Rating: 
Summary: Even Marx realized he had comitted a mistake
Review: Karl Marx wrote "The Capital" only as a part of a wider intellectual project. He had planned to write other works on Rent, Labor and other issues. He had been a very prolific writer, but he stopped writting from 1873 to the date of his death, in 1883. Ten years of inactivity by one of the most prolific economists ever. ¿Why?. He was perhaps the most comprehensive reader on economic theory and I'm sure he read Carl Menger "Grundsätze", issued in 1871. After this book does not remain stone over stone in the construction of marxist theory. He even said "the truth is that I'm not a marxist". He was cleverer than his followers, I'm afraid.
If anybody wants a book that could help him/her to understand the world he/she lives in, Carl Menger's Grundsätze (In English Principles on Economics) is a better option. Other options are Human Action, by Ludwig von Mises, Capitalism, by George Reisman and Man, Economy and State, by Murray N. Rothbard.
Rating: 
Summary: A "CAPITAL" READ!
Review: Marx has done it again! This side-splitting, laugh-your-pants-off masterpiece is a real page turner. Yet Capital is much more than just another zany romp in the park. The subtle lyricism with which Marx draws out his critique of capitalism makes this one a real weeper at times. Laughing turns to crying awful quick!
Rating: 
Summary: Overreach of a genius
Review: Marx was an extraordinary analyst of economics. He was a serviceable philosopher, but the problem is that he tried to play prophet. Capital is worth reading for its insight into the workings of early, unrestrained capitalism and its recognition of the importance of the trade cycle. On the other hand, the prophecies that Marx made were farreaching and illogical. It is only in the ambitiousness of his project that Marx fails to reach the heights of a Hume or a Smith. Personally, I could not agree less with the tenets of violence and collectivism laid down by Marx, but even I cannot ignore the huge contribution that Marx has made to today's world.
Rating:
Summary: Not intended as a book of economics
Review: Marx was not attempting to contribute to economic theory. His book was a *critique* of political economy (as economics was called back then). Marx shows that politics--struggles over power, oppression and resistance--is the real substance of economics. In the 3 volumes of Capital, and the notebooks of the Grundrisse, Marx shows the categories of economic analysis for what they are: relations of force. Capitalism is a system of antagonism. In 'Marx Beyond Marx: Lessons on the Grundrisse', the Italian theorist Toni Negri states: "There is not a single category of capital that can be taken out of this antagonism, out of this perpetually fissioning flux." For instance, the central concept of Marx's 'Capital', surplus-value, both conceals and points to this antagonistic tension. The very duality of the term testifies to this. As does the meaning of the term. Buy 'Capital', then read it as a critique of economic categories, and you may see this. For help, consult Marx's 'Grundrisse', the writings of Antonio Negri and Louis Althusser--and check out the exciting new journal, 'Rethinking Marxism'. Marxism has gained a fresh life, free from the dogma of socialist states, infused with the insights of post-structuralism. Read Marx anew. And work for a better world. The revolution is here and now, here and there. Communism is not a utopia of the future; it is found in creative resistance and radical alternatives to capitalism today. Eventually perhaps, the communist efforts--the efforts which express the values of communism, as described by Marx and by writers like Negri and Derrida--may just gain hegemony in the world. Marx's 'Capital' is no historical artifact; it is a great resource in the ongoing struggle under capitalism--a struggle inherent in capitalism. And what is this struggle over, exactly? It is a struggle to diminish the suffering in the world, the suffering of the world.
Rating:
Summary: Tough but worthwhile
Review: Marx's CAPITAL is frequently condemned by people who've never read it, and lauded by other people who don't fully understand it. I've read it and I don't think I fully understand it, but the main points of the text are pretty clear; Marx drills them into the reader as he unfolds his theory of the basis of capitalism. First, a note on what CAPITAL is not. It is not a "communist" tract, though it is a foundation for communist thought. Marx follows two main trains of thought -- the first is observational, the second diagnostic. He explains how capitalism works, and why it works that way. Disagreeable as some of his ideas may be, they cannot be brushed away by citing the examples of Stalin and Pol Pot to discredit them. Unlike the typical Communist dictator, Marx was a hard-working scholar, a clear thinker, a fundamentally honest writer. His familiarity with the whole spectrum of economic and philosophical writings that preceded him is unquestionable, and CAPITAL is probably more impressive to a reader who's read THE WEALTH OF NATIONS (Adam Smith), if nothing else. The capitalism of Marx's time (mid-19th century) had dismal effects on the "proletariat" or working-class, and CAPITAL cannot be fully appreciated without some knowledge of how England, the most industrialized nation in the world, looked at that period of history. Charles Dickens is one writer who "exposed" the condition of the poor, in a more acceptable (though no less wordy) fashion it seems. CAPITAL is certainly an important book and it is not the unreadable monstrosity it's reputed to be. It is repetitious, but usually the repetition includes some new twist as Marx proceeds from one aspect of his theory to the next. The purpose of the book was to establish a scientific basis for his understanding of capitalism, so Marx employs numerous algebraic equations that might scare readers away at first. They are not complicated, however, nor are they really "mathematical" so much as illustrative of abstract economic processes. One quickly grows accustomed to them; I personally find them amusing. Marx's book is also a polemical text, and he injects some bitter wit and just plain nastiness into his analysis. Either he couldn't restrain himself, or it's a rhetorical device, but whatever the case, CAPITAL contains some very interesting screeds and some very memorable caricatures of capitalists. Overall a powerful book and one that promotes greater understanding of the forces that shape our world even today.
