The o.p. contains so many misapprehensions that it can be legitimately described as “not even wrong”.
No more needs to be said.
Stranger
Okay, I’ll work with the OP. Here’s some things Marx got wrong.
Marx was too hung up on class. He was a European and class structure is much stronger in Europe. But classes can be fluid and people can move between classes. So class identity is not as fixed and strong as Marx imagined.
Marx didn’t see the benefits of private property. A system where individuals own property incentivizes property owners to protect and improve their property (it admittedly also incentivizes them to exploit their property). A system of communally owned property runs into the tragedy of the commons, where nobody feels a strong interest in the property.
Marx underestimated the value of management. Marx essentially saw all labor as roughly equivalent. He missed how good management and organization can make labor more efficient while bad management and organization can cause the same amount of labor to produce far less.
Marx underestimated the value of the free market. Marx envisioned an ideal society where everyone worked together and was moving in a common direction. That’s only ideal if there is a clear goal and a clear path to reaching that goal that everyone agrees on. Which has never been the case in the real world. Society works better in a system where different goals and different paths are allowed to compete against each other and the outcomes that are reached will show which ones were best.
Marx idealized human behavior. The idea that people will put forth the amount of effort they are capable of or will limit their consumption to the amount that they need does not hold up. It can work in some situations (most families, for example, function this way) but it doesn’t work for a society. Individuals will invariably attempt to put in less and get out more than their share.
Marx thought capital was spelled kapital. The technology of his day did not have spell check functions.
Incorrect – if this was true, there would be no such things as cars which cost less than $100,000, bottles of shampoo which cost less than $10, McDonalds, and Dollar Tree.
Consumers – generally – do want a good value for what they are spending (or at least to not get ripped off), but many people are either (a) willing to buy something less than “the best quality” because, for their needs, OK quality (at a lower price) is sufficient, or (b) do not have enough money to spend on “the best quality,” and so, have to buy something less than that.
That must be why Walmart, the largest retail corporation in the country, is renowned for its generous wages and employee benefits, the quality of its products, the high morale and esprit de corps of its staff, and its positive impact on the communities it sets up shop in. 
I would also argue that he was mostly assumijg the trends of his day wpupd continue. He saw all labor growing more monotonous and unskilled, from the single artisan to the pin workshop of Adam Smith to massive factories of rote actions that required zero skill and utterly fungible labor. So he followed that trend forward. He didn’t really conceptualize a future where we completely automated the pin factory, but suddenly decided we needed a massive percentage of the population working as healthcare workers, advertising executives, or in some facet of an enourmous “entertainment” industry.
Same year as Marx published “The Communist Manifesto”, Horace Mann declared "there never has been and never can be a body of educated and practical men who remain permanently poor (paraphrased, its late). I think Mann had an insight Marx lacked: take our jobs away, we tend to find new uses for our skills.
??No idea what you mean. For people who want to spend $1 ie decide their standard of living goes up most by spending their precious dollar at Dollar Tree, Dollar Tree is the best. If you can provide more value for $1 than Dollar Tree you can drive them into bankruptcy, help people, and get rich. Its a win win win!!
when we say best quality obviously be are talking about the best quality they can afford. Some want the best car they can get for 10k and some want the best they can get for 100k. Competition is always on to provide the best quality for the dollar.
You literally said:
Entry-level automobiles, store-brand shampoo, McDonalds hamburgers, and pretty much everything sold at Dollar Tree, are not “the best products possible.” Not by a long shot.
That’s not what you said before.
Walmart provides the best possible jobs and products which his why it is biggest in world. don’t forget, they have to satisfy workers and customers who have conflicting needs. customers want low prices and workers want high wages. you want to pass a law making them pay $20/hour. Prices go up and poor people have no where to shop. Walmart is literally a savior to the nations poor.
best products possible for their particular customers!!
Why was Marx wrong?
Long story short, I believe that Marx was misled by short-term trends and false analogies from history. Remember that The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848 and Das Kapital in 1867. Capitalism was only a generation or two old.
