A careful analysis of Daniel Morgan’s article “Marx’s communist theories not worthy of respect” reveals the frailty of his reasoning. Morgan uses the example of a Raising Cane’s employee to demonstrate that Karl Marx’s notion of surplus value is faulty. Morgan describes some reasons why one would not do this: lack of protection from litigation, unpredictable income, etc. Morgan continues, “For most, the challenges involved in starting a business make giving a pre-existing firm your surplus value a worthwhile trade.”However, “for some… the risks of starting a business are worth the potential payoff.” Fully unpacking this assertion is necessary to understand Marx’s critique of capitalism. We must understand precisely why the risk of starting a business is worthwhile for some, but not all. The answer is, of course, that the wealthy (those who control capital) can afford to undertake risky but profitable business ventures, while those who struggle to earn enough to eat, pay bills, etc. can only secure these basic necessities through wage-labour. In other words, the Cane’s cashier cannot rationally accept the risk of starting her own firm, even if the venture would likely be profitable in the long run. Someone who already has a pre-existing source of capital, on the other hand, is free to accept risk freely and therefore profits from the labour of those who cannot. This is why it often seems the rich get progressively richer in capitalist societies.Marxist theory critiques this tendency in capitalism and suggests public ownership of the means of production to rectify this inequality. Whatever one thinks about Marx’s conclusions, his ideas are formidable and need to be confronted in their complexity. For this reason, Marx continues, and will continue, to be read.Joseph Falconanthropology and philosophy junior