What are the best sources for learning about pre-Marxian socialism? I have a hunch that he ruined the idea

What are the best sources for learning about pre-Marxian socialism? I have a hunch that he ruined the idea

Attached: tumblr_okd4viv38X1qdmozno1_500.png (500x685, 248.64K)

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Henri de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, Étienne Cabet and Robert Owen.

Thanks

And why do you have this hunch? Have you read Marx's critique of utopian socialism?

10 bucks it's because he was a jew.

Just from very shallow knowledge of neosocialism - which is why I'm seeking more understanding.
I haven't read Marx yet, but I think a better approach than reading him first would probably be to understand what the socialist context was like prior to him, and I'm not very interested in Marx to begin with.

I'm sure that had something to do with it, but he was his own person.

you sound like a fucking hipster

Attached: gracchus.jpg (182x277, 10.38K)

I gave you recommendations but, read Marx, or interpretations of Marx, and I mean interpretations by people who have actually read Marx, or do not utter a single word about Marx

Stop watching Peterson. Radlib "socialists" reject marxism.

Not only that, but more often than not they reject his ideas not because they've read about them, but out of some idea they have about the USSR and currently existing socialist states such as Cuba and the DPRK, and of course this latter view is tarnished by Western propaganda about them

I read about neosocialism in a counter-currents book, and counter-currents is probably the most hipsterish bastion of traditionalism, though I doubt it would qualify as hipster even if it wanted to.

I've got his manifesto, but I have other things to read first. I'm actually far more excited to read the Unabomber Manifesto than the communist manifesto tbqh, as I feel the ideas of the Unabomber are much more possible and able to be acted upon towards positive ends. Marx is so well known that I feel qualified to discuss him generally from secondhand information, although I never go into specific aspects of his philosophy because I don't really know much about it.

I should actually start watching Peterson's lectures, because that's where he shines in my opinion - not when he talks about politics, which is just one field he talks about that everybody and their mother is honing in on as if his views were just the absolute worst thing they've ever heard (they're not).

I reject the idea of equality, so Marxism is completely incompatible with my vision of a better future.

How would you know if you haven't bothered to read him? Your trust in your second hand daddy sources is pretty childish.

If you have to actually read Marx to understand that Marxism wants to equalize the citizenry economically, you're probably pretty dumb to begin with. Secondhand sources make ideas more accessible than the firsthand sources, so it is a good idea to utilize them, and then read the firsthand sources if you have the time and will. I'm a working man, not some UniversiNEET that can bum around reading thick ass books about failed political ideologies all day.

Oh, so you don't know shit about shit about him.
The Communist Manifesto neither is necessary to read to understand Marxism nor does it actually explain Marxism.
Read Wage Labor and Capital, read Critique of the Gotha Program, read in general, please. To say an anarcho primitivist's political ideas are more workable than a philosopher's that actually embraces and seeks to understand and describe modernity is downright politically illiterate.

"I think people should live with less technology, so I'm going to do that. "
"I think people should live as equals, so I'm going to do a bunch of other shit including overthrowing governments and establishing post-monarchist personality cults and new privileged classes because my idea doesn't actually work."

That's the thing, if you read Marx, you realize that's not what Marxism is about. What opponents of Marxism say about it is not a good guide to understanding it. There is no yammering about equality in Capital, which you would know if you fucking read it.

Marxism didn't stop with Capital. When I say "Marxism" I mean "Marxism", not "literally only the writings of Marx".

Marxism isn't predicated on equality of outcome. At best it's predicated upon equality of input, but even then it's a stretch.

Okay, tell me then, which Marxist theorists have you studied, or which Marxist school, that is so focused on wealth inequality? Or, to make it easier on you, what specific school has the hack you did read criticized?

Any ideology predicated on human equality of any kind is unrealistic in my view, because humans are not equal in any respect.

I don't read books by Marxists because I am more interested in other strains of thought, like earlier socialism, for example, which is the topic of this thread.

Maybe you should read some marx and be less of a fucking idiot.

Did you just willfully ignore that I said it's a stretch?
Also, nice circular logic! You don't read Marxist works because you're not interested in Marxism because you don't know a whole lot about Marxism because you don't read Marxist works.

You clearly fail to understand what equality actually means in such a context……..

I love how my OP specifically excluded Marx and his ideological descendants from people I wanted to read, yet half the thread has basically been "read Marx!". It's almost like you guys only read Marx and Marxists and wish to admonish me for not having a special knowledge of the only field you know about.

I mean "equality" as "the state of being equal". That's what the word means.

No, you specifically said that you had a hunch he ruined the idea of socialism and everybody wanted to know why you thought that.
Given that you have that idea without having read Marx, of course we'll tell you to read him to understand Marxism you dumb fuck.

