Few thinkers have been as influential - and chronically misunderstood - by people of all ideological backgrounds as Karl Marx. I myself fell prey to bullshit narratives portraying his theory as inherently authoritarian, and it took some serious digging (Marx is a dense read!) to wrap my head around his works. To get a proper understanding of what his arguments were, one must understand his goals. Marx sought, ultimately, to gain a full understanding of the laws of motion behind the mechanics of capitalism. His work resulted in a theory of change wherein society is pushed ever forward not by fate, but by the resolution of tension between juxtaposed forces in society.

My goal here is to make that understanding accessible and comprehensive to contemporary readers who may have preconceived notions about Marx that interfere with an appreciation for his worldview.

**What Marx’s Goals Were, And What He Wasn’t Doing**

Marx’s primary work was in gaining an understanding of how capitalism functions as an economic system. His core economic work was analytical, not a blueprint for a party-state (quite the opposite is delineated as the most actualized form of social organization in his theory of social change- a classless, stateless society). He didn’t describe capitalism in exclusively moral or ethical terms. Though he clearly opposed capitalist exploitation by workers and advocated for socialism as an economic model throughout his life, his academic work on the matter was a structural analysis, not revolutionary theory.

Marx’s works simply laid out how the mechanics of capitalism result in the exploitation and oppression of the many to further the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few. An honest look at the 20th and 21st centuries confirms this dynamic over and over again, as each crisis becomes an opportunity for consolidating power amongst those at the top, and an inevitable burden on the common people below.

This is not an attempt at conversion, though an accurate understanding may change your mind about the man’s beliefs and analysis. I am not a Marxist strictly speaking, though I find a Marxian view of economics the best lens through which to understand capitalism and the suffering it necessarily leads to.

There can be no capitalism without the exploitation of working people. Full stop. The relationship between worker and capitalist is an inherently asymmetrical one, caused by the threat of homelessness, starvation, and material deprivation. That dynamic is inherently a form of coercion against the lower classes by the capitalist elite.

Marx’s “theory of change” in a nutshell

If you’ve ever worked a shit job for shit pay under shit conditions because you had to make ends meet and it was the only job you could find, then you’ll understand the core of Marx’s theory instinctively. Marx argues throughout his works that societies change due to conflict that arises from tensions created by the material conditions imposed by those societies. Additionally, he points out that the relationship between production and ownership is often a driving force behind this tension, which in turn leads to the conflicts that facilitate change and progress.

Under capitalism, Marx argues, the primary tension arises between workers forced to sell their labor to afford the means to survive and the owners and bosses to whom they sell their labor. They do this, as stated previously, under coercive conditions, as capitalist societies provide largely insufficient support for the impoverished, who lead increasingly desperate and precarious lives. The owner class extracts the excess value from their efforts (the difference between their wages and the value of the goods and services produced), which is the gross profits. Profits are used to pay down overhead, and the remainder after all expenses is the return on investment for a given product or service, extracted from the process by the capitalist owner(s).

Share

This wasn’t merely a moral complaint about inequality. It was an analysis of incentives.

Firms must continue profiting from production to keep functioning
Competition pressures companies to reduce costs at the consumer level, which drives down wholesale prices, which incentivizes minimization of costs to produce a good or service
Labor is both a cost to be minimized and virtually the only source of purchasing power within a capitalist system

This dynamic produces baked-in instabilities:

Boom bust cycles that create financial crises (off which capitalists profit by buying up assets as prices drop when purchasing power amongst the proletariat decreases, in turn causing a drop in the value of commodities and securities)
Overproduction of certain goods/services and simultaneous underproduction of others
Ebbing and flowing tides of job scarcity and unemployment, and consolidation of capital.

Over time, these pressures reshape institutions, politics, and culture. They also create new social groups with shared material interests.

Marx did not argue that revolution was inevitable in a mystical sense. He argued that systems generate contradictions, contradictions produce conflict, and conflict produces change. The direction of that change depends on human agency.

Key Concepts in Marx’s Theory

Class dynamics under a Marxist lens

Marx’s theoretical framework is predicated heavily on the stratification of society into two or three broad classes: the working class, or proletariat, and the bourgeois- capitalists who own the facilities, land, and machinery required to produce goods or services- to whom the proletariat sell their labor power. Marx describes a third class, the petit-bourgeois, who are essentially the professional managerial class of today, which has a good deal of overlap with the middle class, a more commonly used phrase for the same class phenomenon. The petit-bourgeois likely had a well-to-do job, small landholdings, and modest investments, Today, these people are the NIMBY assholes complaining about public transit and bike lanes because “everyone they know has a car” and they don’t want “their” taxes paying for the unwashed masses to get around on their dime. Worse yet, they might see an unhoused person!

