In his latest article he explicitly and approvingly cites Marx twice (with a few more implicit mentions) and comes up with two elegant destructions of common billionaire apologia arguments: " They don't do it for the money - then it should be no problem if we tax most of it away, right?" and "They worked hard for it - well, thieves can also work hard".
Obviously he has a number of very shitty takes but it's over the top to dismiss him completely.
I mean, that can be a good take though. Marx himself would likely say his ideas are at least partially out of date. That's sort of the point of dialectical materialism...if the material conditions change so too does the approach. And although broadly the material conditions caused by capitalism are the same there are still a ton of more nuanced differences that Marx would no doubt recognize and readjust his views on.
I'm not familiar with this guy or his specific criticism of Marx but I think if it's something similar to the above it's probably fair
I don't think it was, it was basically radlib style apologia iirc
Ah, ok. As I said definitely not familiar with the guy. Thanks
deleted by creator