This paper applies to Karl Marx the same formal test Huynh (2026c) applies to Rawlsian contractualism, Buddhist soteriology, Christian consolation doctrine, Islamic theology of ajal, the Confucian Mandate of Heaven, and Ambedkarite constitutional egalitarianism: whether the tradition's normative architecture depends, without declaring the dependency, on the Mortality Symmetry Axiom (MSA) — the historical condition under which biological lifespan, though unequal, has been bounded, diffuse, and opaque to individual attribution. A corpus examining six traditions for this dependency while remaining silent on the one tradition organized explicitly around the critique of capital invites a specific misreading: that the silence reflects sympathy rather than oversight. This paper closes that absence, using the same method and the same verdict calibration applied to the prior six cases: immanent critique, conducted with Marx's own conceptual apparatus rather than premises imputed to him, and a finding of destabilization rather than refutation. I show that historical materialism's foundational claim — the “first premise of all human history” in The German Ideology, that humans must satisfy a bounded set of biological needs before they can make history — requires a materially uniform species substrate that longevity stratification removes, and that this dependency recurs at the most technical level of Capital, where the value of labour-power is defined as the value of a determinate, species-typical subsistence basket. I show that the commodification of biological time is not a novel mechanism requiring new theoretical apparatus but the final instance of primitive accumulation — the enclosure of the last commons, described in Marx's own account of capital's origin. I show that the intergenerational fragmentation of capital through death and inheritance, on which the historical operation of Marx's own centralization tendency has partly depended, is removed rather than merely slowed once biological tenure becomes extensible. Each finding destabilizes rather than refutes, in the register Huynh (2026c) establishes for the other six traditions: Marx's framework was standing, like theirs, on ground it never had occasion to name. I distinguish two further claims from the existing corpus. A5's role in revolutionary consciousness is not foreign to Marx; it is confirmed and extended by historical materialism's own immiseration-and-solidarity account of class consciousness, documented as early as Engels (1845). The Leninist vanguard-party model is a historically specific addition external to Marx's own corpus, and is neither rescued nor refuted by this analysis — it is simply the wrong target. Adding Marx as a seventh case, sharing no doctrinal ancestry with the six prior religious or liberal-contractualist traditions and explicitly hostile to several of them, strengthens rather than narrows the convergence argument of Huynh (2026c): an actively adversarial, maximally independent tradition still arrives at the same suppressed floor. The paper closes by showing that Marx's analysis of how concentrated economic power converts into political power, developed in The Eighteenth Brumaire, is the one component of the framework tested here that does not depend on MSA at all — and is independently confirmed by the Governance Paradox and Symmetric Wound mechanisms documented elsewhere in this series.
HUYNH GIA BAO (Thu,) studied this question.