialist conceptions of history for the time being. This essay did, however, start to show an increased scientific rationale on his ideas of "alienated labor," which in Marx’s perspective would eventually lead to the proletarian revolution.

Wage-Labor and Capital is considered by Marxists as an "in-depth economic and scientific observation on how capitalist economy works, why it was exploitative, and ultimately why it would eventually implode from within".

Some of the main topics that the essay examines are about labour power and labour, and how labour power becomes a commodity. It also presents the Labour Theory of Value that further develops the distinct differences between labour and labour power. The essay also examines the commodity and how the economic principles of supply and demand affect the pricing of certain commodities. Beyond that the essay explores how capital and capitalism do not service any purpose other than to gain more of it, which Marx presents as an illogical method of living one’s life.
This dialectical and antagonistic relationship cannot be reconciled with temporary measures.
Marx saw Socialism as a historical step toward Communism.
As for Communism, it has never been implemented as understood by Marx. It never arose as a historical consequence of Socialism. So, to say it can't work is not possible, we don't know. It has yet to be tried.
Your use of the word "usurp" is incorrect. A coup may be usurpation but revolution not necessarily, given that the seizing of power does not have to be illegal. That would assume that power rightfully belongs to one specific group. This is clearly not the case.

"The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them."
Lenny Bruce

"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month."
Dostoevsky