Marx‘s theory of the ontological status of the human being begins with an analysis of man’s state in a capitalist society as a negative portrait, against which he sets his own concept of humanity. He identifies money and transactionality as the chief corrupting agents under capitalism and proposes a move to a purely human existence in which one’s essence is determined by non-monetary authentic interhuman relations. Although some of the finer points of his theory need adjustment, its overall thrust is deeply relevant to 21^st-century American society.

For Marx, human beings are, at their core, relational. Their being is affirmed in their recognition by and interaction with others. If one’s relationships and being are truly human, then they are also truly authentic; one cannot hide behind wealth to obscure one’s deficiencies. Money, however, has such power that it allows the stupid to become intelligent, the weak to become strong, and the ugly to become beautiful. This is in an abstract sense for Marx in that one merely circumvents the problems caused by these various negative conditions (i.e., one circumvents ugliness by buying oneself sexual partners), but it occurs in a very real sense for us. Through plastic surgery and cosmetics, one can become physically beautiful; through anabolic steroids, one can increase one’s muscle mass; through the abuse of prescription ADD/ADHD medications, one can increase one’s ability to concentrate. All three examples I have presented are deeply alienating and widely disdained, reflecting Marx’s assertion that the use of money to attain these ends is dehumanizing. And yet all three of these practices persist.

Perhaps the best illustration of the double-sided power of money is American celebrity culture. Figures such as the Kardashians are viewed with general contempt by the elite (or those who perceive themselves to be the elite- determining who is “elite” and who is not is beyond the scope of this essay). They are usually depicted as vapid, stupid, self-absorbed, and radically inauthentic, and these qualities are tied in with their wealth and in particular with the ways they choose to use their wealth. Donald Trump, who is perhaps the most notorious celebrity of this genre, was lampooned and disdained as an absurd, heartless billionaire on the level of Scrooge McDuck even before he announced his campaign for the US presidency in 2015.

And yet both of these figures are profoundly influential. The Kardashians are widely looked to for their fashion and have managed to make staggering sums of money through reality TV. Donald Trump, despite his constant condemnation as a racist, misogynistic clown by most commentators, is now the President of the United States of America. His wealth, and years of experience in being wealthy, enabled him to craft a campaign that usurped all expectations. He is still broadly seen as a despicable (or simply sad) human being, even by many of those who voted for him. That he is in many ways a hollowed-out, troubled man due to his use of money to get his way and his endless lust for power is taken for granted by many. And yet he has used this enormous wealth to buy himself the world.

Yet the American consciousness seems to be in denial of this reality. We like to imagine that we truly value people for who they are, and that wealth is unimportant. We tell stories of poor folks such as George Bailey in It’s a Wonderful Life who, despite great financial hardships, discovers that family is the true treasure, or Walter Hobbs in Elf, who realizes that his family is more important than his job and unforgiving boss. America applauds these figures as models of virtue and family values. We recognize that these actions are virtuous and good. And yet we ignore the practical reality that money rules over us and determines our place in society.

In conclusion, Marx’s theory of the ontological status of the human being is deeply relevant for 21^st-century American society. Money has, as Marx describes, a god-like power; it rules our interactions and is seen as the great social force. Nevertheless, its effect in this role is poisonous and dehumanizing. Only when money ceases to be the central medium of transaction will we be able to be fully human.

(My discussion in this piece is primarily based on this section of the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844).