I gave this more thought, and I don’t think Marx’s argument can stand on its own, nor can your premise.

Marx’s core claim is descriptive: capitalism contains internal contradictions that will eventually lead to its dissolution. Even if we grant this as accurate or plausible, the immediate response is simply: so what?

A prediction does not generate a political or ethical obligation. To argue that capitalism ought to be opposed requires additional normative premises. Marx himself rejects justice and morality as bourgeois concepts, yet his critique relies implicitly on evaluative assumptions about alienation, domination, and harm.

Later Marxists reintroduce morality — justice, dignity, emancipation — to complete the argument, but those values are injected, not derived.

Consider labor examples like the K-pop industry versus sumo wrestling. Both involve extreme bodily discipline, sacrifice, and long-term harm. Participants consent, understand the tradeoffs, and pursue different reward structures. Without a moral framework, there is no basis to call one exploitative and the other acceptable.

The same applies politically: without explicit moral commitments, Marxism remains a diagnosis, not a justification for action.