Why China and the US are more 'Marxist' than Cuba and Venezuela

Why China and the US are more 'Marxist' than Cuba and Venezuela

Claiming that China applies 70% of Marx's ideas while Cuba and Venezuela barely reach 0% sounds like a provocation, but it is the argument put forward by a certain heterodox analysis. Its author does not call himself a Marxist, but a reader of Marx, and sums up his reading in points that clash with the official narrative: Marx would have been anti-equality, pro-inequality, in favour of worsening working conditions if it improved productivity, opposed to central banks —something akin to bitcoin—, supportive of private property as long as there is no surplus value, and an advocate of a low tax burden.

The labour theory of value under fire

The sharpest criticism targets the labour theory of value. The argument goes that the value of a good lies not in the effort or cost of production, but in the interplay of supply and demand. The example is graphic: someone can make statues out of excrement, which has a cost, but if nobody wants them, their market value is zero. In practice, it is the market, not labour, that sets the price.

Who actually applied Marx?

According to this school of thought, not even Marx himself applied his theories. The USSR would have applied 30%, the United States 40% without meaning to, and China 70%. Cuba and Venezuela would sit at 0%. Those who disagree point out that China did well when it moved away from Marxism, not when it embraced it.

Marxism without Marx

These readings raise a question: if Marx's prescriptions —productive inequality, private companies without taxes, bitcoin— resemble real capitalism more than classical communism, what is left of his thought? Far from being settled, the debate shows that Marxism is a prism with many faces, and each country chooses which one to look through.