Marxism’s faulty foundations offer us nothing of significance
Marx believed history had a destination. But if anything, history has made a mockery of him.
Karl Marx, whose legacy implicitly sits behind a large subset of our public policy and discourse, is fundamentally wrong.
Marx’s error lies not in the fine print of his analysis, but in the very essence of his theory. He imagines a world in which workers will organically become conscious of their “oppression,” organise themselves, and subsequently overthrow the capitalist system. A beautiful fantasy, if one is into that sort of thing.
But that’s all it is.
The notion that workers, purely by virtue of their material conditions, will evolve into revolutionaries remains one of Marxism’s most enduring illusions. In reality, most workers do not dream of destroying capitalism. They actually, and rightly, dream of advancing within it, with some even aspiring to become capitalists themselves.
False consciousness
As Prince Mashele observes, Marx misses the obvious: a factory job does not come with revolutionary consciousness. This consciousness must be taught, instilled, and even imposed at times.
This inevitably brings us to Vladimir Lenin, the man who tried to rescue Marx’s theory from irrelevance while never quite admitting that it has failed.
Lenin introduces the idea of a vanguard party (or movement), which is led by a tightly organised elite that is entrusted with bringing revolutionary theory to the masses. The working class, when left to its own devices, remains trapped in what he terms a “trade union consciousness,” which is characterised by fighting for better conditions within the capitalist system rather than dismantling it. This is what would later be known as “false consciousness,” or, to the neo-Marxists, adapted into “cultural hegemony.”
In proposing the vanguard, Lenin, perhaps without full awareness, concedes that workers are not instinctively revolutionary. His famous line – “without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement” – is less a theoretical insight than a quiet surrender. The revolution will not be led by workers, but an intellectual elite that presumes to know what is best.
A self-fulfilling prophesy
It is here that we find one of the great ironies of Marxist history.
The so-called “worker revolutions” are almost never led by the workers themselves, but an intellectual elite that claims to speak on their behalf, despite typically having no real connection to their world. This elite does not come from the fields or the factory floors.
It comes from seminar rooms and lecture halls. It is armed not with lived experience, but with footnotes and manifestos. It believes that reading a text like Das Kapital gives it the mandate to lead. And while it theorises and speaks, the workers are compelled to march to its ideological tune.
Once power is seized, it is not the working class that governs. It is this same intellectual elite that assumes control. The people’s revolution soon gives way to the people’s repression, and the factory worker finds himself under the dictatorship of his own comrades. The slogans never change, and yet the power remains concentrated. What begins as a cry for justice ends in tyranny unheard of under capitalism, with the same workers now silenced in the name of their so-called liberation.
This should be a red flag for anyone still clinging to Marxist orthodoxy. The entire theory rests on the belief that class consciousness will emerge organically and Lenin, despite his rhetorical fidelity to Marx, quietly discards that hope. Marxism, at base, is a self-fulfilling prophesy, and as such offers us no real insight into political-economic reality.
Historical materialism
But the rot runs deeper.
Marx’s entire historical framework, historical materialism, is animated by an even more rigid idea: the belief that material conditions are the sole drivers of human history. They are not just important factors, but the only ones that truly matter. Everything else – from culture to religion, and ideas to identity – is secondary, derivative, or worse, a distraction from the real struggle. It is economic determinism parading as science, and it flattens the human experience into a dull inevitability.
This worldview gives rise to Marxism’s teleological character, which is the idea that history unfolds in predetermined stages and ultimately culminates in communism. There are no real surprises and true forks in the road. The progression from feudalism to capitalism to socialism is framed not as one possibility among many, but as a fixed and inevitable sequence.
History, in this view, is no longer shaped by contingency and human agency, but moves mechanically like a conveyor belt, while carrying us all as helpless passengers.
Yet anyone who studies history properly knows that it resists such neat packaging. It is full of reversals, contradictions, and anomalies. It is shaped not only by material forces, but also the unpredictable and messy complexity of human beings. Marx, who wrote in the midst of the Industrial Revolution, assumed that the conditions of 19th-century Europe would naturally produce his predicted outcomes. He mistook a moment of intense social upheaval for a universal and irreversible trend.
Free-market capitalism
Capitalism – the market, unshackled by political whim – however, does not sit still.
It evolves and responds to pressure by restructuring itself. Even the welfare state, which ought to be rejected on moral, libertarian grounds, must nonetheless be acknowledged as part of capitalism’s adaptive machinery.
It is not revolution that transformed the system, but reform and experimentation. The welfare state is often celebrated and regarded by some as a Marxist victory, but this simplifies its nature. It can be argued that it emerged not as a rejection of capitalism, but as an effort to stabilise and preserve it. While it clearly contradicts the core principles of libertarianism, it also reveals the ability of the capitalist system to adjust its mechanisms and continue forward without veering into complete tyranny.
This is perhaps one of the system’s most powerful qualities. It bends without fully breaking. It learns and incorporates its challengers. Where Marxism requires purity, capitalism thrives on improvisation.
So what remains of Marx’s vision?
A theory that misreads human nature, oversimplifies history, and demands intellectual surrogates to force it into relevance. It claims to be democratic but relies on elite intervention. It promises liberation but leaves behind a trail of coercion. It declares itself inevitable, yet must be imposed from above.
Marx believed history had a destination. But if anything, history has made a mockery of him.
Ayanda Sakhile Zulu holds a BSocSci in Political Studies from the University of Pretoria and is an intern at the Free Market Foundation.
 | A guest post by
|