"...Marx was famously, absolutely and demonstrably correct on one salient aspect of capitalism: its inherent instability with its resulting disruptive social effects. The fatuous notion that "unfettered and self-correcting" markets, as so stridently advanced by current-generation Republicans has, as any sentient observer can see, been utterly discredited by recent events. The "virtuous" concept of the "Great (capitalist) Moderation" has been utterly discredited, as well. Based on its present destabilizing trajectory, it seems quite likely that capitalism will provoke ever increasing social, economic and environmental crises and, in so doing, fulfill at least one of Marx's principle predictions. The question remains: What follows?
Eagleton correctly notes that the property-owning middle class (the "bourgeoisie", in common parlance) is rapidly evaporating. Many governments have enthusiastically espoused the most predatory forms of capitalism, becoming indistinguishable from the moneyed interests they represent. In concert with that expected development, the concept of social democracy has fallen into the dust as the global scramble for profit homogenizes, marginalizes and eliminates security for the bulk of the people, both in financial and social terms. So, Eagleton accurately characterizes governments as protectors of the propertied "classes" (a term he does not define until chapter 7 and then, for the "proletariat" in such a way as to dilute the term to the point of meaninglessness) but he often fails to coherently carry his arguments on to logical conclusions. Many astringent comments by Marx could have been selected to buttress the text, but Eagleton's digressions and pseudo-philosophical tangents confuse the issues. Much more trenchant criticisms of capitalism in its current forms have been made by highly respected "mainstream" economists, including John Maynard Keynes, Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman and Nouriel Roubini, all to better effect than Eagleton's efforts...."
