Here's a new paper:

We use a vector autoregression (VAR) methodology to assess the empirical relevance of an augmented CPS [cyclical profit squeeze] model for the U.S. economy'Our results are consistent with the operation of the CPS mechanism, both under regulated and neoliberal capitalism. This suggests that Marx's analysis of the fluctuations of the reserve army of labour'remains a powerful analytical framework for understanding macroeconomic fluctuations in capitalism.

This, of course, is not the only empirical support for Marxist insights. We can add:

- Some work by Jeremy Greenwood vindicates Marx's claim that 'the mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life.'

- The labour theory of value, much maligned as it is, does a rather good job of explaining relative prices.

- Daniel Kahneman's work on cognitive biases can be read as corroboration of Marx's theory that capitalism generates an ideology which prevents people seeing its injustices.

- A lot of work in public choice is quite consistent with the Marxian view that 'the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.'

Of course, Marx got some forecasts wrong*. Capitalism has not (yet!) collapsed - though it might yet - but in forecasting this he was largely elaborating upon the stationary state discussed by Smith and Ricardo.

But the fact is that, viewed from a narrowly empirical basis, Marxism scores rather well - and (arguably) quite possibly better than a lot of mainstream or neoliberal economics. Which raises the suspicion that the appeal of the latter over Marxism might rest on considerations other than empirical fact.

* We can leave central planning aside, as Marx probably wrote about as much on central planning as Adam Smith did on the invisible hand - which is to say, very little.