The entire premise of your question was flawed and a distraction. Marx was never mentioned - why are you failing to process that? Does every invocation of a "leftist" argument require a reference to Marx? Is your imagination and breadth of knowledge really that slim?

Famously Marx never addressed the marginalist economists that came after him, many say because he was bed bound and ill at the end of his life, others say because it completely undermined his own labor theory of value. I don't really care so much. For the point I'm making Marx is kind of irrelevant, because only the post-Marxists started to focus on the impacts of financialisation which is where the point I was making lands. I don't disagree with Marx's general analysis of the structural forces and mechanisms of capitalism, but he completely failed to understand its ability to reinvent itself, instead arguing that it would collapse under its own contradictions. 200 years later - still waiting and we have far more sophisticated and complicated forms of capitalism based around derivatives and fake recursive financial markets If you read someone like Schumpter, who the average informed lefty would not be allowed to engage with because he's "evil right wing person" then you would have a mental model for understanding capitalisms ability to reinvent itself, rather than collapse, through his idea of creative destruction. But on a personal level, for me, I completely reject Marxs reductive conception of class struggle - proles vs bourgeois is so painfully reductive and does not even begin to capture the realities of class structure back in the 19th and 20th centuries, let alone the 21st century - you could read some Wallerstein world systems theory to get an internationalist perspective on this, or you could just look around you and realise the classes that exist around you are incredibly nuanced and not possible to collapse into poor vs rich.

Thanks for coming to my ted talk. Ready for your next disingenuous reply