Rating:
Summary: The Death of Capitalism!
Review: Marx, in one of the greatest works in the history of social science and philosophy, exposes the real basis for the capitalist class, other's labor! In a book that manages to put the capitalist era in its place, with mounds of empirical evidence, Marx also manages to outline a better future, a economically free, democratic society of producers, building a world more free from the kind of violence, exploitation, and destruction that marks this one. And to those that say this book is dated, or for those who have only read Marx "second-hand" through capitalist authors, read this book, investigate the world around you, and see that it hasn't come very far from the grim potrait presented here.
Rating:
Summary: REALITY
Review: MOST Reviewers miss the point! Marx had a Doctorate in Philosophy from Jena.His was an attempt to turn Hegel on his feet-ie-real world!BUT, he was still&all an idealist! Many references in letters with Engels.He showed how the CAPITALIST Structure destroyed any evolution to human development! CAPITAL is a rational analysis of a mechanistic system that precludes any evolution of the species- an evolutionary deadend! CAPITAL is really a CRIE DE COEUR-there is something other than alienation-CF-Julian Jaynes! NO PROBLEM-CAPITALISM is now collapsing as I write-NOW WHAT??!!
Rating:
Summary: My "real" review + response
Review: One can see that this book is worthless when, in the first few pages, Marx says something along the lines of "If an amount of corn changes for a quantity of eggs, then the value of that quantity of corn equals the value of the eggs". There is actually a double inequality of value, as the marginalist revolution proved Marx's theory of surplus value is wrong on a number of counts. Neo Marxist John Roemer has pointed out that this was a mathematical trick. Purchase of goods generally happens prior to the time when they are employed in production. Hence, when value is expressed in terms of units of labor, the fact that an economy is expanding (as it was when Marx wrote this text) will show that one recieved more units in the present than they paid in the past of whatever commodity value is expressed it. The main flaw of this text is the fact that interest may be justified on account of time preference. This can be found in Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk's Capital and Interest, the classic critique (absolute destrcution) of Marx. Now, on to the response to the reader from Dulles. Can the reader from Dulles read? I never implied that Marx lived in the 18th century. My point was that he relied on the objectivist view of value propagated by the classical school, originating in the 18th century. I think my statement "Back then, dead white males such as Smith and Ricardo" should have tipped you off to that (Okay, okay, Ricardo wrote in the 19th century). Equally confusing is your notion that I claimed the Spanish Dominicans wrote about the growth of large corporations. I actually said "spanish economists of Centuries earlier who disproved the so called 'value paradox'?" Being so ignorant of economics, I always thought the value paradox referred to why a useful good like bread cost less than a frivolous one such as diamonds, not the growth of large corporations. But, I must confess, in my haste to be clever, I overstated the contributions of the Spanish Scholastics. While they introduced subjectivist value theory, they didn't actually solve the value paradox. But don't be so quick to call Marx a genius.While his views certainly represent the logical culmination of the classical school, there was other, more advanced economics that he could have learned from at the time. Hermann Heinrich Gossen, a Prussian economist writing around the same time as Marx elucidated the law of diminishing marginal utility in his 1854 book "The Development of the Laws of Exchange among Men and of the Consequent Rules of Human Action". I would also like to point out another foible of yours I find funny. My user name is clearly "Walt Byars" , however, you consistently spell my last name "Bryars". Does it make sense for you to make fun of me for saying Marx lived in the wrong century (which I didn't) when it could easily be a single letter typo? The reason wrote such a sarcastic review is because I such took pride in a witty comment I had made immediately before. A leftist I knew mentioned that capitalism was "reactionary", so I made the brilliant counter - "Which is more reactionary, The Laor theory of Value of the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility?" and "The productivity Theory of interest or the Positive Theory of Capital"?
