The rich have supported Marxism to mislead workers into believing it can replace capitalism. In addition, Marxism prevents new left ideas from coming that could build socialism and a much better future for humankind.
Karl Marx made significant contributions to the scientific understanding of capitalism. He argued that capitalists profit from production, while workers receive only a fraction of that profit as wages. Capitalists exploit workers by paying them low earnings. Marx was right about this.
Karl Marx believed that the exploitation of workers could be eliminated only through the socialist revolution. He was wrong about it because a violent revolution cannot improve society. Although a revolution may replace one social injustice, it is always replaced by another. To ensure revolutions' lasting effect, new leadership is generally autocratic and spreads alienation throughout society, accompanied by the unfavourable dictatorial phenomena well known throughout history. Revolutions have never improved society as people desired. Marx did not have enough data to build his vision of socialism scientifically. As a result, his idea of socialism failed.
Social scientists can't see what exactly causes worker exploitation, even though the answer is simple: unemployment creates exploitation. Unemployed workers are pressured to accept poorly paid jobs to feed their families. When we eliminate unemployment, we will create a fair labour market. Fewer workers on the market increase their demand, so employers have to pay more. This will create a chain reaction in which workers’ salaries will increase while employers continue to make profits. We may say this would eliminate exploitation. No formula would determine what exploitation is. Only workers dissatisfied with their earnings can point it out. A fair market of work will remove this dissatisfaction.
The rise in workers’ salaries in the fair market can be proved. In the 14th Century, the Black Death killed one-third of the European population, which suddenly increased demand for workers. The worker shortage led to higher wages. At Cuxham (Oxfordshire, England), a plowman demanded from his Lord a payment three times greater in 1350 than in the previous year (The Economic Impact of the Black Death, Economic History Association).
In Parliament, in 1351, the Commons petitioned Edward III for a more resolute and effective response. They complained that “servants completely disregard the said ordinance in the interests of their ease and greed, and that they withhold their services to great men and others unless they have liveries and wages twice or three times as great as [prior to the plague] to the serious damage of the great men and impoverishment of all members of the said commons. “(Michael Bennett, Australian Journal of Law and Society, 1995, The Impact of the Black Death on English Legal History, Page 197)
According to this, if a political party wins an election by reducing work to 5 hours per day, the lack of workers would result in a 2-3 times increase in workers' hourly salaries within one year. Daily wages would rise 30-90% for a 5-hour shift. Workers would work shorter hours and earn more. It has already happened, and it is much easier than starting a revolution.
So who will pay for such a salary increase? The wealthy employers, of course! Right now, they keep that money as profit. Can employers refuse to increase worker salaries? They can, but workers would likely find a new employer who pays more, which would mean employers lose the opportunity to maintain their businesses.
When workers earn more, they buy more, which, in turn, increases employers’ profits. So why haven't we created a thriving economy yet? Because the more workers earn, the less they depend on the rich. The rich maintain their power in society by instilling fear of unemployment. My article, Full Employment is a Turning Point for Capitalism, explains more.
***
Karl Marx believed the market economy exploited workers, so he proposed replacing it with a centrally planned economy. Marx recognized that removing the market economy would eliminate indicators of economic productivity, so he advocated replacing them with worker consciousness. This revealed an inconsistency in Marx’s philosophy. Human conscience is rooted in idealism, and it has never been able to improve society significantly. It never worked on a social level. An economy based on workers' conscience could not work well either.
To replace market value, Karl Marx created a labour theory of value. According to this view, the cost of a commodity can be objectively measured by the average number of labour hours required to produce it. That means that if a fisherman catches an average of 100 fish in one month, he creates the same value as a worker in the auto industry who produces an average of one car per month. The fisherman and carmaker are supposed to exchange their products at equal value. It does not matter that people may need the car much more than fish. The car may be worth a hundred times more on the market than the fish. It makes Marx’s labour value unnatural.
This example may be exaggerated, but it reflects what Marx proposed, and what socialists accepted. It undermined workers' incentives and the development of the socialist economy. Socialism distributed more balanced salaries than capitalism, which helped build a more harmonious society than capitalism could establish. However, these wages were not motivating enough to encourage work. Socialism's authoritative bureaucracy took freedom from workers, which further demotivated their work effort. And finally, the humanist ideology of socialism overprotected workers, which lulled them into a lack of effort in their work. The final result of the socialist economy was poor.
The centrally planned economy was intended to produce goods and services in sufficient quality and quantity to meet people’s needs. The leaders never learned how to gather people’s needs because the revolutions replaced experienced entrepreneurs with inexperienced theorists. Such an economy became authoritarian and alienated from the people. The planned economy could not strike a successful balance between production and consumption, leaving people dissatisfied. As a result, the Marxist economy failed to satisfy people’s needs adequately.
The USSR and China have experimented with centrally planned economies. This significantly reduced the material exploitation of workers, which is prevalent in capitalist countries, but it also decreased the economy's overall efficiency. By abandoning the market economy, the authorities had to base their plan on the quantity of essential goods needed, such as tons of wheat produced. Other production was barely considered. People were no longer hungry, but their needs were often less satisfied than under capitalism.