Holy fuck you are a brainlet.

Yes, it's not disgust with your higher-than-thou attitude or blatant and astonishing ignorance, it's the people trying to educate your dumb ass that's the problem.

Attached: highway to communism.png (669x1065, 823.1K)

Do you know what the word "hunch" means?

The mark of a truly intellectual mind is endlessly redefining and recontextualizing every important word to his argument so no one can actually understand what he's saying outside of his fellow pseud jackoffs, amirite?

One poster actually tried to educate me in the subject I'm seeking education on.

Do you?

OP probably thinks Marx said something along the lines of

really seizes my means

Dipshit, that is how language works. Ask an architect, dentist, and musician to make a bridge for you. Do you think you're going to get the same thing?

All words are contextual you fucking faggot, and your insistence on having the one true definition reveals how much of a fucking idiot you are.

lol stfu postmodernist shill

i don't know what i expected

Go read, brainlet piece of shit. You couldn't even name the theory or author your daddy was critiquing.

in this case, "my emotions shaped by years of disinfo"

Yeah, I try to use words I know the meaning of exclusively.

Simply epic

The utopian socialists seemed to be appealing to the idea of a moral in-group - and while I think that instinct is problematic, I recognize that it is a legitimate way that white societies have been structured in the past - the Puritans probably being the most enduring examplein collective memory. I don't know if there were other socialists prior to marx that weren't "utopian" - and to me "utopian" seems like a retroactive slur, but I'd be willing to give them a fair shake.

The word "equality" is extremely straightforward, where the word "bridge" is symbolically loaded.

Tell him.

The dream of the meme is a dream of relief. Relief from the pseuds who collect debt and degrees.

I'm reading like 4 books at once right now. I'm not adding communist theory to that when I don't have any hope for communism. I do have hope for prosocial economic ideas existing alongside unplanned or semi-planned markets (i.e Nazi Germany, the modern American economy, Scandinavian socialism) though, so I want to know where those ideas come from.

It's intellectual curiosity spurred by Kerry Bolton and Adolf Hitler, although I'm a human bean, so there is an emotional aspect.

...

1. The pre-Marxist socialists were primarily concerned with new forms of organizing society and not with an analysis of society - which is what Marx & Engels attempted. I'm not sure what the best sources would be for studying pre-Marxist socialism. You'd have to assemble a list yourself.

2. Marxist theory is actually very rich, very applicable, and very helpful in understanding what's going on in the world. Unfortunately, Marxists have really dropped the ball in understanding, updating, and popularizing Marx's theories.

3. Marx's Capital is fascinating if you want a way of conceptualizing capital. Each idea he discusses could itself be an entire book unto itself. True, it's a very long and often dry book, but if you are at all interested you can go to /marx/ and there is an active discussion about it.

Holy fuck you are a dipshit.

I'm planning on reading Capital eventually, because it has had an enormous effect on political thought, but I have well over 2 dozen books in my possession that I haven't read yet, so I'm not in any hurry.

Dayum u sher are stoopid xD

Here, I'll save you some trouble: the dish runs away with the spoon, the monster at the end of the book is Grover, the little engine that could becomes the little engine that did, and the hungry caterpillar eventually becomes a beautiful butterfly. There, that should save you a couple of weeks.

addressed?).
ideal," Mr. Tugan declared, "then, undoubtedly, it is associated with the ideal of equality, but equality is a concept … that cannot be deduced from experience and reason."
equal. No sensible person and no socialist forgets this. But
this kind of equality has nothing whatever to do with socialism. If Mr. Tugan is quite unable to think, he is at least able
to read; were he to take the well-known work of one of the founders of scientific socialism, Frederick Engels, directed
against Duhring, he would find there a special section explaining the absurdity of imagining that economic equality means anything else than the abolition of classes. But when
professors set out to refute socialism, one never knows what to wonder at most — their stupidity, their ignorance, or their unscrupulousness.
start with the rudiments.
and by economic equality, as we have already said, they
mean the abolition of classes. As for establishing human
equality in the sense of equality of strength and abilities
(physical and mental), socialists do not even think of such
things.
Does our learned liberal Professor Tugan now under-
stand the difference between equality in the sense of equal
rights, and equality in the sense of equal strength and
abilities?

t. Lenin over a century ago

tldr

"In brief, when socialists speak of equality they always mean social equality, equality of social status, and not by any means the physical and mental equality of individuals."
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm

1) what do you mean by "equality"? Equality of opportunity/outcome?
2) why do you reject it?

cannot WAIT to kill retards like OP in the revolution

Blown the fuck out

I have a hunch that OP is a faggot

Attached: op.png (900x587, 498.08K)