If you look at Marx's 1844 manuscripts, Marx was all about pop culture. He referenced plays and novels freely. In Capital he references Robinson Crusoe!
Liberalism was born out of the capitalist need to somehow justify 1) rebellion against the monarchy while simultaneously 2) putting down slave rebellions.
This reveals how the anti-state "both sides can be bad at the same time" tradition of anarchism really is pure liberalism.
Liberalism fundamentally *is* that equivocation, that incessant demand for "nuance," that fear of "going too far," that ability to claim you uphold a certain ideal while your material reality blatantly undermines it at every step.
China may objectively, provably, unquestionably have world-historic achievements in freedom-enhancing poverty eradication and peaceful development, but liberalism allows Westerners to disregard this reality and insist that they stand for freedom and the rest for authority.
Hundreds and hundreds of people replied angrily, but not *once* on the basis of any particular challenge. It was endless indignation that I dared express skepticism.
Every Uyghur that the Western press puts on blast is a fraud.
Rushan Abbas worked at Guantanamo Bay.
Nury Turkel works for the State Department.
Sayragul Sauytbay changed her story (and isn't Uyghur).
Tursunay Ziyawudun changed her story.
Arsalan Hidayat is a serial liar.
Meanwhile, hundreds of Uyghur bloggers in China, workers at various government agencies, superstars like Merxat Yalkun and Dilraba Dilmurat, etc. are superciliously dismissed as "propaganda agents."
Americans don't want truth, they just want their atrocity propaganda reinforced.
As I keep saying: the entire purpose of "Western Marxist Academia" is simply trying to de-fang Marx, cleave him from Engels and Lenin (to say nothing of Stalin and Deng), try to make him compatible with their anti-revolutionary, anticommunist, professional-liberal sensibilities.