Sorry, my earlier post on the missing Marx was a result of the dangerous "Send" right next to "Save Now" arrangement on the gmail interface, and my clumsiness (blush). I had been drafting a reply that I hope is more substantive and maybe even helpful.
But whatever else I'd purge that word "unique" immediately ("This parallel critique of economic theory, alongside the practices of both government and business, is another unique feature of this book.")
Continuing with comments on an intro to a book I haven't read, and hoping the comments do not miss the point:
"this book takes aim at capitalism in terms of its own basic rationale -- the creation of an efficient economy."
Hmm... is this still the basic rationale of capitalism, even rhetorically? Because it's my impression that capitalist efficiency is really only argued now against an explicit or implied comparison with prima facie unacceptable alternatives, as if the choices for humankind were only among capitalism, hunter-gatherer societies, or the gulag. Thatcher put it into four letters: "TINA." Capitalism is the most efficient system because... well, it is the only system. Really, scrape away at the logic of arguments for contemporary capitalism, whether on Fox News or among a fair number (a majority? an overwhelming majority?) of your colleagues, and is anything more being offered?
"the effort to control labor creates an atmosphere that destroys respect as well as the free flow of information, both of which are essential in an efficient modern economy."
But are they essential to an *efficient enough* capitalist economy? Maybe you will explain this in the book--I can see how respect and the free flow of information can be seen as necessary for a *socialist* economy...
"In contrast, a rational economy would offer workers a helping hand, visible or not -- not just in terms of providing a higher standard of living, but even far more important, helping workers to develop their potential. This neglect of workers' potential both at the workplace and in society at large represents an enormous loss -- both social and economic. The more technologically advanced an economy becomes, the more both the economy and society suffer as a result of a tragic neglect of work, workers, and working conditions. Within this context, this book makes the case that the economy has matured to the point where it cannot harness anything close to its full productive potential. In effect, the invisible handcuffs undermine society by stunting workers and thereby stifling the economy."
Well, Maggie had a famous counter-argument here, too, of course: "There is no such thing as 'society.' There is only the individual and the family." One must assume 'society' before one can bother to advance society.
Is an update to Braverman coming in your book?
"By excluding such subjects as work, workers, and working conditions, economists not only leave themselves unable to recognize major problems, but they also inspire business and political leaders [to] take measures that undermine the economy."
That larger 'economy,' sure--but themselves and their class?
I am going through this, writing my reactions, and I'm sorry, I know that you know that you consider all this, maybe automatically. So maybe my question is: Who comprises your audience, to whom is what you're writing new and different?
I assume the book answers this, but I would want to read it in the intro.
"I like to think that many economists are like the Bearded Slave, deep down struggling to emerge from the self-censorship that engulfs the discipline."
Hmm... therapy? Self-help? Penance? ;) Are your colleagues in fact the work's target audience? If so: Should you care that much? ;)