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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

Yes, you are. The above commenter explicitly mentioned Utopianism vs Scientific Socialism, indicating the intent on following Marxist analysis. Secondly, I don't know what you mean by the bolsheviks "burning Communism" when they established the first Socialist State.

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.

Again, you're using "Scientific" to refer to literal science, not the term as it relates to Socialism. 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.

[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

Generally, "Communism" is attached to Communists, the vast majority of whom have been Marxists of various stripes, the most relevent among them being Marxist-Leninists. Communism wasn't stolen from the Anarchists, Communism was attached firmly to the groups with major historical relevance.

Additionally, "burning" implies betrayal and scorn.

Finally, OP is a Marxist, not an Anarchist, and the comment you replied to specifically mentioned critique of Utopianism, indicating Marxist analysis and critique.

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.

That's all well and good. Writing about transition, revolution, and history is nice. However, ultimately, he was an Anarchist. He rejects the Marxist theory of Socialism as it emerges from Capitalism throughout historical development, and took the idea that Communism can be established outright. This is a rejection of Scientific Socialism, and an embracement of Utopian Socialism, I remind you as this meme and the original commenter both were speaking along Marxist lines.

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

My point is that you inserted your rejection when it wasn't relevant as though it was.

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?

He of course wrote about history, and the necessity of Revolution, but rejected Historical Materialism and Scientific Socialism, instead taking a Utopian view. He believed you could jump straight to Communism through a brief transitional period.

You're being needlessly antagonistic and rude, by the way.

[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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.

[–] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

Utopianism isn't really a movement, though there are of course movements that are Utopian. Utopian is a specialized definition. Conquest of Bread is the most classic kind of Utopian literature, trying to puzzle out a way of building society from the ground up to not have the social ills and poverty Kropotkin saw in his time. Not all anarchists are Utopians (not all of them concern themselves specifically with the positive machinations of the proposed final circumstances), but Kropotkin definitely was.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

They used the term Utopian Socialism, not implying that they were Marxist. There are more than two ways. Kropotkin for example was neither.

Kropotkin absolutely was Utopian.

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.

Not at all what I said.

You can even be Marxist and still reject Historical Materialism

You cannot reject Historical Materialism and remain a Marxist, that's a firm rejection of the core of Marxism.