>>24816201
>Progressivism adopts some of it to buy off the masses
Right, so I think you're pointing at the hazy area where capitalist-liberals pretend to be socialists in order to cover up the flaws in liberal-capitalist ideology. They're mimics, designed by the system to keep opponents complacent.
>>24816263
>They have the same origins in the Enlightenment
No such thing. Maybe that sounds obtuse, but secular liberalism was hardly enlightening. The enlightenment as an event doesn't even make sense, that's why it has two different time frames for its beginning (one is anti-catholic, the other is pro-catholic).
>Marxism was like a radical evolution
Marx and Engels were reactionaries. In Engel's Principles of Communism he makes it obvious and just admits that they are reacting to developments of liberalism, which was the revolution, and against the old feudal system which guaranteed some security for people.
>Marx also saw liberalism as playing a progressive historical role
He was witnessing industrial society gravitate people away from their land holdings and farms and turn into global nomads following industrial work wherever it cropped up. In truth, he didn't know what liberalism was as an ideology, he only saw that industrial society was shifting old maxims around. He was looking at the fox and the tiger and assumed they were part of the same pack.
>It's common for ideas that start on the fringes to work their way towards the center, and ideas that start in the center to flow to the fringe
Statements like these don't serve to detail ideas or orientation of their proponents. You're metaphorically muddying the waters, peak liberal statement. The reality is that there is nothing liberal about Marx, and he ended up rebuking proponents of liberalism on the basis of their feminism and anarchism. Lenin and Stalin would call those streams of liberalism infantile disorders and Mao would write "Combat Liberalism".
