Reddit mentions of Das Kapital, Gateway Edition (Skeptical Reader)

I think you've got to be more explicit about your phrasing here. What does it mean for something to work? "Work" meaning that it provides the lowest prices or the most efficient allocation of goods? "Work" meaning that it leads to a socially desirable distribution of labor and rewards? "Work" for all goods regardless or is it ok if it only "works" for non-real, non-durable private goods? Whether something "works" really depends almost entirely on 1) your perspective and what you think a fair and just society looks like and 2) what type of goods or segment of the market you're talking about.

Almost no one advocates a fully unregulated private market, nor has one ever really been attempted (England in the 19th century is probably the closest thing to pure, laissez faire capitalism on a large scale).

In the end, what we usually debate in these political forums is what specific configuration of private, semi-public and public institutions best serves the public interest, however it is we choose to define those terms. Lifetimes could be spent (and have been spent) trying to answer that very question. Whatever your opinion on Marx's proposed solution to the problems he pointed out, he was for his day, a brilliant critic of market economies who many would say rightly pointed out the dehumanizing realities of a pure market economy. On the other hand, strongly-regulated Keynesian experiments in the undeveloped world with robust support for labor and that - ideally - attempt to put a strong premium on human dignity are rarely what most would call a rousing success.

Honestly, I could go on for hours with this (or really the rest of my life) but my favorite response to this basic notion doesn't come from an economist at all but an administrative philosopher with essentially no economic background, Jos Raadschelders. He said "suffice it to say that public and market norms compete, and neither can completely displace the other." So, in answering your question at the broadest level, that's the best response possible. Do fully unregulated markets "work?" By most definitions of "work," probably not. But I don't think most people advocate for that. To borrow a phrase: suffice it to say the owners of capital tend to believe that we are over-regulated and consumers and/or workers often believe their institutional protections' (be they governmental or otherwise) are not robust enough. Think of it as a continuum where almost everyone believes that a mostly unregulated market is the most efficient arrangement for many things and almost everyone believes that the market will do harm to individuals, societies and even itself if left totally unfettered. The rest comes down to which configuration of markets, hierarchies and institutional protections within that continuum we find most beneficial. That final answer will vary widely from person to person.

Nobody [here is obsessing.] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy_Beria#Honours_and_awards) You're making a mountain out of a molehill. We're on a TRP forum. We are allowed to use ex[amples that stick an] (http://www.amazon.com/Kapital-Gateway-Edition-Skeptical-Reader/dp/089526711X)d stand out.

>It speaks absolutely and concretely, often without reasoning. It simply states what is, without question or exploration.

Well, it's a manifesto, not a scientific article. For that, you should try Das Kapital

http://www.amazon.com/Das-Kapital-Gateway-Karl-Marx/dp/089526711X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229642727&sr=8-1

I’d more or less disagree with Marxist theory being ‘difficult’ or obscure, at least in its fundamentals. I agree that the average “SJW” knows nothing of Marxism, but nearly all wouldn’t claim to either.

If Marxism is difficult to learn it’s only because there has been a hundred years of enemies intentionally publishing incorrect ‘summaries’ or other explanatory works that mislead. There are a number of basic truism that get repeated by people who think they are intelligent critics (foremost of which is ‘sounds great is theory, but not so much in practice’, or ‘Marx doesn’t consider the question of human nature), which are part of the general ‘sense’ that exists over the nature of Marxism.

I’ll point to this edition of Capital on amazon. At my local Chapters this is the only edition they had. It’s an abridgement, with an introductory essay explaining why Marx was all wrong and presenting an incorrect version of this philosophy. The abridgement selectively takes out all the parts which show the editor’s essay to be wrong, and only includes parts that make Marx seem antiquated and irrelevant.


It seems odd to say that if the activists know nothing of Marxism, and the profs know nothing of Marxism, than what is being practiced is still Marxism.

You act as if the very idea of censorship originated with Marxism.

Those books are not that expensive though