It's correct in a bourgeois friendly way, in that it aligns with existing liberal economics. The problem is immediately apparent upon reading liberal economics, though, as invariably there is a distinct urge towards the futility of study, or the supernatural benefits of market mechanics above all. Bourgeois economists are closer to priests justifying the unrestrained tyranny of Capital over Man, when its the historic duty of the proletariat to wrest that control back and firmly reign in Capital, to be bent to our will. We must know more, learn the unlearned, know the unknown, to do so. Marx was the first to truly completely take on such a task.

Sowell is just one such priest of liberalism, an especially useful one in that he is allegedly ex-Marxist. This combination of "abandoning leftist economics for real economics" results in quite a common book to throw in the faces of those that get too uppity towards the status quo.

[–] andrewrgross@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

He is a former Marxist?? I find that bewildering, hilarious, and doubtful.

I think it's great when people have open enough minds to radically rethink their beliefs, but I hope I'm never so brainrotted as to somehow strawman my own former beliefs.

[–] superniceperson@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 days ago

He wanted money and the adoration of old white people more than improving anyone's life.

I usually support people's fetishes but I do think he took his a bit too far. Raceplay should end when it starts affecting literal Congress.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago

Pretty sure it's either one big grift, or he was never much of a Marxist in the first place.