This may be a blasphemous question: Is there a contribution of Marx that actually makes logical sense and can be deduced praxeologically? I doubt it.
Blasphemy! Last I checked, Marxist theory is flawed to the core.
There is this though, Hoppe's Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis:
I want to do the following in this paper: First to present the theses that constitute the hard core of the Marxist theory of history. I claim that all of them are essentially correct. Then I will show how these true theses are derived in Marxism from a false starting point. Finally, I will demonstrate how Austrianism in the Mises-Rothbard tradition can give a correct but categorically different explanation of their validity.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Well, historicism, determinism, and dialectical materialism are all badly flawed tools for economic analysis, so anything Marx got right was just by luck.
However, the worldwide conflict we see today between the political class and the economic class does seem somewhat analagous to Marx's depiction of the proletariat versus the bourgeois. I'm sure that after Bohm-Bawerk and others demonstrated that Marx's economics were flawed, and that different classes could mutually benefit from cooperation, many assumed it was a death blow to Marxian collectivism. However, the "proletariat" (political class) continues to agitate against the market even knowing that it improves everyone's lot, possibly out of some irrational antagonism against the more wealthy economic class. Certainly none of this is/was "inevitable" as Marx claimed, but maybe he was more prescient about the persistence of class antagonism than was once thought.
"I claim that all of them are essentially correct."
Hoppe and his arguments are hilarious yet insightful. I love how he uses their own logic against them.
"Well, historicism, determinism, and dialectical materialism are all badly flawed tools for economic analysis,"
I do find the Marxist term "material conditions" in reference to "dialectical materialism" and "historicism" interesting, albeit its usage is typically in connection with flawed theory, ie capitalist exploitation and theory of crisis.
He has some decent social commentary and insights, the conclusions and theory though are as batty as can be.
Shame he didn't find any insight to help his kids.
He is more consistent in his application of the labor theory of value than the classical school was.
I Samuel 8
Jesse:He is more consistent in his application of the labor theory of value than the classical school was.
1/0=2/0
your point?
"Shame he didn't find any insight to help his kids."
I forget how many of them died? I know that he only had one daughter who survived but I forget how many of the little suckers died for the father of marxism.
Marx's Kids
Not being a Keynesian.
I think all of his good ideas got lost in the mane around his head.
By taking the labor theory of value to its logical conclusion, he probably helped expose its flaws and in doing so may well have indirectly contributed to the development of the subjective theory of value, even if by accident.
I never looked into this, but I'm left wondering:
Does Marxism account for the unemployment levels we are facing today? How is sitting at home unemployed and getting paid a form of slavery? Wouldn't the bourgeois want us to work even more for them at lower and lower wages? We're not seeing that seperation of bourgeois and proletariat intensifying.