Is he worth reading if you're someone who once engaged with marxism but hated all the communists because they're dysgenic cryptomoralists? Asking for a friend
>>24711313Hes the bridge between old school socialists and fascists: a revolutionary socialist that claimed the working class had to become a warrior-like society to violent overtrow capitalism to create a new society and that actions > ideas.Both Lenin and Mussolini were his students in Switzeland, as he welcomed any militan socialist escaping his home country to avoid being arrester for his political agitationsSo yes, give him a shot
Yes, because he is the swerve Marxism almost took and could have taken in the 20th century. The only Marxists or post-Marxists worth reading and understanding are:>Sorel>Gramsci>Lukacs >Lenin"MLs" you meet in the mandatory-for-job fagprison (college) are really Rosa Luxemburg followers who LARP at admiring Lenin, and sometimes Stalin, if they have cut their cocks off. Lukacs and Lenin are worth understanding and appreciating as the most consistent, neo-Blanquist strain of neo-orthodox Marxism to have world-historical political effects after the failures of paleo-orthodox Marxism (untenable after the failed concrete predictions of Marx/Engels) in the 1880s-90s and the resultant revisionism controversy. But ultimately they are failures too, and Lukacs is an awful person and a coward. If you want pure consistency you should read Sorel and Gramsci and become a national syndicalist, national socialist, and/or fascist. The USSR just mass-industrialized, brute-forcing its way to productivity, and it was totally reliant on totalitarianism to survive, basically being an oriental death cult. The leading fascist states actually achieved "communism in one state" to the point that it was upsetting more aristocratic, old-school conservatives that the Hitler Youth (e.g.) was actually creating a "socialist new man."
>>24711313Camus liked this guy.
>>24711335What would you recommend for Lukacs? Also what do you mean by his cowardice, I'm aware he was some kind of public official in Hungary or something but did he do anything particularly unruly? Or is he more of an intellectual coward? From what I've heard of him he has a tendency to aggressively dismiss opposing writers if they're not marxist enough, including Sorel and figures like Nietzsche (which seems like a strange thing to critique him over)
