Quoted By:
Marx is worth reading for any serious economist.
The basic ideas actually align with most hardcore capitalist beliefs - wealth concentrates upward. The difference is that Marx believes the acquisition of capital at the top will allow those in power to make it harder and harder for those at the bottom to ever play the game fairly, resulting in a critical point where only a tiny fraction, maybe even one person, controls any of the actual wealth (and thus power).
Marx made two critical errors in this basic thesis. First, he assumed a revolution would become inevitable once the economy reached a critical mass, which obviously is not true. Second, he did not take into account that capitalists would continue to open new markets in order to delay the exhaustion of wealth, nor did he understand how much additional wealth could be generated by those at the top, which has also delayed the funnel by a matter of centuries.
These things are really happening, but you can choose for yourself if it warrants the action steps that Marx outlines. Personally I think that if it is inevitable that wealth will concentrate in the hands of a few, and the acquisition of vast wealth allows one to set the rules around how others acquire wealth, you're creating a situation where mass misery is basically guaranteed. I believe you can only stop this from happening through regulation, but I don't think full communism or even enlightened socialism is the answer. Some people think letting these wealthy elite rule us like god-kings is good actually and well
