Students For Liberty Profile picture
Jun 2 9 tweets 4 min read Read on X
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. 🧵 Image
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.Image
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.Image
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.Image
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.Image
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.Image
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. Image
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. Image
Want to go deeper?

We made a short, free email course called How to Not Be an NPC on Tariffs.

Inside, you’ll learn:

– Why tariffs are about power, not just trade

– Who wins, who loses—and why

– What economists don’t say on cable news

– How these debates still shape our world

Start here → go.studentsforliberty.org/learn-tariffs/Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Students For Liberty

Students For Liberty Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @sfliberty

Oct 31
We shouldn't need to say this.

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. 🧵Image
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.Image
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."Image
Read 14 tweets
Oct 28
A month ago, Javier Milei looked politically dead.

Congress overturned his vetoes. Markets were in freefall. The peso was collapsing. Polls showed voters turning against him.

On Sunday, he won a landslide that shocked everyone.

This is how he pulled it off. 🧵 Image
Let's rewind to early October.

Milei's Argentina had spent months trapped in a vicious cycle.

He'd slash spending. Congress would override him. Investors would panic. The peso would drop. His approval would sink.

Then Congress would get more aggressive. Image
In October alone, Congress overturned two of his vetoes. One expanded university funding. Another increased hospital budgets.

The votes weren't even close. 59-7 in the Senate. 174-62 in the Chamber.

Three veto overrides total. Each one signaling: Milei had lost control. Image
Read 14 tweets
Oct 27
Liberty isn't a cult.

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. 🧵 Image
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.Image
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. Image
Read 15 tweets
Oct 24
Marx lost the economics debate by 1900.

But he planted an intellectual time bomb that wouldn't detonate for a century.

It's why you can't have debates anymore. It's why arguments are replaced by identity credentials.

Mises warned us in 1949. We didn't listen. 🧵 Image
1896: Economist Böhm-Bawerk publishes a systematic dismantling of Marx's value theory.

150 pages. Every contradiction documented.

Marx's defenders had a choice:

Refute the arguments

Or change the rules of debate

They chose option 2.

And it changed everything. Image
Marx introduced "polylogism", the idea that social position determines mental structure.

Not just perspective. Not just bias. Fundamentally different forms of logic.

Workers think one way. Capitalists another. And they cannot truly understand each other.

This wasn't descriptive sociology. This was epistemic warfare.Image
Read 10 tweets
Oct 23
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. 🧵 Image
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.Image
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.

That was it. The only path. Image
Read 17 tweets
Oct 22
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. 🧵Image
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. Image
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.

But then comes the kicker. Image
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(