/lit/ - Literature

I'm still baffled at how libshits managed to appropriate Che Guevara for themselves

>>9458832
>More people than ever before make up the bourgeois class

If you mean the material wealth of the whole population has increased overall, you're right, but Marx (contrary to popular belief) did not contest this.
"Bourgeoisie" means people owning the means of production, such as tools, factories, land, etc. Especially the small bourgeoisie (family businesses, small shops, small to medium farms) overall has seen a steady decline. The numbers of the proletariat, that is, people relying primarily on wage labour to fulfill their daily needs is bigger than ever.

>was marx wrong ?

He was wrong about capitalism's ability to sustain itself. Basically he didn't think Keynesianism possible. He believed capitalism could not overcome the problems of free competition (overproduction, crises, etc) on its own and had to be replaced by communism. What also followed from this is Marx' conception of lower stage communism as a "better capitalism", as the economic system which will unleash unhindered development of the economic forces and create the abundant wealth required for establishing higher stage communism, a system based on the principle "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". This rather shallow conception which is especially prevalent in later Marx lead to the productivism espoused for example in the USSR. Everything else doesn't matter, as long as the productive forces are developing. This train of thought was brought to its logical conclusion with Deng Xiaoping's "It doesn't matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice."

Another thing he underestimated was the amount of jobs created by new technology. If technology had eliminated jobs without creating new ones at the rate Marx predicted, capitalism would've become unsustainable a long time ago.

>>9304171
Lamo, is that OC?