You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.

In a recent essay in The Nation, Wendy Brown, a political theorist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., contends that Karl Marx’s Capital is unrivaled in its explanatory power regarding the workings of the modern world. She asserts that Marx’s critique of capitalism transcends the simplistic view of capitalism as merely a market-driven system. Instead, Marx presents capitalism as a pervasive structure of exploitation, commodification and alienation that shapes all facets of life.

Brown acknowledges the ways in which capitalism has evolved, notably through financialization, neoliberalism and the development of regulatory states. However, she argues that the system’s foundational dynamics—exploitation and alienation—remain unchanged. According to her, modern challenges like ecological degradation and rampant financialization demand a reconsideration of Marx’s analysis, particularly his insights into capitalism’s endless expansion and its destructive impact on both people and the environment.

In the end, Brown positions Capital as an essential critical framework for understanding the inequalities and crises of contemporary capitalism, portraying it as a system that thrives on the exploitation of labor while perpetuating inequality.

Is she right?


Brown’s essay is the latest in a long line of critiques that emphasize capitalism’s negative systemic impacts on social, economic and environmental structures and its role in fostering inequality, exploitation, alienation and ecological degradation. Other key works in this tradition include:

Karl Polanyi’s The Great Transformation (1944), which argues that the rise of market economies has disembedded economic activity from social relations, leading to social disruption and inequality. He contends that capitalism, by commodifying land, labor and money, creates recurrent crises that destabilize societies.

Guy Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle (1967), which criticizes modern capitalism for alienating individuals by commodifying everyday life. He argues that capitalism transforms social relations into spectacle, where people are passive consumers of images rather than engaged participants in reality, leading to widespread alienation.

Immanuel Wallerstein’s The Modern World-System (1974), which critiques capitalism for creating global inequality through the exploitation of peripheral nations by core nations. He argues that the capitalist world system generates economic and social hierarchies on a global scale, perpetuating structural inequalities between nations.

Fredric Jameson’s Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (1991), which explores how late capitalism shapes culture, resulting in fragmentation, alienation and the commodification of all aspects of life. He argues that capitalism’s focus on consumption undermines deeper social and cultural meaning.

David Harvey’s A Brief History of Neoliberalism (2005), which links neoliberal capitalism to wealth concentration, growing inequality and the exploitation of labor. He argues that neoliberal policies have exacerbated economic and social divisions while contributing to environmental degradation.

Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2013), which examines the dynamics of wealth concentration, arguing that without regulation or redistribution, capitalism inherently exacerbates inequality, with wealth accumulating disproportionately among the top 1 percent.

Naomi Klein’s This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate (2014), which stresses capitalism’s role in driving environmental destruction, particularly climate change. She argues that the profit motive and endless growth inherent in capitalism are fundamentally incompatible with sustainable environmental practices.

These works collectively emphasize capitalism’s far-reaching social, cultural and ecological consequences and provide critical perspectives on its capacity for exploitation and inequality.


Over 150 years since Marx published Capital (1867)—and nearly half a century since China moved away from state-led development and central planning and over three decades since the Soviet Union’s collapse—Marx’s analysis of capitalism remains vital because it provides a comprehensive framework for understanding how capitalism functions, its impact on social relations and its systemic contradictions.

His critique goes beyond economics to cover social, political and ecological dimensions, making it highly relevant to contemporary issues like inequality, labor exploitation, environmental degradation and technological disruption.

One of Marx’s core insights was that capitalism inherently produces inequality. The wealth gap between the capitalist class (bourgeoisie) and the working class (proletariat) remains wide, as evidenced by today’s extreme wealth concentration. Marx’s concept of surplus value, where capitalists profit by paying workers less than the value of what they produce, resonates in the rise of gig economies, contract work and global supply chains.

Marx also predicted capitalism’s global expansion, where developed nations exploit labor and resources from peripheral regions. This dynamic is evident in modern globalization, where multinational corporations seek cheaper labor in developing countries to satisfy the consumption demands of wealthier ones, reflecting Marx’s analysis of global power relations.

His crisis theory—which argues that capitalism’s contradictions lead to cyclical crises—is reflected in events like the 2008 financial crisis. Marx’s insight that speculation and financial manipulation destabilize economies is increasingly relevant, as financial markets play a dominant role in wealth creation today.

