It’s something most people, even Marx’s biggest ideological enemies, don’t get: ideological flexibility (and the lack thereof).<\/p>\n
Marx theorized that the proletariat, who had everything to lose under capitalism, would therefore be motivated to be the most open to alternatives such as socialism and communism. Conversely, those who gained the most from laissez-faire capitalism would be motivated to be its most rigid and staunch defenders, and prevent any reform from being possible.<\/p>\n
Intrinsically unstable, capitalism would proceed to tear itself apart as the swings of the business cycle inevitably got more and more dramatic and the great masses of the proletariat became increasingly immiserated. When Marxian socialism would finally be tried, it would almost immediately outperform capitalism; even though central planning might have its inefficiencies, those would prove far less destructive than capitalism\u2019s wild swings. Socialism would prosper while the capitalist world crumbled and ended up in history\u2019s dustbin.<\/p>\n
But it didn\u2019t work out that way. Huge chunks of the proletariat clung to traditional social structures and refused to even entertain the idea that something different might be to their benefit. At the same time, the bourgeoisie proved to be something less than totally rejecting of the idea of making changes to the laissez-faire formula. Some were worried about the consequences of unrest (which was<\/em> building, despite falling short of revolution) harming them. Some thought they could profit from regulation by influencing it. Many thought both.<\/p>\n In short, the proletariat was not so ideologically flexible and the bourgeoisie so ideologically rigid. Both sides had (and basically still have) an intermediate (and approximately equal) level of flexibility.<\/p>\n