Current events for the average working class american

Marxism is the flat earth of economics and the geocentrism of political philosophy

>checks profile

"liberal" yea checks out

RESCINDMENT: Marx was a little bit right in his political philosophy inasmuch as it came from Proudhon, Dunoyer, Comte, and Thierry, but that's it.

Anyway, it's funny to employ that as a comeback considering Marxist economics inherits a lot of mistakes from the liberal economists Adam Smith and David Ricardo and treats them as inherent to economics, and since Marx's philosophy is generally based on his economics... well, I needn't say more.

At least be a monarchist or something if you want to call me a liberal and not risk friendly fire.

dawg you have libertarian on your profile, liberalism and marxism are two different things communism is not capitalism i implore you to start reading

"And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians [Comte, Dunoyer, Thierry] had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists, the economic economy of the classes."

"A book that has interested me greatly is Thierry’s Histoire de la formation et du progrès du Tiers État, 1893. It is strange how this gentleman, le père of the ‘class struggle’ in French historiography, inveighs in his Preface against the ‘moderns’ who, while also perceiving the antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, purport to discover traces of such opposition as far back as the history of the tiers-état [third estate] prior to 1789. He is at great pains to show that the tiers-état comprises all social ranks and estates save the noblesse and clergé and that the bourgeoisie plays the role of representative of all these other elements."

"While Marx discovered the materialist conception of history, Thierry, Mignet, Guizot, and all the English historians up to 1850 are the proof that it was being striven for, and the discovery of the same conception by Morgan proves that the time was ripe for it and that indeed it had to be discovered."

"But while in all earlier periods the investigation of these driving causes of history was almost impossible — on account of the complicated and concealed interconnections between them and their effects — our present period has so far simplified these interconnections that the riddle could be solved. Since the establishment of large-scale industry — that is, at least since the European peace of 1815 — it has been no longer a secret to any man in England that the whole political struggle there pivoted on the claims to supremacy of two classes: the landed aristocracy and the bourgeoisie (middle class). In France, with the return of the Bourbons, the same fact was perceived, the historians of the Restoration period, from Thierry to Guisot, Mignet, and Thiers, speak of it everywhere as the key to the understanding of all French history since the Middle Ages. And since 1830, the working class, the proletariat, has been recognized in both countries as a third competitor for power. Conditions had become so simplified that one would have had to close one’s eyes deliberately not to see in the light of these three great classes and in the conflict of their interests the driving force of modern history — at least in the two most advanced countries."

There was a very obvious influence from liberalism on Marxism. They are not the same thing, which wasn't what I was saying, but again, don't friendly fire.

I could also go into the problems with Smith-Ricardo-Marx economics if you want :)

You're all guilty of Liberalism. I look upon you all and see Liberal stains on all of you. Liberal! Liberal! Liberal!

lmao I love calling people Liberals