Leftist commentary on Piketty’s book generally makes two points. First, Piketty provides valuable statistical ammunition for activists and organizers in the labor and social movements on the extent of wealth inequality in several major capitalist societies since the late 18th century. Second, Piketty is far from an anti‑capitalist radical. Piketty rejects Marx’s analysis of the capitalist mode of production and believes that changes in taxation on wealth could alleviate inequality while preserving the ‘efficiencies of the market economy.’ He conceives of capital as a stock of assets used to produce income rather than as a relation between classes; focuses on the distribution of profits, rent and wages rather than social production; and rejects Marx’s fundamental insight that the same underlying forces that make capitalism incredibly dynamic inevitably lead to periodic crises. Still, with few exceptions most left commentary on Piketty has not gone beyond distinguishing his investigation of capital from that of Marx. Put another way, they have not demonstrated how Piketty’s non‑Marxist conceptual framework cannot explain the patterns of inequality he documents. view @ https://www.facebook.com/notes/10152421802471025/ View also he .rtf by Charlie Post included

The solution proposed by Karl Marx of overcoming inequalities should lead to the end of capitalism with the establishment of socialism and later communism which is considered utopian by many analysts in view of the failure of socialism implemented in the Soviet Union and other countries. The solution proposed by Piketty to repair the capitalist system and keep it running is also considered utopian at the power of capital because he suggests, among other measures, taxation of large fortunes, the fight against economic inequality and concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. In short, both proposed solutions would be politically unfeasible and therefore utopian by many analysts.

Thomas Piketty's magnum opus on the accumulation and distribution of wealth over the last 200 years has been greeted with the biggest noise from mainstream (and heterodox) economics of any economics book. Piketty shows that inequality of wealth and income is inherent to capitalism and it is getting worse. The reason for the rise in the inequality of wealth is a rise of income going to capital in the form of profits, rent and interest. Inequality is not due to higher-skilled labour getting higher income than the lower-skilled. The central question for Piketty's thesis is whether rising inequality is the central contradiction of capitalism and thus its gravedigger. Is it a tendency for a rising net return on capital (Piketty) or is it the tendency for a falling rate of profit (Marx) that is the key contradiction of capitalism in the twenty-first century?