?A drama that should be studied?

Abstract

I am not an expert on Marx, though I have read a lot of his works. It has been mentioned here that Marx was a scholar, and this is the main thing. There is one thing that disturbs me in this regard: Marx as a scholar proved that capitalism was something objectively inevitable. Hence, both the capitalists and the workers were absolutely inevitable, and it was not the fault of the capitalists as human beings that they were capitalists. Then as a scholar, but not only as a scholar, he called for the destruction of capitalism. This is the human aspect that disturbs me, viz., the absence of the scholarly understanding that they could not help being capitalists, it was their fate. It was fortuitous that they were capitalists. They could not help existing under capitalism. At least, a part of the population couldn't help being capitalists. The fact that just these rather than other people were capitalists was a matter of destiny and chance. Marx immediately sided with the proletariat, not the truth. And here he was no longer a scholar in his perception and justification of the proletariat's hatred for the rich. As a scholar, he should have explained to the proletariat that it was not their fault that the others were capitalists; he should have explained what in particular had to be changed in society (I will not say what) without affecting those people. Even if it had been impossible during a revolution, Marx as a scholar should not have sided with partial truths. This can have very important consequences. I have recently been shown a booklet published in Cuba. It was one of the latest speeches by Fidel Castro, entitled Socialism or Death. Of course, when a person faces a choice between socialism and death, it is clear that he prefers socialism. Perhaps, this slogan could be slightly altered: Marxism or death. I understand I am being crude. But it is still hard to say whether the Marxists distorted Marx or Marxism distorted the Marxists. Both