It is possible the following equation is true:
Marxism.upperBound() <= tehcyder.desireToEarn() < Capitalism.upperBound()
Or maybe this equation is true if one is super-minimalist and has no material desires beyond air, food & water...
tehcyder.desireToEarn() <= Marxism.upperBound() < Capitalism.upperBound()
In other words, under Marxism no matter how much you might want to work to get a "better something", it doesn't matter because you can't earn beyond the Marxist upper bound of 'everybody is equal' or however resources are doled out.
Identifying other limits on an individual's "ability to earn" are left as an exercise to the reader.
Just as an aside, it isn't clear to me if there is a lower bound for desireToEarn() in Marxism.
(p.s Intrepid Imaginaut, well phrased!)
Marxism and all of its derivations are inherently horrible at effectively allocating resources....
No, you're wrong, because most people don't really care about economic competition or maximising their goods past a certain level.
For instance, if I was really desperate for a more expensive car or house than I have now, by your reasoning I would be working at another job in addition to my main one, as I could be buying twice the stuff.
Whereas, in reality, I would rather spend those eight hours a day enjoying myself by reading a book or having a drink, as my current job provides more than enough to live on. Now, I could decide that I want to drink only vintage wines at GBP 1,000 a bottle, or only read first editions at GBP 10,000. But in reality, I am happy drinking something for a fiver from Lidls and reading a couple of paperbacks or Kindle downloads a week.