I think its great that you have discovered all these different economic theories, Marxism,Austrian school, Keynesianism and you should learn them all as some variation of each influences the world today.
It seems you are asking which one do I use as my worldview and in summary I would say none of them, because then you would be following an ideology.
I used to be a Marxist and then I evolved into an advocate of the Austrian school of thought, today I am neither.
What I am suggesting here is you understand the strengths and limitations of each school of thought.
Since the last ideology I clinged to before I liberated my mind and decided to live in the real-world with the real-economy was the Austrian school, until I realized the limitations of the markets just as I realized the limitation of the State with my previous ideology.
Let's take a look at the limits of both.
This idea that the market and/or the state can fix what's broken runs into intrinsic limits of both structures.
The States ontological imperative is to ceaselessly expand its control and budget, lest anything outside its control become a threat. In integrative stages, this expansion appears beneficial, potentially yielding some version of the much admired Scandinavian model of the state managing a vibrant private sector to provide generous universal welfare benefits to all.
But that is not the present story of life at least here in the United States.
Let's just say history has not been kind to states that continue to expand complexity, regulation and enforcement in disintegrative eras, especially expansions funded by borrowing money on a vast scale.
Now the Austrian school and its libertarian followers of which I used to be one would agree with what I just wrote but here is where I part ways with them.
Markets are intrinsically incapable of differentiating between much very different things.
For example, in the logic of the market, the last schools of wild tuna fetch a nice price for being scarce, while farmed fish offer a ready substitute. But wild fisheries, being the complex ecosystems that they are, are qualitatively different from fish farms. The market equates the two because it is incapable of valuing ecosystems and externalities such as biodiversity. Markets price scarcity and demand in the present moment and thus they are ontologically incapable of valuing everything that cannot be reduced to a price discovered by supply and demand.
For many people like me, social cohesion, shared purpose, meaningful work and a great many other essential components of the social construct we call the economy are important, but these things cannot be reduced to a market, despite best efforts.
So on the left we have those who believe the answer is Universal Basic Income, which is essentially a more entrenched welfare system for all, funded by higher taxes on the wealthy. This would give everyone the money needed to buy more goods and services, that is, expand aggregate demand, thus driving growth which drives prosperity, but resources are finite so infinite growth is impossible and this is why you have innovative thinking investors and other wealthy people waxing on and on about nanotechnology, alternative energy, space exploration, life extension, biological engineering, robotics, distributed manufacturing, artificial intelligence, computer science and virtual reality.
The investors that tout the above topics believe that the problem is that markets have been hobbled by the state and the solution is simple: free markets will solve all problems by discovering the price of everything and thus incentivize everyone to develop substitutes for whatever is scarce, farmed fish substituted for wild fisheries, solar panels and wind turbines for oil, raw materials on Mars and other planets. The belief is that unfettered markets will drive growth which drives prosperity.
Let's take these beliefs back in time with us to the Western Roman Empire circa 456 AD, 20 years before the final implosion of the empire. Alternatively, we could go back in time to the Qing Dynasty China in 1892, 20 years prior to the final collapse of the dynasty. What ailed both of these systems was not a lack of aggregate demand or hobbled markets; these systems were structurally brittle and fragile, completely lacking the flexibility and adaptability needed to navigate non-linear upheavals.
So of the two unrealistic solutions, on the left we have more entrenched welfare with Universal Basic Income and your Marxists, socialists and others are on that side of the fence and on the right we have the unfettered markets thinkers such as the Austrian school and other neoliberal economists. What I find interesting about both sides is that their solutions don't require any changes in the power structure.
So what I am saying to you is, read all of it, study all of it and then live your life and see what seems applicable and what does not. You may come to one set of conclusions now and as you gain more life experience and read more and study more, you will slowly but surely gain a healthier understanding and require even less the asking of the question, which ideology should be my life-preserver?
In short, believe nothing, study everything, arrive at your own conclusions. Best wishes.