What can one say that hasn't been said already? Only that he is better at predicting things like crisis than any of the gasbags currently polluting the airwaves ( )

Most of this book is dedicated to footnotes. For nearly every point he makes, he studiously supports it with extensive footnotes that almost require footnotes themselves. If you are having difficulty seeing the "logic" of his connections then you are not spending enough time with the footnotes. That is how he reveals his logic. You can disagree with his conclusions, but that's not the same thing as being "illogical". Personally, I think his central thesis is quite logical. Capitalism requires a person to sell his labor for less than the value of the product of his labor, otherwise the capitalistic enterprise cannot make a profit. Then he fills the gaps with his version of class struggle solidifying the inherent unfair relationship between employee and employer as the profit motive becomes so paramount. Illogical? No. It's a classic analysis of conflict of interest. Controversial? Of course.

This book is extensive, but it's easier to understand if you think of it as a model of capitalism at his time in history rather than some declaration of eternal truth. Karl Marx himself knew that this book was not capable of seeing the full expanse of capitalism. That's why he intended on writing three more volumes. His best friend and patron, Fredrich Engels had two more published based on Marx's notes and research since he died too early to make the other volumes happen. ( )

I am stunned to learn that this... this "rigid scientific investigation" is the foundational idea that so dramatically affected recent world history. Marx makes a series of illogical leaps to build his theory of labor and capital, while claiming to follow the same scientific process used in chemistry and physics. As is frequently done in economic writing, he begins with one argument: "For simplicity's sake we shall henceforth account every kind of labour to be unskilled, simple labour; by this we do no more than save ourselves the trouble of making the reduction."

But he never comes back to show how the real-world violation of that assumption affects the relative market for each class of labor. He does a moderately successful job of showing the economics of "value add" but then creates another logical gap in the process of allowing free market exchange for each laborer's portion. (To summarize the argument, someone gets more for something and it clearly isn't the laborer.) It was interesting to see the reference to Robinson Crusoe (a frequent event in economics.) The closest he comes to that dangerous border of reality is his admission that compulsory labor is less productive. That is the point where an enterprising student could ask "because of lack of incentive?" In his own chapter on "contradictions" he himself makes a critical mathematical error in showing who gets the surplus value from exchange. Again, a whole argument is built on this to show the disparity that faces the worker. He bases the low living wage provided to workers as being similar to the ancient societies that bought from provinces with money taxed from them. In "The Labour Process" he references that the "way to Hell is paved with good intentions." He also quotes Benjamin Franklin. Summary: Due to monopoly power, the capitalist benefits from labor's surplus value without contributing anything to the process. Asserted but not proven. ( )