His theory of alienation, where workers are disconnected from the products of their labor, resonates in today’s economy. Many workers feel isolated or lack purpose, particularly in digital platforms or gig jobs. Marx’s analysis of capitalism’s effect on workers’ humanity remains poignant, especially as automation threatens job security.

Marx’s critique of capitalism’s relentless pursuit of profit and its impact on the environment is prescient in the context of climate change. His idea of the “metabolic rift” highlights the unsustainable exploitation of nature, a concern that is mirrored in today’s environmental crises, such as deforestation, global warming, forever chemicals, microplastics and pollution.

Marx also analyzed the role of technology in increasing productivity while reducing labor costs, a concern validated by modern fears around automation and AI.

His critique of ideology—the notion that the dominant ideas in society reflect the interests of the ruling class—is particularly relevant in today’s media-driven world, where consumerism and capitalist values are continually reinforced.

Marx’s critique of capitalism endures because it provides a framework to understand its complexities and contradictions, from economic inequalities to ecological destruction and technological disruption. His insights continue to inspire debates on how capitalism shapes the modern world.


Marx’s analysis of capitalism views economic systems as the foundation for shaping society, culture, politics and human relationships. Marx understood capitalism as a dynamic, evolving system, inherently contradictory, exploitative and prone to crises.

Key elements of his analysis include:

  • Historical materialism: Marx argued that the economic base (modes and relations of production) determines the superstructure (institutions, politics, culture). He saw capitalism as one stage in the historical evolution of economic systems, to be replaced by socialism after its contradictions became unbearable.
  • The labor theory of value: Central to Marx’s thought, this theory holds that the value of a commodity is determined by the labor necessary to produce it. Marx argued that labor is the source of all value, but under capitalism, the value produced by workers (surplus value) is appropriated by capitalists as profit.
  • Surplus value and exploitation: Marx claimed that workers are paid less than the value they create, with the difference (surplus value) going to capitalists. This exploitation is the source of class conflict under capitalism.
  • Commodity fetishism: Marx used this term to describe how social relations between people become obscured by the relationships between commodities. People view commodities as having intrinsic value, ignoring that their value is a product of human labor.
  • Crisis theory: Marx saw capitalism as prone to crises due to contradictions like overproduction. Capitalists push for maximum production, but workers cannot afford to consume the goods they produce, leading to cyclical economic crises.
  • Class struggle: For Marx, history is driven by the conflict between the bourgeoisie (capital owners) and the proletariat (workers). This struggle, he argued, would eventually lead to a revolution and the establishment of socialism.
  • Inevitable collapse: Marx believed that capitalism would eventually self-destruct due to its internal contradictions, leading to a proletarian revolution and the rise of socialism.

Strengths of his analysis include his:

  • Focus on labor exploitation, particularly in critiques of income inequality.
  • Insights into capitalism’s cyclical crises, which have been validated by economic recessions and depressions.
  • Linking of economic systems with power, inequality and social relations, which continues to inspire debates on the relationship between capitalism and societal inequality.

But there are also serious weaknesses in Marx’s analysis.

  • Modern economists largely reject Marx’s labor theory of value, arguing that value is influenced by supply, demand, market dynamics and marginal utility rather than labor alone.
  • His prediction of capitalism’s inevitable collapse has not materialized, as capitalism has proven adaptable, incorporating welfare systems and regulations that mitigate some of its excesses.
  • His economic determinism has been criticized for downplaying the roles of culture, politics and individual agency in shaping history.
  • His analysis has also been critiqued for overemphasizing class conflict at the expense of other social identities and forms of oppression, such as gender, race and ethnicity, which also play crucial roles in capitalist societies.

Many modern economists view capitalism as a self-correcting system, with markets capable of allocating resources efficiently through mechanisms like pricing and competition. Unlike Marx’s crisis-driven view, some modern economists argue that capitalism can be stabilized through government intervention, fiscal policies and regulatory frameworks.

Contemporary analysis of capitalism also considers the global and technological dimensions of the system, focusing on financial markets, globalization and digital economies—issues Marx did not foresee.

