Chris Dillow - why libertarians should read Marx. All good points, but:
There’s astonishingly little in Marx about a centrally planned economy: if you want an argument for central planning, you should read that hero of the right, Ronald Coase instead (pdf). Marx was admiring of capitalism in some respects. It has, he wrote, given “an immense development to commerce” and has “accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals.” And I think you’d be surprised by just how much attention Marx paid to the facts: once you get past the first few chapters, there’s massive empirical work in Capital volume I*. And there are many differences between Marx and social democrats – not least of them being that Marx was no statist.
What’s more, many of the ideas associated with Marx were largely elaborations of his predecessors: Paul Samuelson called him a “minor post-Ricardian”. The labour theory of value, the interest in the division of income between classes and the idea of a falling rate of profit are all as Ricardian as Marxian.
The problem is, Chris, that libertarians don't give a shit about resisting state power. If they did, they wouldn't be advocating transvaginal ultrasounds, criminalizing labour bargaining power, and so on.
Libertarians are libertarians because they hate the poors. So if Marx is advocating for the poors, he's the enemy of libertarianism. Full stop.