I would say that in particular one of Marx’s errors was in believing that business and factory owners were simply “rent collectors”: sitting on ownership of the machinery of industrial production and pocketing the profits generated by the workers’ labor. This appears to be a misleading analogy with feudal and aristocratic land holding, where the titled extracted enormous wealth from the tenants on their land. Needless to say this is a grossly inaccurate view of business ownership- in particular it ignores the dynamism of industrialism and how easily businesses can rise and fall according to changes in markets. It didn’t help that the nouveau riche, having only the example of the aristocrats of previous eras, aped the trappings of upper-class status such as sumptuous housing, clothing and conspicuous consumption, to the deep resentment of the working classes and the criticism of observers.
Another error was taking capitalism as it existed in 1850-1860 as an unchanging perpetual template. At that time industrialization was new enough that an approach of maximum possible reinvestment in new projects made economic sense. It was when the major western countries became more fully capitalized in the physical sense by the early-middle 20th century that a shift from industrial development to consumerism began to make more sense.
Also, in the 19th century fears of devaluation led the chief economic strategists to obsess over preserving the gold standard as part of a “sound money” policy that went too far the other way and created deflation. Increasing, unmeetable demand for specie made the goods created by laborers, and hence their wages, undervalued in terms of ever more precious gold-backed dollars and pounds.
All this led Marx to conclude “This can’t go on; this system of misery is simply unsustainable”. And in that he was right. What he didn’t anticipate, at least not until later life, was that the “contradictions” of capitalism as it existed at the time would lead to reform and evolutionary change, although on a time scale exceeding a human lifespan.
ETA: partially ninja’d by @MandaJo
Stranger
Without Walmart the poor would be a lot poorer Do you really want to advocate more poverty?
PS: the picture is really a good debate! Should we all debate by flashing pictures at each other?
You’ve now acknowledged the flaw in your argument. Capitalists must deal with several conflicting goals - maximizing return to the owners, competitive pricing and service, employee wage demands and overall costs of business. There is no single way for all businesses to serve all those goals in the same way. To state that capitalism “must provide the best jobs and the best products possible” is a gross oversimplification and one which other posters have rightly called out.
Capitalism is far more nuanced than either Marx or the OP gives it credit for. Throughout history it has and and does fervently embraced slavery, child labor, negligence, monopoly, unethical behavior and outright criminality while at the same time allowing for worker rights, philanthropy, social investment, and research.
(I ask this as someone who is not a socialist) If capitalists always provide the best jobs and products possible, why do they ever make more money than they need to fulfill their basic needs?
Not to mention:
Also, when did you stop beating your wife?
A debate would presuppose that you presented genuine arguments based upon factual evidence. The o.p. is a bunch of misapprehensions, categorically false claims, and assertions that are inconsistent with reality, often all jammed into a single sentence, e.g.:
”Harris is VP set to inherit leadership of the party despite having voted to the left of Sanders while a US Senator.”
If you seek an actual debate, start with a legitimate proposition.
Stranger
Ok.
The following link takes you to a story of my father & stepmothers business, Market Distribution Specialists.
The best paying jobs were the ones held by the owners. They would get 65 cents per book in revenue, pay someone on the street 12 cents, collect 6 cents per book in profits on top of the cars, on top of the trips, on top of the subsidized freebies like corporate gas, corporate apartments, corporate trips, corporate weddings (mine, my sisters’), six-figure salaries, more.
And the people doing the work? For 12 cents a book, they got to deliver a 2 pound hunk of recycled paper, and for $60 in total, they get to deliver 500 of them. Use their car, their labor, their time, to earn themselves 12 cents a book and my parents 12 cents per book when all was said and done.
$.12/book doesn’t sound like much, true, but we did this sixty million times in 2006, our peak.
We offered substandard pay… exploitative pay… and made $7.2 million in 2006 profits + benefits + salaries by being the industry leader in being exploitative.
That is what capitalism is about. Margins.