>>16776800
>>16776808
Over a century later and people still do not understand the object of Marx's critique. He wasn't pro or against any "economic system" or "economic model", he was against "economics" as a whole as an abstraction that obfuscates the underlying relations of human society. That's literally why the subtitle of Capital is
>a critique of political economy
How free markets are or how much a government intervenes or how efficient resources are allocated are of little relevance to the area he's interested in, which is how society reproduces itself and how that process is mediated, and relationships of exchange (the scope of economics) are clearly not the only ones humans have, but they are the dominant ones under his "capitalist mode of production", and so he's critical of "economics" as making the nature of these relationships seem as if they've always been dominant and unchanging.

As for his relationship to "capitalism le bad" and socialism. He does not think that this mode of production is bad because markets are le inefficient or whatever. On the contrary, he thought that it unleashed so much productive capacity that by analyzing it, a new society could emerge from it that eliminates class relations altogether (socialism, communism, whatever you want to call it). That last part is the point of contention and seething, and it's also the part he gave less of a shit about describing, as trying to predict the future is futile. Hence his emphasis on actually doing things ("praxis") instead of spitballing about the future. "seizing the means" is a means to an end, not an end in of itself. His writings on the nature of "socialism" and "communism" are few and insubstantial.

It's not that hard. Theorizing about the nature of the society you live in, and asking if a different world can be created from it, is not esoteric magical jew science.