marx, longer than intended lol
@0x4d6165 yeah, exactly, and most of the critics of marx especially from the right make a shallow reading of what marx was talking aboutMarx was primarily an economist and so used to the methods of economics, like for example, making oversimplified models in order to demonstrate a certain principle, so in his analysis of labor markets , he assumes the existence of such a thing as a closed national economy, knowing full well that does not literally exist and all capitalist economies are interconnected through a world market, and a closed national economy exists only as much as different sectors /regions of one country constitute distinct economies, but modeling the entire world economy is very difficult, so for the purposes of studying specifics variables, like wages in relation to supply and demand of labor power and it's productivity, assuming a closed national economy makes our lives easier, it's necessary to do this ,even if it is flawed, in order to establish certain basic principles that we can use to proceed with the development of the theory into more complex territory, later on such basic principles may prove problematic and need to be revised, this is how science works, like in quantum mechanics one must dispense with the assumptions of classical mechanics, but it doesn't mean classical mechanics is now invalid. Lucky for anti-marxists, most people even today are not educated in the philosophy of science.
such mistakes are also made by many marxists, who have a dogmatic rather that critical and scientific understanding of marxist theory, so take Lenin's thesis that "Imperialism is the highest stage of Capitalism" -- in Capital Vol 1 in the chapter on primitive accumulation it's pretty clear that imperialism predates and is a necessary condition for the capitalist mode of production to arise to begin with, and ignoring marx it's just a historic fact that finance capital and imperialist conquest predate the industrial revolution. But the 2nd international consensus that Lenin was working in had a very crude stagist view of history based on a literal reading of marx's intentionally simplified models. ( this isn't to say that Lenin's theory of imperialism is absolutely wrong either, as a description of inter imperialist conflict it is pretty good, it just makes some claims about the historical origin of imperialism and capitalist periodization that are dubious )
you can see how difficult it is to explain all that, and someone acting in bad faith can just say 'marx was bad wrong stinky'