Karl Marx said he had discovered the scientific laws of economics.
Value came from labor.
Profit was theft.
Only central planning could build a just society.
But four Austrian economists—Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, Mises, and Hayek—tore his theory apart. 🧵
Marx said value comes from labor.
Carl Menger said: value comes from us.
In Principles of Economics (1871), he showed that value is subjective. It depends on the preferences of individuals—changing across people, places, and time.
A violin is priceless to a musician, worthless to someone else. Food is worth more to the starving than to the full.
Labor doesn’t determine value.
Human needs do.
Marx said capitalists exploit workers.
Eugen Böhm-Bawerk introduced a different explanation: time preference.
Workers value present income. Capitalists provide that income now in exchange for uncertain profits later.
They take the risk, front the capital, and hope it pays off.
Profit is not exploitation. It’s compensation for time, risk, and planning.
But what if we abolished capitalism?
How would the state know what to produce?
Ludwig von Mises asked this in 1920—and proved socialism couldn’t answer it.
Without prices, there’s no way to compare costs or plan tradeoffs.
No real prices = no real economy.
He didn’t say socialism lacked morality.
He said it lacked logic.
F.A. Hayek went further.
He argued that no central planner could match the knowledge spread across society.
Prices aren’t just numbers. They’re signals—reflecting local needs, priorities, and scarcities.
Prices reflect that knowledge. They allow individuals to coordinate without any central planner needing to understand the full picture.
No expert, no algorithm, no five-year plan can replace that.
By the mid-20th century, Marxist economics had collapsed.
Menger refuted the labor theory of value.
Böhm-Bawerk dismantled surplus value.
Mises exposed the limits of planning.
Hayek explained why decentralization matters.
The Austrians didn’t just critique Marx. They offered a more coherent framework—rooted in individual choice, not class struggle.
So why does it matter now?
Because Marx’s bad ideas never die.
Price controls.
Central planning.
The constant vilification of profit.
Every time we forget what crushed Marxism, it crawls back—under new slogans, with old consequences.
Most students never learn this story.
They don’t know how Marx fell.
They don’t know why the Austrians won.
And they don’t realize how many of today’s bad ideas echo the same fallacies—just with friendlier branding.
Want to go deeper?
We made a short, free email course called How to Not Be an NPC on Tariffs.
But after recent conversations in conservative circles, apparently we do.
Here's a thread on why anyone who claims to defend liberty, Western civilization, or American principles cannot be a collectivist. 🧵
Collectivism isn't just a left-wing problem.
It's any ideology that treats groups as more real than individuals. That judges you by what tribe you were born into rather than what you choose and achieve.
On the left, it appears as class warfare and identity politics.
On the right, it appears as nationalism that judges by ethnicity. In tribalism that divides by blood.
They deny that individuals think, choose, and act. They claim your character is determined by your group.
By your race, your class, your sex, your ancestors. They erase the line between earned achievement and inherited status.
This is why Ayn Rand called racism "the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism."
These days, there's a race to be the most "libertarian" or "classical liberal," but it's grounded in dogmatism. Acting like there's only one way to justify liberty, support it, or advance it.
That thinking could be the death of liberty. 🧵
Here's the irony:
The people most dogmatic about liberty are acting more like Marxists than liberty lovers.
They treat their preferred thinkers like sacred texts. They excommunicate anyone who disagrees. They run purity tests instead of building movements.
This is how ideologies die.
Look at what the liberal tradition has actually accomplished:
Free trade. Abolition of slavery. Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Women's rights. Constitutions. Rule of law.
All the things we take for granted today were once radical ideas that caused massive controversy.
Recent polls show growing support for socialism among young people worldwide.
Here's the irony: This support is strongest among those who hate authority, reject compliance, and refuse to obey.
The only two things you can do under socialism are comply and obey. 🧵
Let me show you what youth life actually looked like under socialism.
In the Soviet Union, youth indoctrination began early. Parents enrolled children in the "Little Octobrists" organization to help them secure future positions.
By age 14, they joined the Komsomol. Its core mission? Prepare future members of the Communist Party.
Here's the catch that nobody tells you:
There was no other path to influence or change.
You had to join the Komsomol. Wait for old bureaucrats to die. Slowly climb the Communist Party's chain of command.
Do socialists have a better moral sense of fairness than capitalists?
After all, they're the ones concerned about everyone's well-being, right?
Well, no. Research shows the main drive behind support for redistribution isn't fairness. It's a desire to see the better-off suffer. 🧵
In 2017, researchers from various Psychology and Anthropology departments analyzed data from 6,024 participants across the United States, the United Kingdom, India, and Israel.
What they found destroys the entire moral foundation of socialism.
Here's what the research showed:
"Compassion and envy motivate the attainment of different ends. Compassion, but not envy, predicts personally helping the poor."
So far, makes sense. If you care about the poor, you help them.