I split your paragraphs up into numbered points to make it easier to respond.

1) How can anybody have a 'coherent and worked-out social and economic theories' when the person who made such theories was absolutely useless with money? He regularily exploited his family for money, until they stopped giving him money as they realised he was completely unwilling to get a job, he then proceeded to exploit the banks and his poor wife Jenny von Westphalen's (note; Jenny and her family were NOT poor, they were very wealthy, I refere to Jenny as poor, due to the horrors Marx put her through) family for money. Now of course the banks and Jenny's family also realised, like Marx's own family, that Marx was a bum who was unwilling to work. This lead to Marx frequently going to the pawn shop to sell the family belongings, so much so that at one point he was the only person alowed outside of the house they they were 'renting', as he was the only one who had a pair of pants, speeking of renting, he frequently used pseudonyms to try and make it harded for the authorities to track him down for all his unpaid debt. Later in his life he got most of his money from Engels, who inturn got all of his money from his familys business, which guess what, USED WORKERS, so we have this prat who's useless with money, and talking about the exploitation of workers, and the evil bourgeoisie, who was USING MONEY from the bourgeoisie that is Engels parents business, which EXPLOITED WORKERS, to pay for all his ridiculous bullshit and alcohol. So in effect he was PART of the bourgeoisie that he so venemously criticised for exploiting workers, WHEN HE EFFECTIVELY DID NOTHING TO EXPLOIT WORKERS AND THE BANKS AND THE FAMILIES OF ALL HIS RICH ASSOCIATES. Honestly it's like if some morbidly obese person came out with a book titled 'how to live healthily and be in shape', nobody would buy it or beleive any of the crap in it. So WHY does ANYBODY beleive in the bullshit that Marx spouted? His entire work is utter shit and drivel, he knew nothing about how the world worked back then, and his work certainly applies very little and is even more irrelavant and not based in society as in the modern day, as his crap was back then. 

2) Because he was an idiot, and was just spouting idealistic crap? And honestly the fact that you've said that Lenin was 'one of the more positive ones' tells you everything you need to know about how Marx's crap lead to untold deaths and suffering of people who really shouldn't have, that is the very definition of Evil. 

3) Are you for real? REALLY? How are they anything other than his fucking fault? If he actually had a clue about money and was interested in working and real life, and did spout his bullshit, they these idiots further down the line wouldn't have picked up his crap and ran with it to get power and commit atrocities. No what saved people from horrible conditions was the complete unregulation of the market, which lead to the argricultural revolution, which for the first time EVER lead to almost constant excess of food and a reliable supply of it, which intern lead to people being able to participate in the industrial revolution, earning more money than they ever had, so eventually they had enough to stop relying on child labour, and could do the inteligent thing, which was to send their children to schooling whilst at work, so their children could then proceed to open up a business and improve the wealth of the family, which slowly but surely ended the serious exploitation of child labour. This has NOTHING to do with Marx, all to do with the Free Market. Marx's theories are NOT relavant at ALL, and its obvious by the fact that the two biggest examples of Marxists thinking, Russia, and China, have long abandoned such thoughts, with China still having remants, which is why it's facing such economic disaster right now, whilst Russia is struggling because the west distrusts it so much and refuses to trade with the country, effectively ostricising them from all the important markets that keep a country strong. It'd be if like Europe decided to fuck America off and not trade with them, America would crash harder than a Crack junkie going cold turkey after a month long binge of epic proportions.

4) The formation of huge monopolies occurs DUE to heavy regulation, as regulation increases the barriers of entry into the market, making it even harder for competition just entering the market, as compared ot established businesses in the market, than it otherwise would be. Please show me these needless deaths? And are you for real? Or do you not know about all the ridiculous deaths in just Russia and China during their heavy communist eras?

Marx was a alcoholic prat whith no grip on reality, and should be ignored like many other idiots in history. Why he gets such praise is honestly beyond me.

In about a week, I'm going to post a poll to parse these numbers out, but these results are VERY interesting so far.

You're first 3 points are immediatly moot. Marx was a hard worker. He was a journalist, writer and a politician, constantly chased out of the countries he established himself in, constantly needing to re-establish his party and organizations and had to go through nearly inhuman means to keep the First Worker's International together as long as it did. Secondly, it was not his wife who constantly supported him. The Marx' came by with very little, but when the need was high, it was Friedrich Engels who happily lend a hand to support his friend.

Monopolies inevitably form in deregulated capitalist societies. Regulation ensures competetion, without it, we would end up with a small bunch of monopolies due to the aggregation of capital and the agressive ouster of adversaries on the market. Read "Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism" by V.I. Lenin to know more.

I suggest an apology to Marx from you is in order.

No, they're not, he never worked a job in his life, he was no more than a crackpot philosopher, he was no politician. No, he was kicked out of Belguim because he was arming the Bulgian revolutionists, and he was kicked out of France because they realised he was a moron. He often got money from his Father and his Wifes Family, Marx's family was a upper-middle/lower-upper class family, the fact that he inherited at least 5000 Francs way back in 1848 (IIRC, it was when there was massive uprising in Europe, which also lead to the French Monarchs being overthrown) tells you all you need to know about his own families wealth, let alone his wifes. Yes, like I said he exploited the workers of Engels families factory. He's a complete hypocrite.

If you truly believe that deregulation leads to monopolies in the free market then you have no economic knowladge at all.

No, the only apology regarding Marx that is in order is HIS appology to firstly his whife, who by his means ostricised her from her Family, proceeded to lead what should have been an upper class family, considering both family backgrounds, to lose FOUR out of the seven children they had by living in truly awful conditions (because he refused to go out to work and earn money, and boozed what they had away), AND for cheating on her with the 'housekeeper', who was nothing more than a slave, as he never paid her. Then he needs to appologies to society as a whole for spewing such utter nonsense that has lead to untold, unessecary deaths and turmoil in the world.

It's getting really pathetic if you need to resort to lies to defame Marx...

Just admit you were wrong.

The sad thing is, is that they're not lies :( He really was from an upperclass background, as was his wife, as was the fact he never worked to earn money, as was the fact that he couldn't manage money at all. I won't admit I'm wrong about something I'm right about, you should admit your wrong for spouting such tripe as regulation helps competition. I mean FFS just THINK about that for a minute, please, just THINK about that, and if you have half a brain-cell between your ears you'll realise how wrong you are.

I stated what he worked for. I'm not repeating myself. I'm not correcting my right about monopolies either.

Global warming is not a thing. Climate change is.

The average global temperature has increased by over a degree fahrenheit in the last century. Call it what you will but there is a clear warming trend that is occurring on a global level and the term global warming is still accurate.

1) Just about any economist worth their salt, from Keynesian, to Chicago, to Austrian, will tell you that monopolies form when barriers to entry into a market are high. Thus, the higher the barriers to entry, the more likely monopolies are to form. Regulations increase the barriers to entry.

2) Diseconomies of scale act as a natural check on monopoly power in a free market. I guess you haven't worked in a large corporation before. Talk to people who have, and ask them about the bureacracy and internal management struggles that go on. Truth is, there's no way that they could compete against any startup without all the artificial barriers protecting existing industries, and various Government subsidies that keep them in profit.

The corporation I work for, now spends 60% of it's multi-billion dollar budget on regulatory compliance. Think about that. How could any new entrant to the market possibly hope to legally compete.

3) The most extreme example of this can be seen in drug prohibition. They aren't called "cartels" because the name sounds cool.