A legitimately interesting read. Thanks for taking the time.

While I agree with your criticisms of liberalism by and large, I question your optimism in regards to Marxism. Overlooking economic and socio-political viability, how exactly is it exempt from the same subversion? From your responses, you seemingly limit your definition of Marxism largely to Marx's work, regarding neo/cultural Marxism as more radical liberalism. If this is the case, given the means by which "Marxism" is being proliferated and the views commonly held by self-identified Marxists, wouldn't the revolution actually be staged by a majority liberal component?

A legitimately interesting read. Thanks for taking the time.

While I agree with your criticisms of liberalism by and large, I question your optimism in regards to Marxism. Overlooking economic and socio-political viability, how exactly is it exempt from the same subversion? From your responses, you seemingly limit your definition of Marxism largely to Marx's work, regarding neo/cultural Marxism as radical liberalism. If this is the case, given the means by which "Marxism" is being proliferated and the views commonly held by self-identified Marxists, wouldn't the revolution actually be staged by a majority liberal component?

A legitimately interesting read. Thanks for taking the time.

While I agree with your criticisms of liberalism by in large, I question your optimism in regards to Marxism. Overlooking economic and socio-political viability, how exactly is it exempt from the same subversion? From your responses, you seemingly limit your definition of Marxism largely to Marx's work, regarding neo/cultural Marxism as radical liberalism. If this is the case, given the means by which "Marxism" is being proliferated and the views commonly held by self-identified Marxists, wouldn't the revolution actually be staged by a majority liberal component?