You don’t like being called stupid, but honestly, read what you’re writing!

“The solution is, as Marx noted, “

Like you, Marx never established that socialism would be any solution. He just assumed it. He never even asserted why social ownership per se would be *any* solution to the problems he alleged.

Like you, he never got to square one in understanding the essential economic problem: how to allocate scarce productive resources to their most highly valued social ends. There is not the slightest reasons to think that socialism would do this any better; and categorical proof that it would be worse.

“So with those clarifications, I see Marx's analysis completely vindicated.

So reasons and facts are no defence against your invincible ignorance.

As soon as you understand that the government interventions you favour, are capable of explaining the evils your confusion lays to capitalism, you will see the fundamental circularity of what you are saying.

Has it ever occurred to you that other people have thought through all these issues more and better than you, and proved with arguments that you can’t refute, that Marx, and you, are wrong?

Go ahead. Refute Mises total demolition of your and Marx's entire argument in the essay to which I posted a link above.

The difference between your arguments and mine is that yours don’t understand, and don’t refute mine, whereas mine do understand, and completely demolish yours - and you simply don't understand what they are!

If you can refute Mises argument in the link I posted, go ahead.

If you can’t do it, or don’t try, you’ve proved everything I said for me.

Great article Tristan. And I'm relieved to see some great and thoughtful responses. Often the general quality on OLO can be rather disheartening.

The Andrew Bolts of this world spew out the most ridiculous tripe and have far too big a platform to do so, sadly it gets mindless sheep bleating loudly and in unison.

Marxist theory must be taught. His thinking had and still has enormous influence on political and economic thinking in the world.

On the notion of democracy. There are a number of OLO posters who are scared of people who think differently and probably would much prefer to live in a totalitarian state where everything is simply shaded in black and white where everyone agrees on which is what.

It seems to me that Marxism needs to be renovated to suit the new world we are moving into and that much of the debased commentary we see earlier in this thread is based on past history which was messed up by the Cold War. Even Bolt is running an old-style irrelevant Red Scare.

If capitalism was as wonderful as some think how come there is so much unemployment through Europe, poverty and homelessness in the United States and national debt in Japan and UK?

The MP Andrew Leigh has published a book showing that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, and it does not really matter if the poor are increasing their wealth slightly if the middle class stride ahead and executive incomes explode.

So I like the relative argument - argued above.

Following this, I am more interested in Marxism than I may have been a few years ago.

Although I cannot stand the crude tactics of some, but - 'nuff said?

Old zygote
I would be astonished if Andrew Leigh has written that the poor are getting poorer. The general tenor of his work is to celebrate the growth in living standards since the industrial revolution:
http://andrewleigh.com/index.php/writing2/92-economics-home-page/writing/economics/238-the-pro-growth-progressive

He has written about the decline in social capital, but that is not the same as financial capital. Can you post a link to your reference?

To be honest, I have never really cared for any theory. I don't actually believe there is an fool proof theory for politics or economics.

However, given Marxism is taught at universities, l wish they had also taught more of Austrian school and other streams of thought.

I read it every now and then, and struggle to understand it, but do agree with elements of it.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/austrian-school-of-economics.asp

for example, I do not believe that socialism can work to deliver the optimal society.

But generally agree with the following:

'The Austrian school holds that business cycles are caused by distortion in interest rates due to the government's attempt to control money. Misallocation of capital takes place if the interest rates are kept artificially low or high by the intervention of the government. Ultimately, the economy goes through recession in order to restore the natural progress'.

I don't agree 100%, but who has benefited most from QE in the US? It is the rich while the economy hops along. I actually shed tears when QE started. Without knowing the details, going on my gut feeling, it just seemed wrong and would ensure economic mediocrity for a longer period.

There are obviously strengths and weaknesses in various theories, but history shows the failure of collectivist theories.

I have always supported liberal democracies that have a history that seeks to balance market forces with the right degree of govt intervention, although the extent of the latter's involvement is open to debate.