(Original post by Harmonic Minor)
That's the problem with Marxism, it is too deterministic. And it's all good and well saying Marxism should not be consciously implemented, but I mean, somebody had to come up with Marxism (Marx - though obviously socialism came before Marx, but somebody had to think that up too), and Marxism had to be spread through books, journals, word of mouth etc. One of the most important aspects of Marxism (or at least, Marxism-Leninism) was to inculcate workers with 'class consciousness' (they were obsessed with this) so that they were aware of their historic role.
And when you think about it, a programme like socialism or Marxism would require more conscious effort than say, capitalism. Socialism is the seizing of the means of production through class war - how can you do this unless you are aware of what needs doing? And then of course, operating the means of production in the name of/for the needs of the workers. Capitalism on the other hand emerged more naturally (at least in my opinion), as the fetters on production were relaxed (as feudalism decayed and finance capital made production and exchange more fluid) and man's natural 'propensity to truck, barter, and trade' (in Adam Smith's famous words) was unleashed. Indeed, capitalism is far less 'ideological' than socialism - if capitalism had an ideology it was liberalism, and much of liberalism pertains to politics over economics (the freeing of the individual to pursue his own destiny, economic or otherwise).
Quite tellingly, the word 'capitalism' to denote an all-encompassing system was not even conceived until the end of the 19th century (even Karl Marx barely used the word, preferring 'capitalist mode of production'). As Martin Malia wrote,'The fact is that until almost the end of the [nineteenth] century people did not talk about capitalism at all; and when they did take up the term, the initiative came not from the "capitalists" themselves, but from socialists seeking to brand the world they hoped to negate' (The Soviet Tragedy
, p. 49). In other words, the idea of 'capitalism' emerged after the fact of its existence (or at the very least, concurrently, as people became aware at the time of a new economic epoch replacing mercantilism). Socialism, however, has always been prospective, and whereas capitalism naturally involves a relaxation of controls (meaning the individual is free to pursue his economic destiny), socialism involves a unitary effort at seizing the means of production, so I fail to see how it could be implemented without some conscious effort.
But who knows? My view is that technological advancement is what is currently driving history (in conjunction with democratic principles) - perhaps we will see a highly advanced, technocratic collectivist society sometime in the future when we have progressed far enough.