Rating:
Summary: My "real" review + response
Review: One can see that this book is worthless when, in the first few pages, Marx says something along the lines of "If an amount of corn changes for a quantity of eggs, then the value of that quantity of corn equals the value of the eggs". There is actually a double inequality of value, as the marginalist revolution proved Marx's theory of surplus value is wrong on a number of counts. Neo Marxist John Roemer has pointed out that this was a mathematical trick. Purchase of goods generally happens prior to the time when they are employed in production. Hence, when value is expressed in terms of units of labor, the fact that an economy is expanding (as it was when Marx wrote this text) will show that one recieved more units in the present than they paid in the past of whatever commodity value is expressed it. The main flaw of this text is the fact that interest may be justified on account of time preference. This can be found in Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk's Capital and Interest, the classic critique (absolute destrcution) of Marx. Now, on to the response to the reader from Dulles. Can the reader from Dulles read? I never implied that Marx lived in the 18th century. My point was that he relied on the objectivist view of value propagated by the classical school, originating in the 18th century. I think my statement "Back then, dead white males such as Smith and Ricardo" should have tipped you off to that (Okay, okay, Ricardo wrote in the 19th century). Equally confusing is your notion that I claimed the Spanish Dominicans wrote about the growth of large corporations. I actually said "spanish economists of Centuries earlier who disproved the so called 'value paradox'?" Being so ignorant of economics, I always thought the value paradox referred to why a useful good like bread cost less than a frivolous one such as diamonds, not the growth of large corporations. But, I must confess, in my haste to be clever, I overstated the contributions of the Spanish Scholastics. While they introduced subjectivist value theory, they didn't actually solve the value paradox. But don't be so quick to call Marx a genius.While his views certainly represent the logical culmination of the classical school, there was other, more advanced economics that he could have learned from at the time. Hermann Heinrich Gossen, a Prussian economist writing around the same time as Marx elucidated the law of diminishing marginal utility in his 1854 book "The Development of the Laws of Exchange among Men and of the Consequent Rules of Human Action". I would also like to point out another foible of yours I find funny. My user name is clearly "Walt Byars" , however, you consistently spell my last name "Bryars". Does it make sense for you to make fun of me for saying Marx lived in the wrong century (which I didn't) when it could easily be a single letter typo? The reason wrote such a sarcastic review is because I such took pride in a witty comment I had made immediately before. A leftist I knew mentioned that capitalism was "reactionary", so I made the brilliant counter - "Which is more reactionary, The Laor theory of Value of the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility?" and "The productivity Theory of interest or the Positive Theory of Capital"?
Rating:
Summary: Indispensable
Review: One thing often overlooked about Karl Marx is that he is an accomplished prose stylist and remarkable rhetorician. Many of his phrases and formulations are well known and frequently employed even now, and reading Marx continues to be a pleasurable experience. Philosophically, Marx remains one of the most original and arresting of nineteenth century thinkers. An assessment of Marx, however, should not focus on the content of particular pronouncements or "predictions" (there are in fact precious few of these last in his corpus) but should, rather, engage with the movement of his thought and with the conceptual revolution he initiated. If you want to make that engagement, then Capital is as good a place as any to start. But it entails commitment and risk. It is a platitude, of course, that Marx's "vision" of how capitalism would develop has been refuted by history. Of course, this right wing mantra bears little scrutiny. Again, Marx is valuable not as a body of proposals and concrete prognoses. He provides us, rather, with an ever elastic and dynamic conceptual apparatus; a horizon of understanding that has scarcely been surpassed. In any case, the clichés used to discredit Marx's "predictions" are usually underwritten by a complete misunderstanding of how capitalism now works. Take for example the notion (it is scarcely even that) of the "disappearing working class". If one lives in a First World country the "working class" may indeed APPEAR to have diminished. Marx, however, would have us go beyond the (ideological) appearance. The pseudo-theorists in the West can afford to babble about the "disappearing working class" only because of the very "invisibility" of millions of anonymous workers sweating in Third World factories (take a look at your designer labels - the traces are readily discernible). The USA is turning into a country of managerial planning, banking, servicing and so on, while its "disappearing working class" is reappearing in places like China, where a large proportion of US products is manufactured in conditions that are ideal for capitalist exploitation. Marx would have understood only too well both this international division of labour AND its ideological masking. If you want to understand (really understand, not just pragmatically from the inside) the dominant economic and political system, then Marx's Capital is simply - and one does not use the word lightly - indispensable.
| 
