Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith was first published in 1776, a few months before the American Declaration of Independence founded the first fully capitalist revolution trying to seperate itself from a monarchy. While the US would adopt a lot of Smith’s ideas, most of their philosophy on how to form a government came from Locke, with some Calvanism and Hobbes thrown in, all of whom were from the century prior.

All this to say yes, classical liberalism was conceived in the late 1600s going into the 1700s, then put into practice by the end of the 18th. Century.

I’m guessing OOP is America-brained enough to think “liberalism” means neoliberal with characteristics

no liberalism was created when this guy was born, along with the rest of the universe

No sweaty Clinton invented it in the 1990s

What if we all own our own means of production and also exploit value from each other

Or the 1990’s even

By counting the most meagre form of life (existence) as the standard, indeed, as the general standard – general because it is applicable to the mass of men. He turns the worker into an insensible being lacking all needs, just as he changes his activity into a pure abstraction from all activity. To him, therefore, every luxury of the worker seems to be reprehensible, and everything that goes beyond the most abstract need – be it in the realm of passive enjoyment, or a manifestation of activity – seems to him a luxury. Political economy, this science of wealth, is therefore simultaneously the science of renunciation, of want, of saving and it actually reaches the point where it spares man the need of either fresh air or physical exercise. This science of marvellous industry is simultaneously the science of asceticism, and its true ideal is the ascetic but extortionate miser and the ascetic but productive slave. Its moral ideal is the worker who takes part of his wages to the savings-bank, and it has even found ready-made a servile art which embodies this pet idea: it has been presented, bathed in sentimentality, on the stage. Thus political economy – despite its worldly and voluptuous appearance – is a true moral science, the most moral of all the sciences. Self-renunciation, the renunciation of life and of all human needs, is its principal thesis. The less you eat, drink and buy books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorise, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you save – the greater becomes your treasure which neither moths nor rust will devour – your capital. The less you are, the less you express your own life, the more you have, i.e., the greater is your alienated life, the greater is the store of your estranged being. Everything ||XVI| which the political economist takes from you in life and in humanity, he replaces for you in money and in wealth; and all the things which you cannot do, your money can do. It can eat and, drink, go to the dance hall and the theatre; it can travel, it can appropriate art, learning, the treasures of the past, political power – all this it can appropriate for you – it can buy all this: it is true endowment. Yet being all this, it wants to do nothing but create itself, buy itself; for everything else is after all its servant, and when I have the master I have the servant and do not need his servant. All passions and all activity must therefore be submerged in avarice. The worker may only have enough for him to want to live, and may only want to live in order to have that.

Sure I steal the value of your labor and my vast wealth has doubled over the pandemic to be the equivalent to hundreds of thousands of you, but have you considered no more coffee in the morning? Stoping one of your few simple pleasures in this hell-world that you manage to enjoy before walking into the place you despise to do work you’re alienated from for people you hate? I promise it’ll solve all your money problems. And if you can’t manage that, then clearly all of your problems are your fault and not mine.

It’s Das Kapital, the section on the length of workday I think.

there was a bit more context to be fair, they were saying that because robots will “do everything” in the near future (“if not already today”), and somehow (through the power of friendship and liberalism?) everyone would have their own robot that works for them, thus everyone would be owning class

Great Leap Foward

Marx obviously didn’t forsee the block chain and everyone owning Bitcoin

based on the reply chain, he’s some kind of libertarian - pro-elon/bezos (ethical billionaires), but anti-kings/warlords/dictators (unethical billionaires). super heavy on the “great men with great ideas”, and capitalism/workers being the enabler for making their ideas happen. he was also posting this in r/neoliberal, if that helps (it doesn’t)

bonus round:

Considering that other bit of context, my guess would be privileged tech person, someone who only sees that things are good for them and assumes that this can work for everyone in the world