This beloved “middle class” often functions as a mixed status category (managers, small proprietors, professionals) with conflicting interests, usually small-time property owner in addition to working for a salary in a white-collar profession- possibly even “mom and pop” landlords, businesspeople, or amateur securities traders who use their modest resources as a form of passive income. They are the managers, the lower-level bosses, and the “back to brunch” crowd who didn’t suffer material deprivation under the established order. As such, they have blind spots about the system in which their privilege is derived. They are usually pitted against the working poor despite the fact that they too are being exploited to benefit the capitalist class in the end. Narratives of “welfare queens” and “makers vs takers” motivate them to act as a cudgel that squashes efforts for a more egalitarian economic order. The real “takers,” Marx’s theory shows us, are the parasitic elites at the top of this value extraction funnel.

Historical materialism

Marx introduces and clarifies his use of a number of terms throughout the formation of his theory of change. One in which the rest of his analysis is grounded is called historical materialism, which states that society is shaped by both forces of production and the relationship between producers and those who benefit from production. In feudalism, peasants and serfs were tied to the land, and the produced goods that resulted from their daily activity were used in part for subsistence but were largely appropriated by feudal lords in exchange for protection. In capitalist societies, workers trade their labor for a wage to produce goods or services to a capitalist (owner of a store, factory, farm, etc.), and then exchange portions of their wages to other capitalists for the necessities of life.

Historical Materialism in a nutshell:

Marx can be dense and convoluted at times, and is a hard read. Here’s a distillation of his writings that sums up this part of his theory nicely:

Society is shaped by:
- Forces of production (technology, skills, tools, labor, resources)
- Relations of production (who owns/controls production; who must sell labor to survive)
When productive capacity grows, older social arrangements can become a constraint
Change happens through conflict (not polite evolution): class struggle over power and resources
i.e.:
- Common folk revolting against the monarchy that drained them of sons and produce regularly for ego-driven wars of conquest and plunder
- The emergence of the merchant class, which lead to the formation of guilds and the acquisition of political power by a broader set of people due to their economic positioning

Exploitation of workers evidenced in measurable terms

Marx describes the amount of profits extracted by a capitalist from a worker as “surplus labor value,” which is precisely what it sounds like: the excess value of the goods or services kept by the employer surpassing the rate of pay the employee receives for their labor.

Workers sell labor-power for wages.
Work produces value that is greater than wages paid to the worker.
The difference is surplus value, captured as profit (and split into rent/interest/returns).
Exploitation is structural, not dependent on personal cruelty- though personal cruelty surely occurs at the hands of capitalists; chattel slavery is a perfect example of both systemic and personal cruelty in the name of surplus value extraction, though it is an extreme representation since the workers were being bought and sold rather than hired, fired, and paid a wage.

“Commodity fetishism”

Essentially a practice of market worship, intentionally mystifying very terrestrial and concrete power dynamics and economic relationships. Commodity fetishization anthropomorphizes economic forces, making them seem like naturally occurring states, not intentionally engineered, synthetic systems.

That’s how you get nonsense phraseology like:

“The market decided”
“The Invisible Hand of the market”
“The economy wants…”

The economy doesn’t want shit- and it sure doesn’t have hands for fuck’s sake- but the capitalist class sure does though, and they want everything they can get their hands on. This mystification of economic forces and praying at the Market’s altar serves as cover for the insatiable lust for unearned, undeserved wealth that typifies the wealthiest and most powerful capitalists of today (best known as the Epstein Class) as well as the capitalists of Marx’s time. Power relations are intentionally obfuscated behind prices and “common sense” to preserve capitalist-worker relationships as necessarily asymmetrical.

Share

Alienation and how it perpetuates capitalist hierarchies

Workers often lack control over:
- What they make
- How they make it
- Why they make it
Labor becomes less a chosen profession and a lifelong career than it is the result of coercion at both personal and systemic levels:
- Work or starve, regardless of ability or opportunity
- Compete with your fellow workers, rather than feel a sense of solidarity and connection
- Precarity baked into the system due to the inherently unstable nature of capitalism leads to mass insecurity among working people, especially under neoliberal capitalism which guts social programs to please the Austerity Gods

And all that is before the all-too-common instances of wage theft and other forms of worker exploitation and abuse. This creates desperation, which becomes leverage for lower wages or worse conditions, which in turn furthers the coercive nature of the relationship between capitalist and worker.

