Did Karl Marx Get Anything Right?

I have blogged on here before about how the elite left is still obsessed with Karl Marx and thinks he should be given another chance. This fact is even more mind boggling when you consider that economically speaking Karl Marx is seen as a complete failure. A simple basic economics course will dispel any hope that Karl Marx can be successfully implemented.

He is such a failure that a couple economists are having a hard time listing his positives. To see this exchange read Brad Delongs post, Professor of Economics at UC Berkeley. He asks simply for five one-sentence bullet points listing his positives.

Tyler Cowen, Professor of Economics at George Mason University, tries to list some positives here. Although he concludes with,

Of course marxism, as a political program, remains dangerous nonsense. Marx’s blind spots were enormous, and I still cannot understand how generations of the intelligentsia were taken in by the whole thing.

Can somebody please convey this message to those liberal elites who still believe in Karl Marx?

12 Responses to “Did Karl Marx Get Anything Right?”

  1. […] trong property rights. Yet that is one of the first things communist’s regimes attack. Karl Marx, spreading misery one country at time. Analysis has m […]

  2. True_Liberal says:

    An economist’s view:

    http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/04/gouging.html

    It’s clear the VA legislature has been reading Marx.

  3. You’d be surprised how many legislatures don’t understand basic economics. How many of them would have
    agreed with the VA legislature in that bill…It’s sickening.

  4. romiustexis says:

    There are a number of reasons that K. Marx is still considered by elites. You may disagree with Marx but Sociology as a science was practically created by him ( and Comte, Weber and such.

    As to your point that MArxism could not be established, your ideas of Marx look more like Lennin’s than Marx. By the way the terrible ideas of Lennin lasted 75 years.

  5. Aside from you somewhat supporting Karl Marx, the next most ridiculous thing is when you said, “but Sociology as a science was practically created by him”.

    Sociology, a science? Now were just getting plain ridiculous, aren’t we. 😉

  6. […] Many of those who hold the view that it was unions – or regulations – who gave us the middle class, often hold outdated fears against ‘unfettered markets’, still repeating the now fully debunked Karl Marx view that capitalism, through competition, will bring exploitation of workers, will be a ‘race to the bottom’, and will eventually, atleast according to Marx, result in class warfare blah blah blah blah. However, if you come back to the real world, you will see that competition does the exact opposite, it increases the standard of living, it increases working standards, it increases pay, and it is overall the working person’s best weapon, not its enemy. This is why unions and the minimum wage have the opposite result, since by reducing competition they don’t make the working person’s standard of living better; on net balance, they make it worse. […]

  7. kp says:

    excuse me mr hispanic pundit. sociology IS a science. read up on positivism.. u might learn a thing or two

  8. marxist says:

    Marx economy is something that American economyst cant understand.I know its hard not to abuse common worker and and not to get rich on somone else misery!Dont mess with America or they will bring demo. to ur country.Look at Iraq!

  9. Jon says:

    Don’t know how I ended up here, but here’s Nouriel Roubini on Marx.

    http://tucsoncitizen.com/dataport/2011/08/13/dr-doom-to-the-wsj-marx-was-right-capitalism-may-be-destroying-itself/

    One thing I’m confident of regarding Marx. The demonization is crazy. That suggests to me he must have been right about something, but I don’t know enough about his views to know.

  10. The demonizing could also be because those who claimed to be his followers mass murdered people in the millions…but that’s just a guess. 🙂

  11. Jon says:

    True. On the other hand today’s largest killers claim to be followers of Jesus. Why isn’t Jesus demonized in the same way? The difference could be that power feels threatened by Marx but not by Jesus so demonizing Marx is useful while demonizing Jesus makes no difference.

    You think Roubini is right to give Marx credit on this one?

  12. Or it could be because the two analogies don’t match up.

    Regarding Roubini: at this point, no.

Leave a Reply for kp