An oversimplification of my general view would be that Libertarians are right about the state and microeconomics. Marxists are right about macroeconomics and economic history.

Some highlights:

-Friedman sounds like he’s discussing economics but Wolff often sounds more like he’s describing a religion: “We have an idea that needs to take power.” He could just as easily be talking about Islam.

-Wolff needs to read Antony Sutton’s critique of Soviet industrial and technological development, which applies to the Chinese model as well.

-I’d like to see Friedman respond to Carson’s idea of the “subsidy of history” which I think is the main weakness in the market/liberal position.

-Wolff’s point about the false dichotomy of the public/private sectors and the power of corporations to use advertising (propaganda) to create their own demand is good.

-If Wolff’s idea is to defend an economy of democratic cooperatives he should forget about trying to defend the “national socialism” of the USSR, PRC, etc.

-Wolff’s point about legal barriers to coops is a good one as is his point about the body counts generated by the two world wars and colonialism in response to Friedman’s point about Communism’s body count.

-They’re probably both right that ancaps and serious Marxists are not particularly welcome in university economics departments where the range of perspectives tends to be limited to supply-siders and Keynesians.

-Wolff’s point about technological displacement is good.