Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844

Marx argues that communism requires atheism to keep people focused on the here and now rather than the afterlife. Do you agree or disagree? Is it possible to wed socialism, or even communism, with religion? Would that help to broaden the attraction of communism beyond the ranks of nonbelievers?

How much does Marx’s argument depend upon the particular conditions of industrial capitalism in mid-19th-century Europe? Most work has become safer for the vast majority, at least in the developed world. Does the much safer work still constitute a form of oppression? Or should today’s Marxist shift their focus to developing countries that more closely resemble Marx’s description of a desperate industrial proletariat?

Throughout the world, extreme poverty has declined and life expectancy has risen. At the same time, inequality has also increased, so that the gap between rich and poor is wider even as fewer live in desperate poverty. In Marxist terms, does the widening gap between rich and poor constitute a crisis of capitalism even if overall social wealth is rising?

Do you think Marx has sufficiently demonstrated that capitalism is doomed, or by covering every contingency, has he made his argument “non-falsifiable,” in that nothing can prove him wrong because he can always argue that capitalism must decline in the long term?

Critics of Marx have argued that whatever the pitfalls of private property, it is necessary to create incentives to work, that collective ownership would lead to a “tragedy of the commons” where everyone consumes as much as they can while doing as little work as possible, rendering the system unsustainable. Does Marx have a response to this criticism?

Many contemporary socialist politicians call themselves “democratic socialists” to distinguish themselves from authoritarian governments that imposed socialism through coercion. Does Marx in this text outline something like “democratic socialism,” and do you think it is plausible for such a system to emerge by democratic means when wealthy people have so much influence on the political process.?

Recent reporting shows that marriage has become a major class signifier, as higher-income people are far more likely to get married and even more likely to marry one another. Government programs and other social trends make it easier for married people to acquire property and pass it on to their children, hardening that class divide over generations. Is Marx right that a more “romantic” notion of marriage can coexist with capitalism, or are the “crude communists” right that other social institutions will have to change to make economic change viable?

The most common charge against communism is that it is not practicable, that is, for one reason or another people will never be able to live in harmony and share the bounties of work and cooperation. Even if something like “full communism” is impossible, at least within any foreseeable future, does it still carry weight as a critique of capitalism and an ideal standard by which to explore alternatives?