Marx got everything wrong in relationships. Or, he got human nature wrong, which is everything in dating. His system requires a mechanical structure where everyone performs the same and gets the same rewards. That would mean all emotional labor and romantic effort cost the same, all partners are equal, and every relationship pays out equally. It would only work if love was an ant farm and we were all replaceable, and if happiness in relationships was only about belonging to any “family”

So what happens when the “relationship factory” runs badly, and 20% of people do most of the emotional work and the rest sink it? Get 100 daters with similar looks and stats; are they all equally good partners? If one man shows up, leads, listens, and another ghosts, lies, and drains, do they deserve the same romantic return? If we have ten women and two are amazing girlfriends and the rest are chaos, do we love them all equally? Equal outcome kills motivation to be an excellent partner.

He didn’t understand that getting the same results no matter what you do is the worst demotivator ever. But the only thing worse than marxism is how dating “capitalism” actually runs, because it’s in power. In theory, different people exchange value and the romantic capital moves and stays healthy. In practice, romantic capital stays where it is: the top 10–20% get most attention, and everyone else provides validation, favors, and emotional labor. It’s feudal: a monopoly game

And democracy. Build a group made of ten relationship experts and one hundred amateurs, give them a problem—how to date, who to marry—and let them all vote. Good luck. Most people will pick what feels familiar, safe, or socially approved, not what actually works. In your own love life, stop running it like bad democracy and bad socialism combined. Acknowledge unequal value, reward genuine effort, and vote with your time and body only for partners who consistently show up with real work