
Karl Marx is back—and he thinks you Americans are clowns
Karl Marx is having a moment—again. Not a polite classroom cameo. Not a dusty citation buried in a syllabus. No, we're talking prime-time revival, with publishers, podcasters and politicos all vying to resurrect the bearded prophet of class war.
Princeton just dropped a new translation of ' Capital ' —the first in 50 years. Bernie Sanders remains the most famous living socialist on Earth. TikTok teens quote 'seize the means' between lip-syncs and thirst traps. And MAGA diehards bark 'Marxist!' at everything from school libraries to seatbelt laws.
Welcome to the fourth Marx boom, as historian Andrew Hartman calls it. But let's get one thing clear: most people talking about Marx—left, right or libertarian—have no idea what they're actually invoking.
Because Marx, the man, the theorist, the firestarter, has become less a thinker and more a Rorschach test. A ghost conjured by the Left for moral clarity and by the Right for moral panic.
And yet, buried beneath the hysteria, is something worth looking at. Not because Marx offers the answers but because he was asking the right questions. And America—bloated, twitchy, unequal—is finally in a position to understand them.
Marx wasn't about equality. He was about power.
This is the first mistake people make. They think Marx was some utopian, frothing about 'fairness' or 'equity' like a modern DEI consultant. He wasn't. Marx was a power analyst.
His lens wasn't moral—it was mechanical. You either owned the means of production, or you didn't. Everything else—religion, culture, law—was scaffolding. Set dressing. A way to keep the underclass sedated.
Marx never said capitalism made people mean. He said it made them replaceable . A system that turns humans into units of labor, not out of malice, but efficiency. And if you don't see that reality in Uber drivers, Amazon warehouses or AI ghostwriters cannibalizing creative work, you're blind.
Why Marx appeals to America's lost generation
Marx is back in fashion because America, in many ways, is more Marxist in condition than it has ever been. Not ideologically but structurally. A bloated elite hoards wealth and real estate. The middle class is evaporating faster than coastal cities. Work offers no security, only subscriptions. And even the fantasy of upward mobility has been repossessed.
Enter a generation saddled with debt, raised on screens, priced out of housing and force-fed bootstraps ideology while watching billionaires LARP as demigods. These young Americans don't want communism, but they're furious at capitalism. Marx didn't give them hope. He gave them blame . And blame is power's most dangerous counterforce.
The irony of the American Marxist boom
The deeper irony? Marx wouldn't have recognized most of today's 'Marxists.' Cultural obsessives more focused on pronouns than property. Tenured radicals clinging to academia like landlords to rent checks. Corporate HR departments using DEI training as a smokescreen for crushing union talk.
Marx believed in material struggle, not identity kabuki. To him, class wasn't just one axis among many—it was the engine room. Everything else, including race and gender, flowed from the economic base. The modern Left has flipped that model inside out, often without realizing it. That's not Marxism. That's mood-board activism.
The 2025 translation of ' Capital ' by Princeton is being billed as 'Marx for the twenty-first century.' But that phrase is more revealing than it intends. Because it's not about updating Marx—it's about updating us . It's about whether we're finally ready to read him not as a revolutionary or relic, but as a systems analyst. A brutal, unsentimental one.
He didn't want your virtue. He wanted your audit. He wanted to know who owned the factory, and why. Who owned the newspaper? Who funded the revolution? And who pretended they didn't?
What the Right Gets wrong
Conservatives love to shout 'Marxist!' like it's a spell that makes your enemies disappear. But what they often miss is that capitalism itself has become post-capitalist in structure.
The free market is a museum piece. What we have now is something closer to algorithmic feudalism, where tech oligarchs own the infrastructure of communication, culture and commerce. Not factories—servers. Not railroads—data.
Marx saw feudalism mutate into capitalism. What he didn't live long enough to see was capitalism mutate into platform monopolies. If the lords once controlled land, and the industrialists controlled labor, today's titans control the interface. And when you control the interface, you don't need to own the worker. You just own their access to work.
What the Left gets wrong
The Left romanticizes Marx but forgets he was diagnosing disease, not prescribing utopia. He didn't tell you what to build—he just showed you what would collapse. Every time someone waves a hammer-and-sickle flag while sipping Starbucks and tweeting about revolution, a ghost in Highgate Cemetery rolls its eyes.
