Why is it that pre-Marxist socialism is pretty much never talked about? It seems like the literature is limited in this area.
>Why is it that pre-Marxist socialism is pretty much never talked about?Most Marxists haven't even read Marx, let alone Pierre Joseph Proudhon.
Because nobody cares. Not even you, commiespammer.
>>25291527This is my only thread.>>25291500Unfortunately, true. It seems like too many take Marxism in isolation. I'm not suggesting that nobody read Marx, but that he's only part of the story.
>>25291500Proudhon was sexist so he gives most socialists the "ick"
>>25291480Marx left too deep an impact on the movement. Plus he was an intellectual giant. One can read Socialism outside of Marx but ignoring Marx is impossible.
>>25291719Less Marx, does Socialism even take root in Europe or Asia?
>>25291480Marxism-Leninism is unironically less retarded than any of that Utopian Socialism was. Socialism would never have survived so long without turning in to “Barracks Communism.” Utopian soc is just not even worth taking seriously as an ideology.
Fourier mogs
>>25291480>It seems like the literature is limited in this area.It’s not. You’re just an unread retard. Also, monolingual.
>>25291480Socialism was strickly Prussian invention and could be executed only by Germans, this is why it failed in every 3rd world shit hole
>>25292741his book is the best
>>25292751which one? Le Nouveau Monde amoureux?
>>25292746That's fair, but limited translations?
>>25292817Just use a LLM. They can translate an entire 300 page book (if the book is of sufficient quality) in 15 minutes. Really no excuse not to read widely using this tool (unless you’re an academic whose professional integrity resides in accurate citations).
>>25292828No
>>25292766no the theory of the four movements its a very fun read
>>25292829Then stay retarded and unread, you utter intellectual skunk.
Most utopian socialists moved to the United States and tried to establish proto-communist communities there.Long story short, turns out America is a consumerist and materialistic shithole, so they leave disappointed and disillusioned
>>25293425Is there more information on this?
>>25291480Because they were still living in feudalism trying to envision capitalism, let alone what socialism or even communism would be.
>>25291480It just wasn't that important. Marx emphasised the radical democrat aspects of socialism which was in keeping with the times, whereas the French socialists emphasised the orderly rationalism of it, just as the enlightenment was fading.A pity, really.
>>25292741Fourier an' Cauchy sitting in a tree, C-A-L-C-U-L-A-T-I-N-G.
>>25297049wrong one
>>25291726Marxism is the most utopian variety of all. It's basically >lets experiment and try to make society better vs>after we institute the mass murdering authoritarian state utopia will inevitably result from the hegelian pee pee poo poo dialectic btw, we're not utopian, those other guys are utopian, we're scientific chud!
>>25293425I don't see how it's America's fault their own communities failed. Shakers, the Amish, Mennonites, Mormons, etc. all did well for a good amount of time. It's just difficult to convince the second generation to have as much enthusiasm about the project as the first and so on.
>>25291480Since the defining characteristic of Marxists is impotent resentment towards their betters they don't care about anything practical and will actively fight to make sure no productive discussion about anything ever happens. Real socialists are "le liberals" who will be the first against the wall for the crime of not sperging out, for not contributing to the destruction of everything good and practical.
Every communist experiment ends in colossal failure, so that is why they don't like to talk about those.The only thing communist talk about is theory. Never the application of that theory.