Without agency in the productive process, workers feel disconnected from the fruits of their labor, negatively impacting their lives materially. Returning the means of production to working people’s control would remove the coercive relationship between owners and workers by making them one and the same. It would also expose the exploitation that occurs wholesale by those who own and rule over workplaces like petty tyrants- even a “good” boss is an authoritarian figure prone to coercion, in that they hold your fate in their hand, and they can compel you to act in a certain way or otherwise be deprived of necessities of life, though somewhat indirectly.

Dialectical Materialism Explained

The backbone of Marx’s theory is a concept called dialectical materialism. It’s the lens through which he looked at historical and material conditions of societies as they evolved and progressed, which shaped his overall theory of change. Marx observed that, time and time again, imbalances of power led to tensions, which caused conflicts that resulted in the synthesis of new equilibriums that reconciled the tensions from the previous paradigm. This theory of change is not simply descriptive of historical events and a rear-facing analysis, but, Marx asserts, is predictive of future societal changes. He bases his arguments in an understanding of two philosophies- materialism and dialectics- merged together in an attempt to understand how we got here and where we can go in the future, once conditions reach a particular state.

Materialism

The core idea behind materialism is that societal organization and the choices made by those in positions of authority are based primarily in the material conditions of the society. Ideology, be it religious, political, or philosophical, are not the primary driver behind shifts in societies under a materialist framing of the world. In fact, those ideas are usually the result of the material condition in which they arise. As an extension of that concept is the observation that politics and political machinations are dictated by where power is centered, and power is derived from control over the means of production and who has the capacity to protect their interests with force.

Take, for example, an office break room with uniquely terrible coffee. The shitty, barely-drinkable sludgewater all the workers are subjected to becomes untenable after a while, leading to strife between the groggy employees and their supervisor, who is responsible for break room amenities. This tension ultimately results in a series of complaints and bickering until eventually arguments about the priorities of the supervisor. The ability of the workplace to continue under these conditions degrades, and as the conflict reaches a fever pitch, the supervisor gives in and uses petty cash to buy a new coffee pot, decent coffee grounds, and different creamer options.

The idea to replace the coffee maker and expand amenities grew out of the material conditions immediately prior- shitty, undrinkable coffee- which triggered tensions and conflict. Without the tensions and conflict, progress wouldn’t have been achieved, and the untenable conditions made tensions rising easily predictable. This is a small-scale example of how dialectical materialism can be used to assess and analyze social conditions.

Dialectics

The other half of this construct, dialectics, is a philosophical principle, again based in observations and analysis of history. Rather than theoretical or ideologically derived principles, dialectical materialism is derived from the material realities of the world around Marx, and the implications that have on power dynamics and societal tides shifting. Dialectics essentially is the idea that all systems of economics and governance contain contradictions, and these contradictions cause internal strife, pushing the system toward change until such time as: A) the system is either supplanted by another, more balanced and less contradictory system, or B) the existing system aligns itself to accommodate the contradiction through compromise. Even if the latter prevails, the former becomes an eventuality later when the dynamic continues to cause tensions, which eventually lead to future conflicts and ultimately a complete upheaval of the system.

That last piece is where capitalist reformists and leftists tend to diverge- whether or not a fundamentally broken, exploitative system can be reigned in and muzzled like a vicious dog, or whether the rabid dog has to be put out of its misery. I personally subscribe to the latter ideological position, due in large part to the work Marx did. He brings receipts, shows his work, and if you look around you’ll likely see, as I do, that the inherently exploitative system is rotten to the core and must be completely overhauled if we are to have a functional, healthy society.

Share

Concrete capitalism contradictions

Marx observed a number of concrete, feature-not-bug contradictions in capitalism that would create the tensions and subsequent conflicts that, Marx argues, will eventually lead to capitalism’s downfall and supplantation with a new system of organization. Here are a handful of these built-in contradictions that we can observe even today:

Wages vs profit: Profits rise by suppressing wages, but suppressed wages limit consumer demand leading to engineered instability. Capitalists take advantage of this instability to further consolidate power.
Competition vs concentration: Competition drives innovation, but winners consolidate leading to monopolies, monopsonies, and political capture by the capitalist class. The tech sector’s dynamics is instructive in how this contradiction operates.
Productivity vs employment: Mechanization and automation boosts each worker’s output, but can deskill and/or displace workers in the process leading to insecurity and resentment. Think about the upheaval that AI is causing in the job market and you’ll get a perfect example of this particular contradiction in action.
Global expansion vs crisis export: Capital seeks new markets/resources, spreading instability and conflict. The abduction of the Venezuelan leader, Maduro, and the subsequent theft of Venezuelan oil profits, Trump’s fascination with annexing Greenland, and the current war in Iran are all examples of the resulting horrors brought about by a state being entirely captured by capitalists who drive expansion to extract more resources and capture new markets.