The real tragedy is that the Left, by abandoning class for cultural abstraction, has forfeited the very tools Marx gave them. They're trying to cut steel with slogans. They've replaced critique with vibes. And the ruling class couldn't be more thrilled.
Marx doesn't need to be right, just useful.
Of course, Marx got many things wrong. He underestimated capitalism's plasticity. He misunderstood the role of the middle class. And he didn't see how consumerism would morph exploitation into entertainment.
But he understood cycles. He saw how inequality, left unchecked, hollows out empires. He saw how narratives are used to justify hierarchies. And he saw that the people most confident in their system are usually the ones who benefit most from not questioning it.
Sound familiar? You don't have to be a Marxist to read Marx. You just have to be awake. Because for all the noise, what's unfolding in America isn't a cultural revolution—it's a class reckoning. And if you look past the hashtags and hysteria, you'll see that Marx isn't returning as a prophet. He's returning as a mirror.
And America, bloated and broken and blindfolded by its own exceptionalism, is finally starting to look.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


South China Morning Post
16 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
Who will win the AI contest of the century?
The arrival of artificial intelligence, robotics and new technology has been heralded as a game changer. But how will it unfold, and who will be able to take advantage of AI to win the contest of the century: the United States, China or some other country? Advertisement Writing in Foreign Affairs in 2023, James Manyika, senior vice-president of technology and society at Google, and Nobel laureate economist Michael Spence argued that 'by the beginning of the next decade, the shift to AI could become a leading driver of global prosperity'. These gains would come from not just the rapid advances in AI in creating new content and applications in daily life, but also its rapid spread through the democratisation of innovation. But for it to happen, Manyika and Spence say, we need a new policy framework as well as a new mindset towards AI, and that 'AI technologies must be embraced as tools that can enhance, rather than undermine, human potential and ingenuity'. I think the AI revolution has arrived faster than expected. So far, it looks like the US and China are in a two-horse race, with the others still struggling to catch up for various reasons. My thesis is that no country can afford not to encourage AI adoption to enhance national productivity and avoid the digital knowledge divide. Those who do not will become marginalised. The contest of the century is thus between all countries. In this cutthroat race, with Big Tech seeking to dominate the 'pay-by-subscription' game, we may end up being mentally and financially colonised in different tech domains. Advertisement This is where the Global South can innovate its way through open-access systems that meet individual or local needs, without giving away valuable data by choosing to follow one algorithm platform or becoming locked into 'pay for upgrade' contracts.


South China Morning Post
20 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
As costs of Trump's chaos become clear, expect him to shift the blame
Perhaps this is a good moment for an audit of US President Donald Trump and his 'Make America Great Again' (Maga) acolytes' efforts to reshape the world as we have known it for over seven decades. That means reviewing the 130-or-so days since his inauguration, during which he has seeded the storm, and looking towards the 500-or-so days up to next year's US midterm elections, during which he is set to reap the whirlwind. Advertisement One clear certainty is that we face a period of unrelenting uncertainty, some deliberately provoked, but most of it the unintended product of mouth before brain. How much harm this will do, and whether Trump's team will succeed in 'blame-shifting' its way out of electoral responsibility, has yet to be revealed. But the auguries don't look good. Using more than 150 executive orders over the four months since his inauguration, Trump has successfully marginalised Congress, made 'ad hoc-ism' an art form and stirred a hornet's nest of conflicts with friends and foes alike. Trump's Maga loyalists remain convinced that the damage caused will be short-lived. The technocratic consensus does not share that conviction, but as Trump's procrastination, reversals and pauses generate considerable distance between cause and effect, he will no doubt try to shift the blame for inevitable harm elsewhere. 01:00 Trump justifies 'China tariffs' as US effort to curb 'greatest job theft in the world' Trump justifies 'China tariffs' as US effort to curb 'greatest job theft in the world'


Asia Times
a day ago
- Asia Times
Hopes for a Xi-Trump summit are naively misplaced
