I personally believe that socialism can be useful if a nation's politics will not be corrupt. I am not talking about Russia, China, and North Korea; rather, I am talking about the pure socialism. Capitalism has destroyed the basic value of life. It urges people to make more money, dehumanizes, and fades the real meaning of life. Moreover, it has helped the rich gets richer. In contrast, socialism has emphasized the core value of life: if it were not for considering how to live, to eat, to wear, and to earn more money, human beings could find the real meaning of life. In this aspect, socialism is the most appeal political regime that it be nationalized around the world.
Capitalism is not free market. Free market is completely laissez-faire - no govt involvement. Govt creates companies, however, granting them limited liability and personhood. This occurs at the state level in the US. Free market, therefore, would have no corporations, maybe associations of traders and guilds. Capitalism has corporations and those corporations can grow and devour others. In the US with less regulation and lower income tax brackets, these corporations can accentuate the gap. Europe found a middle ground that placed heavier regulation, higher income tax brackets (though these are falling and complemented with value added tax (VAT)), and even employee representatives on the board of directors. With austerity, the middle ground is starting to disappear in favour of pure capitalism, widening the wealth gap. FYI: I am for balanced budgets or at the most 5-year average balanced budgets.
His assertion that capitalism allows the rich to get more money while the poor continue to lose is correct, even if the idea wasn't originally his. However, I definitely do not agree with Marx's solution to the problem. Having the state control everything is too great a burden and only leads to inefficiency and corruption. Capitalism has its flaws, but is sustainable with policies that encourage the redistribution of wealth.
In a perfectly competitive market, profits tend to approach the interest rate of the market. That is, investors, typically the rich, do not get richer by investment. Indeed, they invest only so that their assets do not decrease in value. Meanwhile the poor are able to find adequate investment, using which they can make their own businesses. Those who don't work stay just as rich and workers get richer.
Of course, we don't live in a competitive market. The primary problem is workers are unable to find capital to be competitive in the market. Essentially, there are too many barriers to entry for those at the bottom, while there are far fewer for those at the top. Here's where the government can step in.
Capitalism is hardly corrupt. It just needs the right policies in order to support real economies.
... About the rich being richer and the poor being poorer. "Those who have will have more; those who don't have will lose the little they've had." We all know those verses on the Bible. That makes perfect sense, as the rich can use his wealth to invest on something for a gain of return, or simply lend his wealth out for a rent, while the poor spends all of his income on food, drink and other supplies with nothing left. With or without capitalism, this fact won't change. This prediction was Jesus's and Karl Marx just stole it.
America has been getting more and more socialist the past 100 years - unemployment benefits, welfare, food stamps, Obamacare.The US Government is bankrupt via paying for all of this, like all socialist experiments it has failed.The solution is to scrap all social security, medicaid, Obamacare etc and then lower taxes to stimulate the economy creating jobs, so that people can work and earn a decent living instead of subsiding on a few crumbs from a highly inefficient govt beaurocracy.
It is not that "capitalism is corrupt," anymore than "socialism is not corrupt." It is that capital tends to accumulate in the hands of the few, not the many - this is human nature.
The rich do tend to get richer, but in saying that the poor get poorer, Marx was implying that socialism is a better system for the poor, and that has not proven out in the real world. Yes, capitalism makes for some inequalities, but the overall production of wealth tends to be enough higher, versus other economic systems, that there is more for the poor.
Not saying that "capitalism is perfect," either - in it's pure, unbridled state, it leads to a tiny minority being exceedingly rich, while the rest are akin to serfs. So, the movements arise for regulations and controls - as in the U.S. in the early 1900s, social "safety nets," unionization, etc.