Fair enough. However, OP once mentioned that Marxism serves to obscure the presence and functioning of a "priestly class". Curious as to what he meant by that
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Sure - but once you bring that in you break Marxist economic theory - coordination is powerful and useful and difficult - all denied by Marxist economics Of course, the broader view of Marxism is "unite the intellectuals to disarm the warriors, win with mobs, loot and slaughter"
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Marxist economic theory was too sterile to be true. But at least under it, we had class wars. Under liberal-marxists you have an alliance of woke capital, conservatives (US-Repubs), & left-liberal(democrats) to enslave everyone to Wall Street. In a way 2008 was social watershed
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes
It was never meant to be true - just had to sound good enough and be complex enough that you can get professors to make careers researching it. It's extremely obvious how false it was now - the source of value is men figuring out how to turn labor and material into useful stuff
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.