Karl Marx was a terrible person. The large portion of humanity that endured marxism—the communist ideology of his creation—lived in indigence, was oppressed, and eagerly rejected his ideas in favor of capitalism when the opportunity arose. Only a couple countries today identify as communist: Cuba, an isolated, ostracized society stuck in the 1950s; North Korea, a totalitarian dictatorship and arguably the world’s most backward country; Vietnam, a country where 95% of its people now support capitalism, according to the Pew Research Center; and China, perhaps the world’s most ardent capitalist.
Marx didn’t succeed in morality or character either. He impregnated his maid then abandoned the child to foster parents. He was so racist towards Jews that, in 1910—a time plagued by anti-Semitism, like in the sham-trial of a Franco-Jewish military officer, Alfred Dreyfus, a mere sixteen years beforehand—editors of his letters forced themselves to censor his work. And one cannot help to feel arrogance, a sort of unjustified vanity and superficiality in his writing.
“Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution”
—Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx
His writing’s superficiality is not merely stylistic; it’s quite literal. Marx’s solutions for capitalism are bland, dreary—unrealistic and facile. He drastically oversimplifies society, thinking that workers simply rising and seizing means of production is the cure to capitalism’s ills. He didn’t factor in worker qualification and education: 19th-century farmers and coal miners are unable to run an economy; university-trained economists are. If Marx wanted freedom for the proletariat, he should have encouraged the development of a liberal, free-market economy, a place where the worker seeks employment through his own volition, in any industry. Of course, 19th-century capitalism did not promote workers shifting social classes—it pushed for the opposite by tolerating monopolies and suppressing workers’ rights—but Marx was shortsighted: he failed to anticipate massive leaps in technology as well as globalization that specialized jobs; nor did he forecast moving primitive industries—such as coal and textile-weaving—toward large-scale, well-paid manufacturing needing engineers, or firms offering lucrative financial and legal services.
He should also have advocated the building of universities and improvement of education, providing political and economic freedom to the populace, empowering it to fight for its political rights and beliefs. Educating the population encourages diversification of the economy, reducing the chances of economic crisis and enriching society. A propaganda-smeared dictatorial regime sitting atop a faceless bureaucracy wasn’t the solution towards society’s woes: liberalism was. Marx’s society simply replaced the unjust governing financial elites with a pipe dream of a classless, stateless society. Aside from being unrealistic, the issue was that such a society would only exist after a violent revolution and the establishment of a dictatorial regime even more unresponsive to the people’s needs—as evidenced by the calamity that was Soviet Russia or Mao Zedong’s China.
Marx’s economic alternative against capitalism was flawed as well. Instead of promoting antitrust action to break up monopolies and encourage innovation, Marx railed against markets and advocated keeping the current economic structure of nations—that is, industrialization—except with the government supposedly assuring workers’ rights by eliminating private property and controlling all enterprises—a recipe for despotism, not liberty. And since Marx stood against markets, preferring state organization of industry despite their capacity for the most efficient allocation of resources, the basis for all technological and scientific innovation in resulting communist states was thus not from markets—which assures a product’s use by demonstrating the demand for it—but was restricted to anything of use to the government: mining of natural resources, agriculture, and the military. Anybody not interested in these fields would face the boring, futile worker’s life Marx criticized so fervently throughout his literature.
If Marx is so blatantly wrong, what’s the benefit of reading his work? While Marx stumbles in proferring viable solutions, he points out critical flaws of capitalism—structural flaws capitalism needs to mend to assure its success.
Marx claims that capitalists do not create wealth—they rob it from workers by skimming the surplus value of the labor they produce. However, this theory of value—the so-called labor theory—has fallen out of favor; most economists today agree that value comes from marginal utility, not from labor, which makes Marx’s theory that capitalists become rich by exploiting surplus value untenable. Nevertheless, today’s wealth concentration amongst the super-rich is worrisome, as is the current trend of economic power being primarily vested in capital instead of labor which Marx predicted (albeit for the wrong century). In the USA alone since 1970 the top 1%’ s wealth grew 242%, around six times more than that of the middle-class worker; the top 1% of America’s rich produce twice the wealth of the bottom 50%. Marx was right in pointing out that capitalism allowing such wealth inequalities is not feasible—politically and economically.
Throughout world history, countless nations’ political systems have collapsed because of massive economic inequalities. Due to such inequalities nations also experience a surge of populism, battering current political systems for the worse. Yet another threat from harboring society’s wealth in practically solely the super-rich’s hands is economic. As average employee wage growth stagnates, there is less capital available for purchasing goods and services, meaning the overall economic output of a nation decreases.
The cause of this stagnation is corporate consolidation—the surge of oligopolies and quasi-trusts—leading to another of Marx’s claims: that capitalism naturally tilts towards monopolies. In this regard, he is also right: Amazon controls a 40% market share in the online retailer industry, and in some countries, Google has over 90% market share in the internet browser industry. He is equally right about fighting against them. Through busting these oligopolies the economy diversifies, salaries balance, and new companies can challenge incumbents with better products and innovation—all thanks to competition. The result benefits consumers who are free to choose products instead of being restricted to a few; workers who now have fairer salaries; and the nation’s scientific output as innovation—and therefore scientific research—is of the utmost necessity against the competition.
Marx was also right about capitalism’s infeasibility on its own: that is, humans cannot live in societies solely through corporate motivation. Some regulation is needed, especially when dealing with trusts or regarding product quality, but there’s more: capitalism needs a welfare state, to some degree, to assure its survival. First and foremost, there is a moral aspect to this choice: should we privy any individual from access to basic rights like healthcare and education on grounds of profit? Second, the welfare state reinforces a society’s social contract: if people see their government provide them with some benefits even in the worst of times, they will be more likely to trust in their leaders instead of opting for radical alternatives detrimental to a nation’s stability. Finally, there exists an economic risk related to restricting social rights such as healthcare, education, and housing. If a large percentage of the population does not have access to basic medical aid, they will live shorter, less efficient lives, cutting economic output. They may even go bankrupt, negatively impacting corporations that need average citizens spending money on their goods or services (the main cause of bankruptcy in the USA is medical bills). If they lack stable housing, they cannot have a full-time job and will restrict themselves to the gig economy, harming big corporation CEOs and the middle to lower classes alike. The state must thereby allocate certain resources towards furnishing basic necessities for socially and economically intertwined reasons.
Marx was at the same time brilliant and idiotic. The solutions for capitalism he proposes created nightmares for generations of citizens around the world, yet his identification of its flaws is useful to socialists and die-hard capitalists alike. His diagnosis must be carefully used to reform capitalism. Perhaps this is where Marx was most wrong: he underestimated the power of reforms and turned extremist. Let’s prove him wrong.