The economies of the USSR and China had significantly lower productivity than capitalist economies. The USSR collapsed due to the inefficiency of the centrally planned economy. Thus, Marxism failed. China has learned from its mistakes, abandoned the Marxist planned economy in 1978, and adopted a regulated market economy. Since then, it has become the world's fastest-growing economy, threatening to take the number one spot soon. This explains everything about the Marxist economy.
***
Given Marxism's failures, why does it deserve such a significant presence in science, media, and the hearts of Marxists? It would not be possible without the approval of big-corporation owners. Without it, Marxists couldn't participate in political elections. Neither would they be able to teach Marxism at universities and get media support.
Why do the rich help the Marxist ideology, which promotes the violent confiscation of their property? The rich knew Marxism could not threaten capitalism. Otherwise, it would be banned. They knew that Marxism was on the wrong track and supported it because Marxism prevents the progress of society. If Marx had proposed reducing work hours instead of revolution, his philosophy would not have been supported, and hardly anybody would have known he had ever existed.
But Marxism was strongly supported. If you search for the “theory of alienation” on Google, Karl Marx’s theory predominately comes up because other alienation theories at the political and economic level do not exist. The question is, why? What is so incredible about Marx’s claim that workers become alienated from the products of their labour, which in turn alienates them from themselves? Why do other theories of alienation not exist?
Marx’s theory carries little weight because everyone who produces something becomes alienated from the product when they sell or exchange it. The rich like useless theories because they stop society from developing. They do not allow a genuine theory of alienation to emerge because such a theory might change the world and take power away from them.
By supporting Marx, the wealthy have successfully prevented the establishment of a better society for a century. Now, capitalists know they can no longer cheat people by supporting revolutions and a planned economy. However, they do not abandon Marxism because many people remain romantically and emotionally connected to Marx.
Most Marxists accepted Marx’s ideology when they were young. Youthful rebellion, driven by dissatisfaction and injustice in the world, made them easy prey for the manipulation of the wealthy. The rich hid the cause of the exploitation and promoted Marx’s philosophy as an escape from the problem. Marx made revolution seem scientifically acceptable, and people accepted it by studying his extensive work.
Marxists recognize Marxism's failures, but they still believe they need to find the right method to implement Marx’s philosophy. By accepting Marxism, they cannot change their opinion significantly anymore, especially if a simple idea like shorter work hours tries to break it. The rich are masters of deception, and Marxists cannot admit they have been deceived. Helped by the rich, Marxists exerted a strong influence on the political Left, and by promoting an ideology that does not work, they ultimately aid the rich. They also help the rich by preventing new left ideas from emerging.
***
This is what has happened to me. I have presented how to create a good society in the book Humanism - A Philosophic-Ethical-Political-Economic Study of the Development of the Society. You can download the book for free using this link. Marxists do not support my philosophy, and it helps the rich keep their power in society. The wealthy have leveraged their influence in policy, science, and media to hinder the emergence of progressive ideas. They have also blocked my philosophy from reaching people.
The book is based on an original theory of alienation. It states that subjectivity alienates us from objective reality. Subjectivity leads us down the wrong path, one that prevents us from satisfying our needs. Escaping humanity's problems lies in building an objective vision of reality. Democratic acceptance of equal human rights will do it. Implementing equal human rights will solve social problems. Nothing more is needed to build a good social life, and nothing less can do it.
Marx was right to call for equal human rights among people, but he did not foresee the full scope of their development. The ultimate stage of equal human rights will create an equal opportunity for every worker to be employed at any public work post at any time. We will need to open a permanent competition for every public work post. The best worker would get the right to work at any time. I know it sounds impossible because such a division of labour never existed. But I see it as a technical problem.
The system I have developed will evaluate the productivity of work offers, define workers' job responsibilities, and harmonize rewards for work. In short, workers who offer the highest productivity and accountability and demand the lowest salary will get the job. No economy can be more productive than one where each job post gets the best available worker. Public companies will become more productive than private ones, so that the latter will go down in history. Only this should be called socialism. I wrote more about it in the article "The Failures of Marxism and the Right Path to Socialism and Communism."
The market is the best choice for the economy. The market of goods allocates every good to the most capable purchaser who needs and loves it the most. The further development of the market economy will significantly improve the economy. The labour market will eliminate work privileges, making each job equally desirable. Such a market will allocate every job to the most productive worker who needs and loves it the most. Shorter work hours will eliminate unemployment, while less desirable jobs will be compensated with higher incomes. The market will help society to reach the best life possible. I have also presented a bright future for humankind through three screenplays: Good Capitalism, Good Socialism, and Good Communism.
Even if my ideas are flawed, which they are not, my effort deserves to be recognized. However, my writings often face rejection from the media, science, politics, and the film industry. The people who hear me offering higher salaries for shorter work time, which is the first step in developing the economy and society, think it is too good to be true, no matter what arguments I give. Public discussion may help, but it is prevented. One reason for this is that Marxists do not like my work.
However, the rich cannot hide the truth forever. It will break through one day. Then people will accept the benefits of full employment and request shorter work hours. The rich will resist it, of course, but they cannot win against the united people. Still, shorter work hours will be the most challenging part of creating a good society.
