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.
A Czech playwright predicted the Soviet collapse 11 years before it happened.
While CIA analysts studied missile counts and economic indicators, Václav Havel explained why communist regimes would fall from moral exhaustion, destroying itself from the inside.
The experts dismissed him. History proved them wrong. 🧵
In 1978, The Soviet System Looked Permanent
Western analysts treated communist rule as unchangeable fact. Military power. Total surveillance. Complete control.
Political scientists predicted gradual reform at best. Revolution seemed impossible.
But they were missing one important factor.
Havel Understood What The Data Couldn't Capture
In his underground essay "The Power of the Powerless," written in 1978, Havel identified the regime's hidden fragility.
Communist systems didn't survive through force alone. They required mass participation in obvious lies.
Every citizen had to pretend the system worked. Every worker had to attend celebrations for policies they knew were failing. Every student had to repeat slogans contradicting observable reality.
This created exhaustion that military strength couldn't cure.
Ronald Coase set out to prove that Socialism was superior to the chaos of the market.
So he went to America to see how giant industries were actually managed.
What he found destroyed his worldview. And won him a Nobel Prize.
This is the story of how a young socialist became one of the most important economists of the 20th century by following evidence over ideology. 🧵
London, 1929. A 19-year-old economics student at LSE calls himself a "soft socialist."
The intellectual consensus seemed obvious: markets were chaos, central planning was science.
His professors had a compelling argument: businesses are already mini-planned economies. If planning works inside firms, why not scale it to entire nations?
For young Coase, the logic felt inevitable. Scientific management promised order. The invisible hand looked like randomness.
But in 1931, he won a scholarship that would change everything: a chance to study American industry firsthand.
He went expecting to document techniques for improving socialist planning. He found something that shattered his worldview instead.
Everyone Wants Democratic Transition for Venezuela
But how do you restore democracy in a kleptocratic state captured by criminal elites?
To understand the problem, you need to understand how Venezuela got here. This story is a stark reminder that freedom isn't lost overnight, but slowly dismantled, one piece at a time. 🧵
The Liberation Myth: Venezuela Started With a Promise
In 1811, Simon Bolivar liberated Venezuela from Spanish rule. He dreamed of a unified, free South America built on republican ideals.
But Bolivar's revolution created a nation, not stability. What followed was a century of chaos.
A Century of Strongmen: The 19th Century Belonged to Caudillos
After independence came civil wars, military coups, and regional warlords fighting for control. Venezuela cycled through dozens of governments.
Power didn't come from elections. It came from controlling enough armed men to take Caracas. Whoever seized the capital claimed to speak for the nation.
“I'm against Maduro, but I think what Trump did was wrong.”
This sentence sounds reasonable, balanced, and mature. The kind of thing a serious person would say to avoid seeming radical.
The problem is that this sentence is, morally, one of the worst possible positions on Venezuela. 🧵
Not because it's moderate. But because it's a conscious escape. That "but" isn't prudence. It's a silent plea for moral exoneration.
The attempt to appear sophisticated while avoiding the thing that morality often demands: to hierarchize evil. To say what is worse. To choose.
Let's be clear about what we're "balancing" here.
Under Maduro's "socialism of the 21st century," Venezuela collapsed into hyperinflation exceeding 1,000,000%. Systematic scarcity created mass starvation. Venezuelans resorted to eating dogs and scavenging trash to survive.
These aren't political talking points. These are documented atrocities.