I can't believe I waited until page three to post in this thread. I think I'm trying to be less political on a hockey board. It's hard for a PoliSci grad to do sometimes.
I will just offer a couple comments. Das Kapital is a citadel of academics and economics and to deny the sheer gravity of that text is silly. Also, to state it's dangerous because it examines specifically the surplus value effects of capitalism's labour is silly. I just want to emphasize that that volume of books has not been rivalled since it was written by sheer academic density or genius probably in all of the social sciences. Marx truly was a genious and we should not deny that fact to him.
That said, I am not a 'Marxist.' But then again the book isn't really 'Marxist' either beyond the fact that Marx wrote it.
It is an analytical text which doesn't advocate revolution or anything like that. It's a 3 volume masterwork and the first attempt after Smith and Ricardo of the nuances and trends of the ever advancing capitalist system of which Marx was living in. Almost every trend that he predicted happened and every potential problem his accounted for was realized. It is a shame he died before he finished the volume but Engels did go on to write the end. Engels, unfortunately, did not have the once in an eon brilliance of Marx but did do justice to the whole series.
To get to some of the meat of the volume, Marx himself admonished capitalism's efficiency in allocation and in spurring demand. He praised capitalism numerous times in how good it is at creating wealth and developing delivery and infrastructure efficiencies in a timely and cost effective status. Bridges, roads, factories all would not have been possible without capitalism. He more then balances this view though by pointing out what he believes to be the irreputable problem with capitalism, exploitation of the surplus value of labour. Marx believes that all of these advances in wealth and infrastructure do not outweigh the exploitation of human beings. He would prefer a society with no bridges and more subsistence living with everyone having equal economic opportunity and liberty.
That's the trade off. Obviously, the answer is somewhere in the middle. I am inclined to believe that we are too focused on 'growth' and 'wealth' and other silly macroeconomic indicators. We are unbalanced on the spectrum relying too heavily on capitalist systems. For more significant lifestyles we need to reorient more to the middle with less exploitation. An ardent capitalist will argue that we will surely bear the brunt of a lower standard of living but honestly, if more community oriented living with less people starving comes at the cost of plasma tvs and 3ghz processors then it's a total no brainer for me.