(*) Your listen progress will be continuously saved. Just bookmark and come back to this page and continue where you left off.
Karl Marx’s Capital: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production is a critical analysis of the political economy or the capitalist system. In this 3 volume work, he says that a capitalist economy can only survive by exploiting the working class. The concepts discussed in this book laid the foundations of the political doctrine that would later be known as communism. This book has three volumes, the first volume is Marx’s critical analysis of the capitalist mode of production and how it’s effects on poor people. The second volume of Capital was subtitled “The Process of Circulation of Capital.” It contains his analysis of the marketplace, how value and surplus value are made and his views about what a capitalist or entrepreneur is. The last volume of the work was actually just a collection of notes by Karl Marx compiled by his close friend Friedrich Engels. There are seven parts in this volume which basically summarize the important points of the first two parts of the book. It’s the most read part of the book today. Capital was very critical of the different principles of classical economics which was the prevailing school of thought at that time. It was published when Karl Marx already had a well established reputation thus provoking a big debate among academics after its release. The principles explained in this book had a big influence in the development of the communist doctrine. This book was written in a academic way and is meant to be read by someone with a foundational knowledge of economics. Although, communism has long faded in the stage of world politics, this book is still a very important reference to people who study political science and economics or those who are just interested in knowing more about the different types of economies.
He didn't mention bankers, who exploit everyone. No revolution was against those parasites so far.
Smith and Marx recognize the same economic principles. However, the point at which they diverge begins where they argue what is and is not defensible. Smith, on one hand, makes arguments for the defense of the employing class and the power elite (to borrow from Mills) - both capitalists. On the other hand, Marx advocates for the people who produce the wealth for the power elite and the employing class - the laborers. For chapters Smith admits that the product of labor is wealth. But in order to protect that wealth, capitalists must suppress the power of the laborers. Enter the police and State-sponsored economic suppression, which act in concert to keep wages low and keep the working class from becoming unified agents. Smith and Marx both admit this, but the latter is the only one who argues in favor of the working class. If one acknowledges the veracity of Smith's work, one also admits to the salience of Marx's.
The only thing that really has survived the test of time when it comes to Das Kapital is the opprobrium "turgid" that always seems to attach to this one book alone. Btw, just reading the first few chapters of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations will tell you more than this boring - and may I say TURGID - mess. Don't say I didn't warn you!
Actually, Marx's theories have never been debunked. We are now in the beginnings of a paradigm shift that began with the industrial revolution. Sociology, like evolutionary processes, takes time. But I have no doubt that the failure of capitalism (as it has already failed, the fall follows) will eventually be realized. Capitalism is archaic, it is the maladaptive vestiges of a parasitic social morality that has no place in a modern world.
The inevitable collapse of capitalism is on its way, all worlds economy along in near future, far from Marx being stupid, just much before its time… stop blubbering and go do some math of this "divine" capitalism = primitive economy on evolutionary (jungle law) ground, except individual profit not much care on anything else, corrupting system on its way, and not having much in common with idea of human civilization.
ET, many an economist has read and understood the work of Marx, but J is right. Marx was in process of the later works but they were not published as he was waiting for history to provide his content, aka, the inevitable fall of capitalism. This never happened, so he died a lonely man with his work debunked prior to it being published. I'd still encourage individuals to read the work of Marx, as well as classical liberal economists. You'll really get an idea of how stupid the hypotheses of Keynes and Marx are.
Maybe if you actually read it you would understand that, as long as capitalism exists, Marx will never be archaic.
I don't know why anyone would even care to read this archaic nonsense. Marx's economic blubbering has long been thoroughly discredited by all of economics.