Well, according to his blurb, James Bowman is a "movie critic of The American Spectator and American editor of London's Times Literary Supplement", but this article shows he sure isn't much of an economic historian. Newsflash, James: capitalism (as Marx pointed out and last I checked nobody disagreed with) is differentiated from other economic systems because it involves wage labor- the sale of one's laborr for money, as opposed to selling the product of that labor. (as opposed to, say, feudalism.) Saying that "this supposed 'system' of capitalism is simply the way things are, baby" is astonishingly historically ignorant and plainly naive, showing both an ignorance of historical non-capitalist systems and the fact Marx was neither the only architect of socialism nor social democracy, just the most influential critic of capitalism.

(I'll be charitable and avoid mentioning that imperialism and empire far predate Marx, unless Bowman somehow thinks that, say, Napoleon and Victoria were Marxists.)