In the early twenty-first century, global capitalism is not merely an economic system but the defining architecture of power, inequality, and conflict. The class antagonisms Marx once identified have not only endured but intensified amid neoliberal globalization, the retreat of the welfare state, and a surge in militarized crises. This essay reappraises capitalism through the lens of Marxist theory, emphasizing the enduring relevance of class struggle, historical materialism, and dialectical analysis. In doing so, it explores how social hierarchies, war, and state violence are intimately linked to the capitalist mode of production. Against a backdrop of global inequality, environmental collapse, and expanding warfare—from Ukraine to Gaza—this paper argues that capitalism, far from being a stabilizing force, perpetuates stratification and exploitation through its internal contradictions.
Marxist Theory in Contemporary Global Dynamics
Central to Marxist analysis is the idea that class divisions are not accidental but structurally determined by one’s relationship to the means of production. The capitalist class (bourgeoisie), as owners of capital, extracts surplus value from the working class (proletariat), who sell their labor under coercive market conditions. For Marx, this relationship is exploitative not due to individual malice but systemic necessity: capital must accumulate, and accumulation depends on surplus labor.
Historical materialism positions this class antagonism as the motor of history. Capitalism did not arise in a vacuum but was conditioned by the contradictions of feudalism. Landlords, lords, and monarchs were eventually displaced by a rising bourgeoisie empowered by industrialization, colonial wealth, and nascent markets. However, as Marx foresaw, capitalism too contains contradictions: the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, the overproduction of goods amid underconsumption, and the proletariat’s growing awareness of its exploitation.
These contradictions are not only economic—they shape global geopolitics, identity, and ideology. In this sense, Marxist ontology insists on understanding class not merely as economic status, but as a relation, dialectically tied to the structure and movement of history
Contemporary capitalism has produced new layers of social stratification, but the foundational class antagonism remains. Elites—corporate executives, tech magnates, financial investors—constitute a transnational capitalist class (TCC) that operates above national boundaries. They wield disproportionate influence over political decision-making, trade, and war.
Meanwhile, the working classes across the globe are fragmented by geography, legal status, race, and gender. Migrant workers, particularly in the Global South and Middle East, live in quasi-feudal conditions. The precariat—a growing class of underemployed, informal, or gig workers—echoes Marx’s lumpenproletariat, yet operates within digital infrastructures and algorithmic governance.
Although Max Weber added nuance by incorporating “status” and “party” into social stratification, his framework does not explain why wealth—and thus status—remains concentrated among those who control capital. For Marxists, class is not just about lifestyle or cultural markers but control over surplus production.
In today’s multipolar world, capitalist competition has reentered a phase of military intensity. The Russia-Ukraine war, Israel’s assault on Gaza, proxy conflicts in the Sahel, and the militarization of the Asia-Pacific are not aberrations—they are expressions of what David Harvey calls accumulation by dispossession. When markets are saturated or profits squeezed, the capitalist system turns to war, debt, and privatization as alternative mechanisms of accumulation.
Military-industrial complexes in the United States, China, Russia, and NATO countries thrive off perpetual conflict. Wars create markets for weapons, reconstruction contracts, and debt servicing. As Marx anticipated, capitalism, in its imperial form, must expand outward—through colonization, then neo-imperialism, and now militarized globalism.
Furthermore, wars are ideologically justified through appeals to “democracy,” “defense,” or “humanitarianism,” concealing the material interests at stake: natural resources, control over trade routes, or geopolitical influence. This legitimizes a global social hierarchy where some lives (e.g., Western citizens) are grievable and others (e.g., Palestinians, Congolese, Rohingya) are expendable.
Technology, Surveillance, and the Transformation of Labor
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming the landscape of labor, governance, and social control—ushering in what some have called a “fourth industrial revolution.” From a Marxist perspective, this transformation is not neutral or liberatory. Rather, it intensifies class divisions by consolidating capital and control in the hands of a digital elite, while displacing and surveilling the laboring majority.
Tech giants like Amazon, Google, and Microsoft lead the AI race not to liberate workers but to reduce labor costs, enhance data extraction, and extend predictive control over consumers and employees. Warehouse automation, algorithmic management, and AI-based hiring platforms are already being used to monitor productivity, suppress unionization, and deskill labor. These trends echo Marx’s concept of the general intellect—the social knowledge embedded in machinery—which, under capitalism, is alienated from workers and used to discipline them.
AI systems reinforce existing biases in hiring, policing, and credit scoring, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities. This digital stratification mirrors older class hierarchies while masking them behind a facade of technological objectivity.
Rather than eliminating class conflict, AI threatens to deepen it. While the ruling class benefits from automation and data monopolies, workers face precarization, obsolescence, or coercion into low-paying gig economies. The so-called “knowledge economy” becomes another domain of surplus extraction.
Ethical and Cultural Critiques: Religion and Neoliberalism
While Marxism offers a materialist critique of capitalism, various religious traditions have long offered parallel condemnations—rooted not in economic theory but in moral and spiritual ethics. These faith-based perspectives, particularly from Islam, Christianity, and certain strands of Judaism, challenge the capitalist ethos of profit-maximization, individualism, and commodification of life.
In Christianity, especially in liberation theology, economic inequality is viewed as a moral failing and sin. The biblical critique of the “love of money” and Jesus’s actions against temple merchants are often invoked by theologians and activists alike. Pope Francis has repeatedly denounced “an economy of exclusion and inequality.”
Islamic teachings, too, emphasize economic justice. The Qur’anic condemnation of riba (usury), the obligation of zakat (almsgiving), and the ethical duty of adl (justice) position Islam against the speculative and debt-based logic of financial capitalism.Fethullah Gülen offers a powerful insight into this moral erosion. He states:“Değerlerden uzak bir başarı, sadece bir seraptır; vicdan, merhamet ve inanç olmadan inşa edilen hiçbir yapı ayakta kalamaz.”
This echoes Marx’s concern that capitalism reduces human beings to commodities, though Gülen calls for inner ethical reform rather than revolution.
Neoliberalism—defined by deregulation, privatization, austerity, and market supremacy—has transformed cultural values and human relationships. Individuals are encouraged to see themselves as self-contained entrepreneurs, responsible for their own survival. This has led to alienation, mental health crises, and social fragmentation.
Solidarity is replaced with self-optimization; collective rights give way to personal branding. Capitalism, when left unchecked by ethical and spiritual considerations, breeds inequality not only in wealth, but in meaning.
Ecological Limits and the Capitalist Contradiction
Climate change exposes one of capitalism’s deepest contradictions: its dependence on infinite growth in a finite world. Marxist ecologists such as John Bellamy Foster identify this crisis as a “metabolic rift”—a rupture between human society and nature created by capitalist production.
The environment becomes another exploited “class,” robbed of renewal in the pursuit of profit. Environmental collapse is not a “side effect” of capitalism—it is a structural inevitability.
In Conclusion, Capitalism, as Marx predicted, has not transcended class conflict—it has globalized it. The capitalist mode of production continues to generate hierarchies, wars, and crises, all while masking its contradictions under ideologies of freedom and meritocracy. A Marxist reappraisal reveals that beneath modern complexity lies a simple truth: the vast majority toil while a minority profits.
Bibliography
- Foster, John Bellamy. Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature. NYU Press, 2000.
- Gülen, Fethullah. Kalbin Zümrüt Tepeleri. Nil Yayınları, 1999.
- Harvey, David. The New Imperialism. Oxford University Press, 2003.
- Marx, Karl. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Vol. 1. Penguin Classics, 1990.
- Weber, Max. Economy and Society. University of California Press, 1978.
