Regarding your question,
As I understand it, Karl Marx was anticaptitalism, but is that such a bad thing?
To me, No ( Here I mean, Capitalism is not a bad thing accoring to Marx himself, or well say, more correctly saying, to me personally, Marx is a hyper-capitalist ( When you read his works ( though I know it is heavy ) with due attention, you will notice it. )
Possibly and personally what most of all the people seem to be misunderstanding is they are thinking K.Marx is some kind of Lenin-like "Communist" ( To me Lenism is nothing but a coup and only what he made is a forced cumulated labor camps as well as the surfacial equality as well as in the name of spreading Communism fighting with the U.S = The Wes with its vast military power ( which finally led to the collapse of the Soviet Union )) When you read Marx, he nowherer defines crystal clearly what kind of state or whatever some "Communism" is. For example, when you read his phrase such like this
In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. ( German Ideology )
Soooooo, if we take his quote literally, we can go hunting in the morning, go fishing in the afternoon, have a dinner and after that we debate, and what exactly is it? Who makes the bows or rifles for hunting while they are playing in the state of Communism??????
I already made a question about Marx here. According to Marx, Communism-thinng will be created naturally only after the the Capitalistic mode of the production reaches hight enough ( kindly pardon me to find the corresponding English phrase since it takes time ( I read his works in my language )) and and after conquering the Reification and its culmination social-alienation, where the products human beings made will move by their power accordin to their own principles like something completely unrelated with those who made them. ( For example, kindly consider, if you were a computer programmer. Well, you can see in today's world, your product, for instance, softwares are everyday bought and sold indepentendly of your intention or will etc in the market as if they are no yours anymore. )
And what is the adverb naurally and the Capitalistic mode of the production reaches hight enough I said above exactly? How high does Capitalism need to reach so that the Commusim the state of the affair will come naturally??? I don't have any idea at all about this.
I know that capitalism provides wealth and opportunity, but I think even today we can see the downfall of capitalism that Marx explains -- the one in which men will use the talents of other men to produce great fortunes for themselves, and only pay the man that produces the item a minimum wage.
I would not like to use the word "downfall", for the reason according to Marx's analysis there is only "donwfall" and "good times" and "stagnant time" = circulation of the Capitalistic state. Personally what Marx wanted to explaine is the crazy movement of the Capital under the Capitalistic mode of the production, not downfall only. ( but not limited to, kindly be reminded. ) And according to him, it will be accelerated as the Capitalistic mode of the production advances further and further as time passes.
So what we have to do according to what Marx proposes, are abolishing totally the Reification and Social alienation, as well as division of labor, as well as the management of the distribution of our own products at the same time we are producing them. which is, well, too much over the capacity of human beings us.
I think what he mostly citicized was the devision of labor since it leads to the work of you just as a pure part of a certain machine. One contended abou this issue at the first link, that an artist could be free to some extent from such a division of labor. Le us consider, then who made the painting tools forr the artist? Is he planning to bring his paintings abroad himself in order to sell? Or instead would he use freight ??? I would like to say, like this. If he can do everything from making tools to shipment and collecting the money all entirely, then I would say, Yes, he is not dependent on any division of labor literally.
But would a Marxist world be any less productive?
I would like to say No, if one relates his works wih communsim thing. But I would say Yes if one uses his works as the analyzation tools into today's production mode.