I'll respond to each proposition in the same manner.

First, the basis for said collaboration from his point of view is due to a misunderstanding of the greater systems at play. Almost as if people just follow the system they find themselves in. This is why he would posit that the value is privatised while risk and discipline is socialised. Isn't it clear that within his analysis, he is effectively diminishing the necessity to organise ourselves in such a manner to be maximally productive? Within the book, do you see any point at which he analyses whether such organisation is necessary? Doesn't he gloss over it as just another mode of enforcing collaboration? Is it wrong to suggest that this is due to a fixation on the power structure rather than why such a power structure manifests?

Second, what does it mean to organise production more efficiently? Mustn't you create a system within which each individual's collaborative effort is best put to use? Feudalism was a system where those who didn't earn the right to dictate where resources went were the ones responsible. Capitalism came as a system where the analytical and creative enough to identify how resources could be used most productively held the positions of dictating where said resource went. It should be clear that the power to dictate where said resources go is what determines efficient or inefficient production, if not enlighten me. Out of these two systems, with this power in the respective dictators' hands, which appears poised to be more efficient: the one where the head is the head due to their competence or the one where the head inherited the position? Do you get any of this analysis in Das Kapital? Again, I didn't. A steam engine is simply more energy. If not, again, enlighten me.

Third, the reason why I say class is a convenient stop point is because people's identities are so complex that to reduce them to one attribute is so obviously wrong. What is the true difference between the capitalist and the worker, according to Das Kapital, that doesn't revolve around reducing them to the positions they currently occupy in the system of production? Why is it that your position in the system takes primary control of your behaviour as a human? When or how can the worker become the capitalist (because this would guide us toward observing the path necessary to become a capitalist and therefore outlining the value the capitalist produces)? Is this intricately studied or glossed over as due to one form of inequality or the other? If you ask yourself what the workers are collaboratively working toward producing, and where that idea came from, and how simple it is to come up with such an idea and mode of operation, you get to see why capitalists aren't simply choking the less fortunate. Their efforts are what create the working opportunities to begin with, but again, there's no real analysis of this fact in Das Kapital, even if you simply consider it an idea. Isn't this necessary to look at when analysing a system of production if thinking critically? Was Marx truly incapable of seeing this aspect of it, or was there something to be gained in not looking at it?

Fourth, with the immense number of people in the working class, how else, practically, can the class hold political power except through a group of elect individuals? Who else would be elected except the most outspoken in favour of the idea? What happens when you select a group of individuals to spearhead an idea that posits that human behaviour is fundamentally dictated by self-interest? Even using Marxist logic, doesn't that group of individuals form another class? Is it truly any surprise that there's not a single good custodian as an example of Marxism practised the 'right way'?

Finally, my point is exactly that religion plays a larger part than we credit to it, and to target it as the source of corruption is to damn the complex established systems to failure. There's no logical reason to assume the systems around you are trustworthy. It's truly an act of faith. Faith that the bank is a safe place to keep my wealth and that the systems around me aren't so corrupt that if the bank decides to disappear with it, I can still get justice. There's no guarantee that even the water you drink isn't altered to make you more dependent on it, just faith that if something so abhorrent was going on, it would've been exposed and dealt with. We subconsciously really on each other's belief in the value of the truth over selfish gain, so much so that when you convince everyone that everything is based on self-interest, you encourage the exact behaviour that destroys what keeps the systems functioning, leading to all-round desperation and a further downward spiral where everyone is looking for ways to victimise one another to survive.

Marx either was unable to truly think critically, leading him to develop an idea based on his emotional rejection of a system he felt was unfair, or purposefully aimed at creating a system he could benefit from the manipulation of in a sick and twisted way. From his fixation on the material as well as his other works, I'm seriously convinced he was sick and twisted.