"Marxism" was a necessary step to setup in the 20th century and beyond a huge component of one side of the Hegelian dialectic of history. Marx included some astute observations, but the main takeaways were just another Manichean, cartooney version of history, politics and economics. So a counterbalance narrative had to emerge to drive away the spread and influence of Marxism, which has been predominantly, in practice if not in theory, predatory vulture capitalism, American imperialism, and of course the neocons.
Sensible third ways that actually dignified the working classes, self sovereignty of nations and their economies, and policies that really could raise all boats, were therefore easily rejected, destroyed, or assimilated into the 20th century black-and-white grand chessboard of 20th century geopolitics.
So that's a roundabout way for answering the question;;; ideologues who accept the false dichotomy will choose Marxism as the supposedly more humane and egalitarian worldview.
"Marxism" was a necessary step to setup in the 20th century and beyond a huge component of one side of the Hegelian dialectic of history. Marx included some astute observations, but the main takeaways were just another Manichean, cartooney version of history, politics and economics. So a counterbalance narrative had to emerge to drive away the spread and influence of Marxism, which has been predominantly, in practice if not in theory, predatory vulture capitalism, American imperialism, and of course the neocons.
Sensible third ways that actually dignified the working classes, self sovereignty of nations and their economies, and policies that really could raise all boats, were therefore easily rejected, destroyed, or assimilated into the 20th century black-and-white grand chessboard of 20th century geopolitics.
So that's a roundabout way for answering the question;;; ideologues who accept the false dichotomy will choose Marxism as the supposedly more humane and egalitarian worldview.
Got it thanks