drei

Thanks that you allowe it but I’m not so sure about the m*ds

The w*ke agenda …

Don’t! It’s a trap!

He was a capitalist. He even wrote a book Das Kapital /s

I knew that middle names are common in the US but I didn’t know it’s so deep in the culture

Who is not?

How is this even a meme? Just a fellow human like you and me, nothing to see here, beep beep

The thing is that species aren’t that clear cut but exist on a spectrum. There is no first chicken as little as there is a first blue shade on a color gradient. Sure, you can draw the line somewhere but even when clearly defined as ancestor of all modern chickens, you can’t really go down to the individual level.

I thought they taste like chicken? Well, there is only one way to find out…

The real communism

I love how the commenter above me already agreed with me but you still feel the need to defend them for no reason.

They used the term Utopian Socialism, not implying that they were Marxist. There are more than two ways. Kropotkin for example was neither. All you’re saying is “he wasn’t Marxist so he was Utopian” which is wrong as I and the commenter above me already agreed on.

You can even be Marxist and still reject Historical Materialism as John the Duncan does even tho he sadly never dedicated a video on that, just hints it here and there.

I don’t know what you mean by the bolsheviks “burning Communism”

I said “burning the term communism” as in you can’t use it anymore without thinking of bolshevism. The meme and the comment above mine said communism, not Marxism.

Otherwise you have proven my point that you have no understanding what so ever in his theory. He writes expansively about history and about the revolution and transition. Just because he doesn’t belong to your tradition, you lump him together with people he had little in common with.

Again, you’re using “Scientific” to refer to literal science, not the term as it relates to Socialism.

I never said I wasn’t. I even elaborated on that I reject Marxist Historical Materialism. What even is your point here?

His theory was Utopian, rejecting history as it develops and instead embracing the concept of there being some perfect society that can be adopted directly. This is Utopianism.

Well, did he? He didn’t write about history in Mutual Aid? And Conquest of Bread is not about a literal conquest but about adopting it directly? Do you even think before you write?

Am I? I never called him a Marxist because he clearly wasn’t. He was an anarcho communist (before bolsheviks burned the term communism).

Still he didn’t claim that it will happen spontaneously. Your dichotomy is wrong. He may not have been a Scientific Socialist in the Marxist Tradition, still his theory was scientific and revolutionary. Historical Materialism isn’t the only path to think scientifically about history and socialism. It’s actually pretty unscientific to think so.

Depends on the definition. Kropotkin, who self identified as anarcho communist, wrote a scientific book literally called Mutual Aid

I too agree with the woman

What more can I say

Violence against the ruling class has no place in politics

You don’t hate Mondays, you hate capitalism

Am I good enough to have impostor syndrome?