“Dictatorship of the Proletariat” (Misconception Cleanup)

What people think it means

People often assume Marx was calling for a dictatorial regime, often citing the phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat” as evidence that Marx was advocating for a rigid, authoritarian government. I, too, fell into this trap. A closer, more comprehensive, less surface-level reading of Marx make it clear that this is not the case.

What Marx is actually describing

Marx is describing the dynamic required to reach a socialist future from a present controlled entirely by capitalists. He referred to the system of capitalist’s capture of economic and political power as the “dictatorship of capital,” describing the near-total control that the capitalist class has over both day to day life and major socioeconomic forces. The only remedy he saw was a worker-led transitional government which would wrangle the raging bull of capital and corral social and political power into the control of the proletariat.

In short, “dictatorship” can be substituted for “control” or “leadership,” rather than a single authoritarian ruler.If the transitional society, however, becomes a permanent ruling class, that becomes little more than an exchange of class dynamics. If you want to abolish exploitation, you can’t introduce a new system of hierarchy that becomes ossified and rigid, and which births the new ruling class. That’s not the way to liberation but to more oppression in a different form.

Leave a comment

More Misconceptions About Marxism

“Marx said history is inevitable”

Marx actually was describing pressures, tendencies, and trends that his analysis of history and his contemporary world, which I see borne out by the history of the 20th century and that of the festering rot at the center of late-stage capitalism makes glaringly apparent. History may not repeat itself, but it has a rhyme and a rhythm, and the steps we dance to it are largely analogous. Eventually, Marx’s theory states, we will reach a point where the old organizational systems will be unnecessary, workers will own the fruits of their labor as well as the means by which they are made, and hierarchies that cause the inequality and oppression he (and I, along with many, many others) observed.

“Marxism is when the government does stuff”

Marxism is, at the center of the ideology, about class relationships, not the size of a government. There are forms of communism all along the spectrum of governmental intervention, ranging from libertarian socialist arrangements of society (Marx’s penultimate, most-actualized form of social and economic relationship amongst people) to the vanguardism and statecraft of Marxist-Leninist and Maoist governments that typify “capital C” Communism in the contemporary understanding of the term.

“Communism means everyone is equally poor”

Marx sought to uncover a system of oppression that creates poverty and deprivation as a rule, not “make everyone equally poor.” Communism from Marx’s perspective, is (as I have read and currently understand Marx’s work) an antidote to the ills of capitalism. Due to Marx’s understanding of systems always containing contradictions, it’s conceivable he understood that his preferred organization of society would be imperfect, and he postulates that eventually a sort of anarchocommunist society would be transitioned to after worker’s gain control of the means of production, a point arrived at through mutual abundance, not mutual deprivation.

Closing Thoughts

Between parts one and two of this breakdown of Marx’s theory, it should be apparent that much of his work has been chronically misinterpreted- often purposefully, on behalf of the capitalist class. There is little doubt in my mind that this is an accurate reading of history, and that Marxian understandings of economics, social dynamics, and class relationships shed light on the current state of decay we all experience on a daily basis, even in the imperial core of the United States.

Throughout the world, we are seeing the effects of unfettered capitalist exploitation. Our planet is dying, poverty and homelessness runs rampant even in many western societies, ICE is wreaking havoc on our communities, our world is gripped by yet another globally catastrophic war, and yet the only concern for C-suite elites is the next quarterly report. It’s time we wake up and shed our chains, break the shackles that tie us to this wretched system of exploitation and extraction, and forge a better future from the scraps of the old way of doing things.

If you made it this far, you’re exactly who SLSC is for! Share this if it clarified something for you. Forward it to someone who’s still trying to make sense of the mess all around us. Subscribe/follow if you want structural analysis and current event updates without the cable-news brain rot- delivered ~twice a week. This is fully independent work. No donors, no institutional leash. Just analysis, receipts, and coping mechanisms.