>>15692897First of all, Capital is not a book about Marxist ideology. It's supposed to be a criticism of capitalism. Understanding it requires a knowledge of what capitalist economics are, and knowing that capitalism is criticisable is not equivalent to knowing how it may be fixed, or if it may be fixed at all, for all attempts at putting so-called "scientific communism" into practice all stopped at the socialist stage and never got to actual communism, which is supposed to be the stateless, propertyless stage, but that couldn't actually be forced into being because, without a government, there would be nobody to have the right to say what belongs to everyone or to take something for themselves. All implementations of socialism have turned out to be little more than capitalism, except with the leaders of the state and state-run committees and companies playing the role of the capitalist company-owner with slightly higher privileges than the rest of society. Communism relies on a distorted conception of human nature that assumes that humans have no greed and no desire for being greater than others by nature, and that everyone is equally capable of directing themselves.
Nowadays, economists, even Marxist ones, regard it only as a work of historical interest. Even though many of the important parts of Marx's criticism of capitalism, such as how the capitalist mode of production alienates workers from the fruit of their labor, may be considered to be relevant today, such ideas may be found in Marx's shorter works meant for popular divulgation, whereas his Capital is a 3 volume work, left unfinished, full of statistics and exact facts that are of little relevance to the contemporary reader, and do not take into account the switch towards the rise of the tertiary sector over the secondary one of economy that took place during the 20th century, after Marx's death.
