I'm no fan of Marxism, or Marx himself.. But I also know that it's almost always a mistake to dismiss men of tremendous influence out of hand. People who achieve greatness are always worthy of study. Even if the lessons we learn are what NOT TO DO. It's a mistake with Hitler, Reagan (The left simply dismisses him, his ideas and his influence) Trotsky, Stalin, etc, etc. . In this context, I would like to ask you about something Marx wrote. (Paraphrasing) He drew parallels between industries and how they would fare in the aggregate under various economic circumstances.. For example, how a particular action might disparately affect renters, farmers, importers, workers and manufactures. The trend now is to educate-educate-educate. Educate yourself out of the lower economic strata and into the upper... Because, as everyone knows, the lower rung is forced to compete with a nearly infinite supply of "workers" (I hate that word, btw) from countries with a standard of living much lower than our own. Which, given even similar rates of productivity, is impossible. Now again, conventional wisdom says if you educate yourself out of this class and into a higher one, that you will avoid any negative repercussions from this... and you will reap the benefits of cheap goods from abroad. So you win. However, based on some of his writings, Marx might well claim that this will have a negative effect on the upper classes as well.. as they become smaller, more crowded and less exclusive, pulling down wages and opportunities down for everyone. Because, after all.. Not everyone can be a professor. If everyone were, it would pay nothing at all and essentially mirror the same problem faced by the lower economic classes - Unlimited competition for an ever dwindling number of jobs. Basically, a lack of scarcity. Was he correct in this and to what extent? And why? Also: Are you aware of his position on Free Trade and why he took it?