I don't think history has proven Das Kapital to be complete bunk - it's kind of like Freud - often said to be bunk but many of his ideas were revolutionary at t

I don't think history has proven Das Kapital to be complete bunk - it's kind of like Freud - often said to be bunk but many of his ideas were revolutionary at the time and are considered to be mostly mainstream now. Things like the subconcious, ego, the importance of childhood development on adult psyche - even if not completely scientifically rigorous are useful tools for understanding our reality. But it was his more loony ideas that stick out now and for which he is remembered. So that's why people think that firstly rather than take note of the other stuff. And so it goes with Marx, the first volume certainly is hugely prescient and correctly predicts much of the economic progress that has come since. Workers as stakeholders in a business is considered fairly mainstream in many modern economies as is the role of the state. But as with Freud it was the later stuff particularly in Volume 2 that got him his reputation as a looney. Sadly he formulated the manifesto as a precursor to writing the book and this bound him to a particular conclusion even if his research in the meantime didn't match up. Volume 2 was never finished and what was eventually published was the unfinished manuscript as well as some notes, post humous. It is unfortunate that Marx couldn't have just left it at Volume 1, and put aside the fanatical fervour of his younger years. Had he done so it could have formed the basis of a more humane society and he would not have been associated with some of the more attrocious implementations of communism, and a reputation which he doesn't wholly deserve.