1.

Marx would notice, through the covid response, that capitalism has changed since his

conception of communism. During the pandemic stimulus checks were given, rents were

extended, and vaccine doses were free. Capitalism uses a portion of the surplus made by business

owners, through taxes, for government policy to solve problems that the economic system

couldn’t. He’d think these mechanisms keep from people overthrowing the bourgeoisie sooner.

Capitalism had extended its natural life by a century or two. People’s needs were barely being

met but they were still a “slave” having to sell themselves, yet it was enough to stave enough

people from having nothing to lose; therefore, diverting mass revolution. The covid response in

different countries could be seen as a reflection of today’s relation of production. The countries

that have gained the most from capitalism are more prepared to deal with the epidemic then the

historically disadvantaged; yet the worst off were being given aid by the richest countries (Marx

may conject that this serves to keep them from turning to socialism). On the other hand, Marx

may praise capitalism for innovating a vaccine in under a year. Backed by an economic system

based on extracting surplus, government provided funds and assumed financial risk for Covid

research; telling companies to overproduce & stockpile vaccine doses regardless of clinical

success. This is a feat Marx can’t assuredly say communism could replicate. Again, the

“bourgeoisie” has “accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, roman aqueducts

etc.” (Pp. 161 Marx & Engels, 1848) but Marx may say that capitalism has also set limits on the

possibilities of the covid response. Initial cases could be lower if people weren’t too worried

about money to call for sick leave. Suicides among the poor who caught covid may be prevented

if money wasn’t a problem. The homeless may not be as susceptible to the virus if they had a

roof over their head. Vaccine distribution to the most unfortunate countries could be faster under

global communism & class consciousness instead of geopolitical and religious grounds.
2. Firstly, I disagree with Marx when he said the bourgeoisie is in an embarrassing state where "it

[the bourgeoisie] has to feed him [proletariat slave], instead of being fed by him" after all money

(like any other commodity) has diminishing returns. One can only spend so much in their

lifetime. So, it wouldn’t hurt the bourgeoisie to pay more for everyone else’s wellbeing. We

could mandate them in this democratic manner (although the newer Marxists may yelp

“Hegemony!”). In short, the bourgeoisie can still sustain his “slaves” while being given the fruits

of their labor. Secondly, when Marx talked about the problem of innovation at the

“displacement” of workers he was talking about technology such as the power-loom and the

steam mill, but 5 industrial revolutions later we’ll see capitalism has only gained steam. There’s

still looming threats of being replaced by innovation today (bringing one closer to pauperism),

but Marx may hesitate to repeat the same predictions made 75 years ago as we still seem to have

jobs for enough people (giving them something to lose). Thirdly, while it would be premature to

say that communism has failed, afterall feudalism lasted about 6 centuries while capitalism is

only 4, this could also highlight a problem with Marx’s conception of Capitalism. Hegainly, we

could say that Capitalism is still changing as we speak so it’s premature of Marx to assume

capitalism wouldn’t find areas of improvement especially in regulating production to prevent

overproduction and anarchy of the market (controlling the sorcerer bourgeoisie). Capitalism

being able to “storm-stress” repeatedly only speaks to capitalism’s flexibility and tenacity despite

Karl Marx's observations that the bourgeoisie have dug their own grave which will invite the

proletariat's’ rise. So, I propose to instead see economic systems as tools to make as much money

as possible while government policy is for societal issues after the fact. Struggle is still needed to

push social safety nets such as universal basic income, however tension is also important to keep

the unions from pushing $50 minimum wages without calculating the economic consequences.
3. The USSR’s goals were to enforce the common interest of the proletariat, as Marx wrote (Pp.

169 Marx & Engels, 1848), thinking themselves the vanguard for the working people. In a

Hegelian sense, they were a communist sapling unable to mature into a full-fledged communist

tree because of poor(economic & political) conditions and other competing (capitalist) trees. It is

absurd to recategorize this stunted communist sapling into a different species. One may retort,

“the USSR was merely state tyranny against the proletariat after the removal of the bourgeoisie”.

For example, in the USSR one’s whole village may be tasked factory work for a war effort, but

in Marx’s communism one freely chooses their work throughout the day (pp.119 of Marx, 1845).

However, I rebut that the USSR was an attempt to manifest socialism outside the pages of Marx

in the realities of a global struggle against capitalism. Invertedly, disowning the USSR blinds us

from valuable lessons for future struggles; for example, if the state and the private sector are one

and the same, this overlap is susceptible to corruption and abuse (e.g., the Chernobyl Disaster).

Bibliography

Marx, Karl. 1845. “The German Ideology.” In Selected Writings, edited by L. H. Simon.

Indianapolis Hackett Publishing.

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. 1848. “The Communist Manifesto.” in Selected Writings,

edited by L. H. Simon. Indianapolis Hackett Publishing.