In this work, I explore the question of whether Karl Marx did characterise capitalism as unjust and condemn it as such. I argue that he did not. Proponents of the view that Marx condemned capitalism as unjust contend that his use of terms such as ‘robbery’, ‘theft’, and ‘embezzlement’ against capitalist exploitation necessarily commit him to moral condemnation of capitalism. In addition, his vision of a communist state where the principle, ‘from each according to his ability to each according to…
Read moreIn this work, I explore the question of whether Karl Marx did characterise capitalism as unjust and condemn it as such. I argue that he did not. Proponents of the view that Marx condemned capitalism as unjust contend that his use of terms such as ‘robbery’, ‘theft’, and ‘embezzlement’ against capitalist exploitation necessarily commit him to moral condemnation of capitalism. In addition, his vision of a communist state where the principle, ‘from each according to his ability to each according to his needs’ will apply, proves that some principles are essentially more just than others on a tran-historical standard of justice. I argue that Marx’s texts vindicate him of moral indictment. Exploitation of workers under capitalism as espoused by Marx, conforms to the capitalist mode of production, hence, the transaction through which the workers are exploited by the capitalist and the distribution relations ensuing from this relation are just. Marx’s use of ‘robbery’ and cognate terms, I argue, is metaphorical, hence, not a proof of his condemnation of capitalism. I further argue that the need principle is not a principle of justice, for Marx had firmly stated that communists do not preach morality.