However, Marx’s analysis, while rooted in the dynamics of 19th-century industrial capitalism, continues to be relevant for critiques of inequality, exploitation and economic instability, offering a framework for understanding capitalism’s social and ethical dimensions.


To understand capitalism properly, it is essential to avoid common mistakes:

  • Reifying capitalism: Reification treats capitalism as a fixed, unchangeable entity rather than a dynamic, evolving system influenced by human actions, social relations and institutions. This view oversimplifies the historical diversity of capitalism and ignores the role that corporations, governments and individuals play in shaping the system. Reification fosters determinism, where critics or defenders claim capitalism works a certain way because it “must,” which undermines possibilities for reform or alternatives. Furthermore, reifying capitalism hides the power dynamics and inequalities embedded within its relationships.
  • Overgeneralization: Critics often lump all forms of capitalism together, disregarding the differences between laissez-faire capitalism, welfare capitalism and state capitalism. Each version operates with distinct mechanisms, regulations and contexts. Oversimplifying these complexities results in shallow critiques that fail to address the different manifestations of capitalism across time and space.
  • Idealizing alternatives: Many critiques of capitalism idealize systems like socialism or communism without considering their historical and practical failures. For instance, they may ignore the inefficiencies and authoritarianism of 20th-century socialist regimes, presenting an incomplete view of possible alternatives.
  • Ignoring historical context: Critics sometimes overlook how capitalism has evolved from its mercantilist and colonial roots to today’s globalized, financialized model. This neglect results in critiques that focus on outdated injustices without accounting for the complexities of contemporary capitalism.
  • Assuming inherent inequality: While capitalism often exacerbates inequality, not all forms of inequality are purely products of capitalism. Technological advances, cultural factors and geopolitical dynamics also shape economic outcomes and distribution patterns, which critics may overlook.
  • Underestimating innovation and growth: Critics often downplay capitalism’s role in driving innovation, improving living standards and advancing technology. While capitalism has flaws, its capacity for innovation is a key strength, which critics sometimes fail to engage with seriously.
  • Overemphasizing corporations: Some critiques focus exclusively on large corporations and their abuses, missing the diversity of capitalist actors, including small businesses, cooperatives and social enterprises. This narrow focus overlooks the variations within capitalism that can promote ethical or socially responsible business practices.
  • Overlooking reform potential: Critics may argue that capitalism is beyond reform, ignoring the significant regulatory changes that have been implemented in capitalist economies. Progressive taxation, social welfare programs and environmental regulations show that capitalism can adapt to mitigate some of its negative effects.
  • Neglecting global perspectives: Critics often focus on capitalism in developed nations, overlooking how it has functioned in the Global South. Countries like China, India and Brazil have experienced rapid growth through various capitalist models, which should be considered in any global analysis.
  • Moralism over analysis: While moral critiques of capitalism’s exploitation, inequality and environmental harm are compelling, they sometimes lack engagement with the deeper structural dynamics. Effective critiques require not just emotional appeals but a thorough theoretical understanding of the system’s mechanisms.
  • Ignoring human agency: Critics sometimes portray individuals as passive victims of capitalism, neglecting the ways people resist, navigate or benefit from capitalist systems. This deterministic view undermines the diverse ways in which individuals exercise agency within capitalist structures.

Avoiding these mistakes allows for a more accurate understanding of capitalism that recognizes its complexity, adaptability and the role of human decision-making in shaping its outcomes.


A historical perspective on capitalism underscores its differences from earlier economic systems through key features such as the importance of a money economy and the gradual, uneven shift from forced labor to wage labor.

A defining feature of capitalism is its reliance on a money economy, where transactions are mediated primarily by money, not barter, direct labor or traditional forms of tribute. This reliance transforms how production, distribution and consumption are organized, giving capitalism flexibility and scalability beyond earlier systems that depended on direct exchanges or tribute.

Another key characteristic is the transition from forced labor, including slavery, to wage labor. While early capitalism was deeply intertwined with systems like the Atlantic slave trade—where enslaved workers produced vital commodities such as sugar, cotton and tobacco—wage labor eventually became dominant. The shift occurred due to its economic efficiency and responsiveness to market demands, providing employers with a more flexible and adaptive workforce.