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping's surprise phone call—marking the first direct communication between the leaders in months—may signal a temporary thaw in an otherwise frosty and structurally adversarial relationship. While America's restoration of Chinese student visas and China's resumption of blocked critical mineral trade suggest detente, this contact, like others in the history of US-China summits, could quickly prove to be more performative than substantive. The danger lies not in dialogue but in the illusion that the leader-to-leader call, which Beijing insisted Trump requested, will meaningfully alter the deep geopolitical, ideological and economic divergences that define Sino-American relations today. News reports said Xi told Trump to roll back tariffs and other trade measures that are roiling the global economy while warning him about intensifying the dispute over Taiwan. Trump claimed on social media that the call delivered a 'positive conclusion', including on China's restrictions on critical mineral exports, and that lower-level discussions on trade would follow. He said, 'We're in very good shape with China and the trade deal.' Both leaders invited each other to visit their countries. However, reports noted that there was nothing in either side's official statements to indicate the critical mineral issue had been resolved. And China has reasonable cause to remain on guard despite Trump's post-call positivity. Let us count the many impediments to real and lasting reconciliation: The most acute danger stems from Trump's lack of strategic coherence. Unlike the Kissinger-Nixon doctrine of detente, which was structured, calculated and guided by a realpolitik vision of global balance, Trump's approach is reactive and transactional and thus prone to Chinese manipulation. Concessions, including the reopening of student exchanges on the US side and lifting critcal mineral restrictions on China's—appear to be issued in exchange for vague 'reciprocity' rather than any long-term strategic realignment. For Beijing, such inconsistency is easily exploitable. Xi understands that Trump is prone to tactical surprises and policy reversals, allowing China to notch one-by-one concessions while offering minimal structural reforms or broad policy changes in return. This understanding of Trump's tactics and views may also embolden China to keep testing US resolve and commitment in the Taiwan Strait, East Sea and South China Seas, knowing that by doing so it strengthens its negotiating leverage in wresting future US concessions. Much has been made of US-endorsed 'de-risking' from China without actually 'decoupling.' The resumption of trade in critical minerals—crucial to US defense and clean energy sectors—signals a potential pause in America's techno-economic containment of China, which if lasting, would contradict the bipartisan consensus in Washington that China poses a 'systemic challenge.' This could also send mixed messages to allies such as Japan, South Korea and key ASEAN economies, many of which are now being pressured to restrict technology transfers to China, particularly in regard to AI and quantum computing. If Trump reverses this posture, potentially at a Trump-Xi in-person summit, it would necessarily undercut the anti-China coalition the US has been trying to build since 2017 and signal a climbdown of epic proportions. An in-person summit with Xi would give both leaders global optics, something they arguably both need as their hardline stances cause political tremors at home and restlessness abroad. Yet symbolism without substance carries its own risks. The 2019 Mar-a-Lago summit and the 2018 G20 truce in Argentina were celebrated photo ops that ultimately yielded few strategic gains. Indeed, they were followed by tariff escalations, cyber accusations and deepened distrust. Xi, ever conscious of China's 'national rejuvenation' drive, may use a summit with Trump to signal that China is not isolated—even amid Western efforts to contain it – and that he brought the US to heel through his tough negotiating posture. Should he succeed in presenting Trump as a president willing to do business without political preconditions, it will bolster China's power on the world stage. This symbolism would serve Xi well amid research that shows China is straining under the weight of assisting various countries when its own economy remains fragile. There will be a temptation to portray a Trump-Xi summit as a return to the two sides' previous 'managed rivalry' model. Yet this notion is predicated on mutual trust, which no longer exists. A brief thaw may offer breathing space for both, but there is no sign yet of lasting strategic stability. During the previous Cold War, the US and Soviet Union were able to negotiate arms control and crisis management protocols. No such guardrails exist between the US and China today. The resumption of critical mineral trade and educational exchanges, while welcome, won't be enough to reverse mutual mistrust, especially when military encounters in the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea could easily still spiral out of control. Increasingly politicized charges against Chinese nationals in the US are fueling that mistrust. Those include new accusations that China is involved in 'agro-terrorism' that aims to wipe out US barley, wheat and corn yields by up to 50%. A PhD researcher of Chinese origin at the University of Michigan has been arrested in this connection. A potential Trump-Xi summit – despite stage-managed positive vibes and smiles for the cameras, could be yet another empty ritual—a theatrical handshake over unresolved and deep contradictions. To be sure, both leaders have reasons to engage. Trump seeks headlines as his popularity slips ahead of 2026 midterm elections; Xi seeks legitimacy for his tough negotiating posture that risks millions of Chinese factory jobs. But neither is offering a strategic roadmap that can reassure domestic or global audiences. Without a shared understanding of what strategic competition entails, and without mechanisms for escalation control, the optics of detente will only mask a rivalry that still threatens to spiral deeper and deeper into conflict.