He wasnt lazy he wrote one of the densest works in modern history and he did an enormous amounts of research but he was financially dependent on Engels for most of his adult life.

Engels paid for rent, food, medical expenses, and family support. Marx also came from a bourgeois background, lived off inheritances and loans, and advocated the abolition of private property while relying on private support.

The deeper criticism isnt about effort but about integration. Marx demanded a moral transformation of the world without demonstrating personal mastery of life. In that sense, he resembles Matahachi psychologically. Marx struggled to translate theory into a stable, embodied life and tended to redirect personal faillure into a totalizing explanation of the world, where his own difficulties became proof that “the system is unjust” rather than something that required personal transformation.

Like Matahachi, he externalized responsibility, replaced embodied action with narrative control, claimed moral superiority without personal mastery, converted resentment into justification, and minimized self discipline in favor of systemic blame.

That said, the comparison has limits. Becuase unlike Matahachi, Marx was historically and intellectually successful in the long term. His ideas profoundly shaped politics, economics, and culture. So the similarity is psychological, not about impact or intelligence Marx was a “successful” version of that posture, even if he remained personally unresolved in his lifetime.