>>510304203 (OP)I have.
In all honesty he's actually pretty good as an introductory read, if you want a general understanding the labor value theory before going on to the specifics with Adam Smith.
His critique of the runaway effect of capitalism under industrialization (monopoly risk) isn't false either, at least not when taken generally. It's overly simplistic, but its a good example how to use game theory to understand incentives and outcomes. But it remains an incomplete theory as he fails to account for many other factors which heavily influence economy, such as scarcity, military, state, banking, trade, law, tribalism, human nature etc.
His understanding and theory of world economic history is grossly incorrect and highly unspecific. He uses this pseudohistory to underpin his supposed prediction of the future moving towards "socialism" and then "communism".
Overall it's clear that the supposed intent of his ideology merely a mask, meant to lull ignorant peasants into supporting a popular revolution for the sake of catapulting a small group of (((outsider elites))) into the levers of power by violently destroying the ruling aristocrats.
This is made all the more obvious by him literally handwaving the questionable endgame of communism's political system as "You will own nothing and be happy".
tldr Marx was a jew.