Karl Marx defined capitalism and its contradictions accurately. But he made mistakes as well. Without pointing out his mistakes, it would be hard to build a better society. Karl Marx recognized the problem of exploiting workers and tried to solve it. He believed the capitalist labour market exploits workers and that exploitation could be solved only through revolution and the confiscation of private property, which is false.
In fact, unemployment creates worker exploitation. When a job opens in an area with a high unemployment rate, many candidates apply. The competition among workers may reduce their incomes to a level sufficient only for basic survival. Unemployed workers often have to accept poorly paid jobs to support their families. Unemployment has widened the gap between the rich and the poor, creating injustice and problems in capitalism.
Society may introduce justice in production processes through full employment that balances the number of jobs with the number of workers. Reducing work hours will make full employment a reality. Then, any increase in workers' demand on the market puts workers in a better position, leading to higher wages and reduced exploitation. The fairer the work market is, the more satisfied workers are and the less exploited they will be. This idea is presented in my article Full Employment is a Turning Point for Capitalism.
Shorter work hours should be a revolutionary tool of justice, capable of solving society's economic problems. They are a natural solution in developed automation processes, where machines take on workers' jobs. Why have they not been accepted by society so far? Shorter work hours have occasionally been proposed, but the media barely notice, and the idea cannot be widely accepted without scientific and political support. Shorter work hours have never been examined in depth and presented to people. There is a reason for that.
Company owners are supposed to bear the main financial burden of raising workers' salaries, which they dislike. So they block ideas that might advance social justice at their expense. However, there is a worse reason than that. The wealthy people rule over workers by instilling fear of their existence. The less independent the workers are, the more power the rich have over them. Eliminating the fear of unemployment by shortening work hours means preventing the power of rich people, which is the worst thing that can happen to them. The rich have leveraged their influence in policy, science, and media to prevent progressive ideas, such as shorter work hours, from emerging.
All authorities share the same interest: increasing their power in society. Therefore, they often unite to achieve such a goal. This creates conspiracies. Two people may secretly unite against the third for their own benefit. If one defines conspiracies in this way, humankind lives in a sea of conspiracies that increase the power of privileged individuals and prevent others from achieving the same rights. The rich are particularly interested in such unity because it allows them to get the ultimate authority in society. To secure their privileges, the rich have endorsed social policies that serve their interests and have supported scientists whose ideas, although flawed or insufficiently accurate, cannot effectively address social problems or improve society. Among others, they must have endorsed Karl Marx's philosophy.
Karl Marx's work has received tremendous attention, which would not have been possible without elite approval. The elite are a small group of privileged individuals who possess a disproportionate amount of wealth and hold significant political power in society, often independent of democratic elections. The elite pretend to attack Marxism as an ideological enemy, but the attacks are bogus. In reality, articles advocating Marxism can easily reach publishers, while others that may improve society, like mine, are prevented from being published.
The violent revolutions Marx proposed are not acceptable anywhere. In normal circumstances, every government would prohibit Marx's revolutionary theory. Indeed, Marxism was outlawed until the elite discovered it could be helpful to them. They foresaw that Marxism had severe flaws and could not successfully replace capitalism, which was proven by history. Then, the elite made Karl Marx a political philosopher. Otherwise, the elite would prevent Marxists from participating in political elections. Nor would they be able to teach Marxism at universities and get media support.
Still, why would the elite support the ideology which promotes the violent confiscation of their property? The elite must have anticipated they could keep domestic Marxism under control, which they did. They also saw Marxism as an excellent opportunity to inspire revolutions that overthrew non-cooperative leaders in non-cooperative countries. The first victim of Marxism was Russia in 1917.
Karl Marx's philosophy also prolonged worker exploitation. Marx's revolutionary theory diverted people from concluding that escaping workers' exploitation lies in shorter work hours. That is why the elite encouraged science to support Marxism and gave it a significant presence in the media.
A similar thing happened to Christianity, which was outlawed and persecuted until Roman emperor Constantine the Great embraced it. The Church praised it as his illumination, but the emperor likely found authoritative Christianity the most appropriate religion for the Roman imperial cult.
***
If one googles "theory of alienation," only Karl Marx's theory comes up because other alienation theories at a political and economic level do not exist. The question is, why? What is so incredible in Marx's statement that workers are alienated from the surplus value of labour products? Why do other theories of alienation not exist?
Karl Marx suggested that alienation in production processes could be eliminated through workers' cooperation. The political Left has tried to challenge capitalism by developing cooperatives that promote worker collaboration in decision-making. However, workers have different desires, making it difficult to reach agreements about production matters. Successful cooperatives are more an exception than a production model that could replace capitalism. Only a more productive economy can replace capitalism, and the elite prevent people from discovering a more productive alternative.
The elite have misled Marxists into putting the political Left on a path that cannot solve capitalism's problems and improve society. Most Marxists accepted Marx's ideology when they were young. Youthful rebellion, fueled by dissatisfaction, global injustice, and widespread support for Marxist philosophy, made young people an easy target for manipulation. Karl Marx made revolution romantically desirable and scientifically acceptable. The elite made Marxism a foundation of the social sciences because the main arguments in Marx's theories are scientifically incorrect and hinder social progress.
