I’ve become convinced that Naomi Klein and others who popularized “neoliberalism” should’ve imported the Italian term “liberism” or the German “Manchestertum” (which would probably be “Manchesterism” in English) to avoid this kind of silliness and confusion.

https://twitter.com/mcrumps/status/1314252898654736384

“liberism” is a truncated and ugly sounding version of “liberalism” which makes it apt for describing these economic doctrines. “Manchesterism” has the benefit of establishing historical continuity with a more specific ideology of British manufacturers and imperialists.

So it looks like many Marxists are still attached to the obsolete concept of a “bourgeois revolution.” What follows is not intended to be a comprehensive refutation, and it’s a lot more disorganized than I’d like, but should be enough to throw the concept into doubt. The supposed “failure” of the bourgeoisie to fulfill its “historical role” is one that crops up again and again in Marxist historiography. For example, in this dicussion if Spain:

It's finally here.

LECTURE 1 on LIBERALISM: Why the idea of "Classical Liberalism" is a myth and not supported by any rigorous historical survey, and why John Locke's status as the "father of Liberalism" should be reevaluated. The standard account identifies John Locke as the "father of Liberalism." This would've come as a surprise to 19th century Liberals, who almost unanimously considered Locke's political theories *primitive* and *obsolete*. To start, let's look at Locke's home country of England.