Me, when I'm in a 'Just Make Shit up' contest and my opponent is the NYT

Again, I hop into another thread about a stupid fucking piece of shit getting paid to be a dumb motherfucker

Lol... As if Marx didn't write over 50 articles and at least two larger essays, specifically discussing the role of petite bourgeois in the revolution (due to the fact that his best fucking friend was petite bourgeois), and that his major theoretical departure from Proudhon (literally the first major theoretical difference between communists and anarchists) is that Marx recognized that the small craftsman or artisan would always aspire to the petite bourgeois, and therefore could not be the revolutionary class, with them unfortunately instead having to first be broken upon the wheel of capital and proletarianized, as opposed to Proudhon, who thought that the stress upon the small craftsman or artisan, with their skilled labor, would create within them the revolutionary consciousness required for revolution.

The idea that Karl Marx thought that they were a dying class is hilarious, he just knew that they will always be subjected to the whims of larger firms and capital markets, making them among the most precarious and thus reactionary of classes.

Edit -- Also, small time doctors are a dead fucking class in the U.S. with the large medical firms, universities and hospitals effectively charging, and regulating them out of existence. Unless you are counting quacks like acupuncturists and chiropractors. The only ones I know that exist outside of that are dentists (and even they are being swallowed by the day into larger capital conglomerates at higher rates than ever) and the occasional physical therapist, but the local family practitioner is gone and fucking dead.

So not only were they wrong about what Marx thought, they are wrong in that the larger long-term theoretical economic trends that Marx described were and are correct (which Marx would have had no real way of actually knowing outside of inference.)

thinking about when the NYT editor explicitly said it is part of the paper's mission to defend capitalism

EDIT: Top NYT Editor: ‘We Are Pro-Capitalism, the Times Is in Favor of Capitalism’ | FAIR / Adam Johnson

I think we are pro-capitalism. The New York Times is in favor of capitalism because it has been the greatest engine of, it’s been the greatest anti-poverty program and engine of progress that we’ve seen.

—James Bennet, Editorial Page Editor