Marxists recognize Marxism's failures but still believe they need to find the proper method to implement Marx's philosophy correctly. Once alienated knowledge is accepted by society, people get indoctrinated and finding the truth becomes very hard, if not impossible. With the help of the wealthy, Marxists have influenced the political Left in the Western World, and by promoting ideas that do not work, they ultimately benefit the rich. By supporting Karl Marx's revolutionary ideology, the elite have prevented humanity from achieving a bright future for more than 100 years and continue to do so.
The main question about Marxism is: why would people need a socialist revolution when the exploitation of workers can be removed by shortening work hours? It is more straightforward and more rational to strive for shorter work hours than to ignite revolutions and completely change the socioeconomic system. If one agrees with that, how come Marx's revolution is well known and a shorter work hours reform is not? The most convincing answer is that the elite masterfully deceives people by imposing false knowledge.
It would be good if Karl Marx were the only confused social scientist. However, the elite have always preferred a select group of social scientists to prevent the truth from emerging and to maintain their privileges in society. As a result, incorrect (or not sufficiently correct) social scientists get the opportunity to teach people. Finding them was never difficult. After spending years learning false (or not sufficiently correct) knowledge about critical issues of society in schools, social scientists can barely see the truth and improve society.
All schools teach students how to improve the world we live in, but none have successfully taught them how to create a good society because they lack the knowledge to do so. So then, what do they teach? The primary subject in all schools is teaching obedience to authorities, which is the opposite of what they should be doing. Learning obedience to authorities can hardly create a better society. Instead, it creates the perverse society in which we live. Authorities preserve their privileges by imposing school curricula, and students have no choice but to accept them. This is oppression that alienates students from objective reality. This is why educated people often struggle to see the truth and find solutions to social issues.
And, as if teaching obedience is not bad enough, the elite also support misguided social scientists who develop flawed or useless knowledge, making it almost impossible to find solutions for social problems. Thus, schools are the origin of social alienation. The truth is simple, but the elite work hard to prevent people from seeing it. As a result, people often struggle to understand how to build a good society. And if they come across the solution, they cannot recognize it. My experience has shown that most social scientists do not believe a good community is possible. Is it not absurd? The chances for social improvement today are generally bleak.
***
On the other hand, if Karl Marx had proposed reducing work hours instead of advocating for revolution, the elite would most likely have prevented his ideas from reaching the people, and hardly anybody would have known that Karl Marx existed.
I am living proof of it. I have worked on defining a bright future for humankind and presented my findings in the scientific book Humanism - A Philosophic-Ethical-Political-Economic Study of the Development of the Society. This book theoretically defines an ethical philosophy based on equal human rights and the foundation of a prosperous political economy. Together, they should determine the bright future of humankind.
The book Humanism is based on an original theory of alienation. It states that subjectivity alienates individuals from objective reality. So, alienation is a subjective perception of objective reality. How come nobody has defined alienation in this straightforward way before?
The elite prevent the formation of an objective theory of alienation because it would highlight the disadvantages of today's society and may increase interest in the opposite process of alienation, which could help solve social problems and improve society. Thus, the elite have even prevented the existence of the opposite term - disalienation. As a result, prominent English dictionaries do not recognize the word disalienation or its possible forms.
I started this theory with the psychology of alienation and expanded it to the sociology of alienation. Subjectivity alienates individuals from their nature, so they struggle to form objective needs and can hardly satisfy them. Unsatisfied needs are the leading cause of destruction in society. The escape from alienation and humankind's problems lies in building an objective vision of reality. The best chance to achieve this goal lies in accepting equal human rights. The democratic implementation of equal human rights will solve social problems and build a bright future for humankind.
I have not found previous scientific material that establishes a good society. Therefore, to define a good society, I had to start my research from the beginning. This research has led me to conclude that equal human rights are the key to creating a good society. To strengthen this theory, I have established the self-evident rules about social relations that should be regarded as the natural laws of society. Examining these laws ought to create a good society and support my theory.
Unfortunately, social scientists have not considered the natural laws of society because they confront the knowledge established by the social sciences under historical influences from authorities. Social scientists tend not to appreciate knowledge that challenges their accepted doctrines and will most likely disagree. Under such circumstances, accepting society's natural laws is a radical step too far for social scientists. As a result, instead of examining the natural laws of humanity to find ways to improve society, social scientists often ignore them.
Social scientists consider only ideas supported by scientific references, and scientific references that genuinely threaten the interests of the elite barely exist. This ultimately prevents the development of new independent ideas capable of improving society. This must also be part of the elite's conspiracy. Scientist Allan Savoury has excellently presented the problem in less than two minutes here:
The difficulties I have faced in promoting my humanistic philosophy led me to believe that the social sciences were not created to improve society, but to hinder its development. Under the influence of powerful elites, social scientists have not established a solid ideological foundation for the philosophy of equal human rights. As a result, equal human rights struggle to break through scientific norms and gain acceptance within the social sciences, which is why a truly equitable society has yet to be established.
The elite is a significant obstacle to improving society, but they cannot hide the truth forever. It will break through one day. Then people will accept the benefits of full employment and request shorter work hours. When people obtain shorter work hours, the elite will no longer be able to exploit them. Accepting shorter work hours should be a starting point for creating good capitalism and building a better future for humankind. Of course, the rich will resist establishing equal human rights, but they cannot win against a unified people who know how to achieve a good life.