I have never argued against any kind of state intervention. Mixed economies are the norm; laissez-faire ones are not. However, every failing company and every failing industry does not nor should not bring about state intervention. Such intervention should be limited to the small number of industries that are strategic in nature and companies whose failure would entail systemic risk (and developing countries can make a case for intervening in the case of infant industries). The decision should keep in mind all likely tradeoffs, including opportunity costs, as well as realistic prospects for revitalization.

During the 1970s, I believe Britain went too far in terms of nationalization and those efforts weakened the British government's finances, diverted resources from more competitive sectors toward flagging state-owned enterprises, and contributed to the structural weakening of Britain's economy. During that time, one could perhaps make the mitigating argument that Britain's political leaders did not have a long experience on which to draw with respect to such moves. Today, the accumulated experience from that time, argues for a much more limited and focused approach to government intervention.

I believe you attached a much more sweeping interpretation to my comment. I was not discussing Marxist analysis per se. That framework will likely remain a tool in textbooks. I was strictly referring to the practical employment of Marxism as a basis for organizing economies and, barring big changes (which can never be ruled out), full-fledged Marxist economies are largely a thing of the past.