In a modern capitalist system, labor is commodified, bought and sold in the labor market. This contrasts sharply with earlier systems where labor was bound by personal relationships, social obligations or coercion. In wage labor, the worker’s labor power is exchanged for wages, transforming the employer-employee relationship into an economic contract rather than a feudal or paternalistic bond.

This evolution underscores capitalism’s dynamic nature, allowing it to adapt to changing market and societal conditions.


A serious understanding of capitalism must acknowledge that it is not static or monolithic but flexible, dynamic and evolving, shaped by technological advances, social changes, global expansions and political reforms.

Early capitalism, such as mercantilism, focused on state-controlled trade and colonialism, aiming to accumulate wealth through resource extraction and monopolized trade routes. As industrialization advanced in the 18th and 19th centuries, industrial capitalism emerged, with mass production and wage labor becoming central to factory systems.

By the late 19th and 20th centuries, managerial and corporate capitalism emerged, marked by expanding companies, professionalized management structures and more dispersed ownership through shareholders. This period also saw the rise of welfare capitalism, where governments responded to labor movements by implementing social safety nets, health care and education, creating a more regulated form of capitalism.

In the late 20th century, neoliberal capitalism gained prominence, characterized by deregulation, globalization and financialization, with capital, services and labor moving across borders. Although the triumph of neoliberal policies can be exaggerated, this phase emphasized privatization and market liberalization, leading to economic growth but also significant inequality.

Technological advances have always reshaped capitalism, from the steam engine in the Industrial Revolution to the internet and artificial intelligence today. Each shift has restructured industries, displaced workers and created new markets. Digital capitalism, for instance, centers on data, automation and digital platforms, where companies like Amazon and Google redefine economic value through services and user data, rather than physical goods.

Globalization has also allowed capitalism to expand across borders, integrating global supply chains and enabling multinational corporations to access cheaper resources and new markets. While globalization has driven economic growth and lifted millions out of poverty, it has also exacerbated inequality and environmental degradation.

The financialization of capitalism in the late 20th century further exemplifies its adaptability, as capital increasingly shifted from productive industries to speculative financial markets. This shift, while creating new economic opportunities, has also increased systemic risks, as evidenced by the 2008 financial crisis.

Capitalism’s adaptability is also seen in its response to social and political pressures. Labor movements, socialist parties and economic crises have spurred reforms, such as labor laws, minimum wages and welfare states, which stabilize the system and address social discontent. For instance, the New Deal during the Great Depression and post–World War II welfare states in Europe exemplify how capitalism has incorporated state intervention to ensure its survival and maintain social stability.

Capitalism’s strength lies in its ability to adapt to technological, social and political shifts, ensuring its relevance and survival. However, these adaptations often come with significant challenges, including inequality, exploitation and environmental degradation, which continue to fuel critiques of the system.


In the 21st century, capitalism is facing new challenges related to climate change and environmental sustainability. There is a growing recognition that capitalism must adapt to the ecological limits of the planet. Concepts such as green capitalism and circular economy models propose ways for capitalist economies to incorporate sustainability by investing in renewable energy, reducing waste and promoting environmentally friendly business practices. While some view these developments as incompatible with capitalism’s growth-driven model, others argue that capitalism’s flexibility can drive innovation in sustainable technologies.

While capitalism’s dynamism has allowed it to adapt to various social, political and technological shifts, critics argue that this adaptability often comes at a cost, particularly in terms of inequality, exploitation and environmental degradation. Critics like Marx emphasize that capitalism’s internal contradictions—its need for perpetual growth, its exploitation of labor and its propensity for crisis—persist, even as it evolves.

However, capitalism’s defenders argue that its strength lies in its ability to generate innovation, improve living standards and create wealth. They stress capitalism’s capacity to self-correct through innovation and market mechanisms, even though these processes may not always be equitable.

Ultimately, any understanding of capitalism must acknowledge its fluidity and capacity for reinvention, recognizing that it is shaped by ongoing interactions between technology, politics, policy and human behavior. Capitalism’s future, therefore, will likely be defined by how well it can adapt to new challenges such as climate change, technological automation and global inequality, just as it has adapted in the past.

Steven Mintz is professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin and the author, most recently, of The Learning-Centered University: Making College a More Developmental, Transformational and Equitable Experience.

Next Story

Written By

More from Higher Ed Gamma