>He was an economically illiterate quack promoting basic fallacies like Ludditism that are popular with laymen. Regardless of what you think of Marx's economic

>He was an economically illiterate quack promoting basic fallacies like Ludditism that are popular with laymen. Regardless of what you think of Marx's economics (and it seems you haven't thought much about it, since modern Marxist economists have improved some of ideas and rejected others), it is totally incorrect to say he was economically illiterate. Marx had an encyclopedic knowledge of political economy, and all his predecessors, including Smith, Ricardo, Say, Bailey, J.S. Mill, etc. - that much is visible through his notes and published works. >This was proven wrong in his own lifetime as factory worker wages rapidly grew in industrializing Britain. Marx effectively writes about this in Capital.