ITT: proto-communists

Thomas Munzter, obviously.

nakedcapitalism.com/2018/11/145003.html

Rousseau likely.

To what extent is socialism the logical conclusion of the enlightenment and classical liberalism? Chomsky argues that it is.

Socialism/Communism predates liberalism.

Unironically

Dumb

It is. Socialism is what you get when you hold liberalism up to its own standards. Bring out its internal contradictions, to use Marxist lingo. This has to be done from a working class perspective, i.e. that of those who got the short end of the stick, who didn't get all that "liberty, equality and fraternity" business.
Note that Marx grew up in a very enlightenment-liberal household. He was raised to have a furious passion for those ideals, beyond what more cynical / nihilist liberals feel. Their truth was self-evident to him, which is why you don't see him going on about them in his writings. What shocked him is how society and its material conditions seemed to disagree. This drove him to pursue his theories.
Similar stories are found with all great socialists.

Not as a self-conscious movement, no. As a social force it obviously did. Mutual aid is as old as mankind, and primitive communism was formed on its basis alone, although the inhabitants of it weren't yet aware of their conditions.

Good ass post. This is why I find it strange how some communists recoil and accuse you of heresy if you ever mention "individual rights", freedom of speech, etc.

Marx at some points is quite harsh on "individual rights," and people mistake this for disavowing them generally. He has nothing against the idea that we should enforce people's boundaries and liberties, the problem is that "rights" as they exist today do not actually do this. They function to maintain bourgeois hegemony. Instead of giving each person agency over their own home and labor, they force the masses into accepting a landlord and employer. Liberals (or these days libertarians) then go on to say this is not really his home or his labor, since they signed a contract. This is perfectly self-consistent, but it is obviously not consistent with the feelings of real people, and as follows the emotional value we attach to rights.
There are some really neat ideas in the theory of rights, and it even contains revolutionary potential, but this stands apart from the way in which the concept of "rights" actually operates within capitalist discourse and society, which is entirely illegitimate and part of an exploitative superstructure.

Not at all. Fascism (or some form of "Enlightened absolutism") is the logical conclusion of Enlightenment and liberalism, and socialism is the negation of contradictions that follow.

I fail to see how when fascism is barely any sort of coherent ideology at all.

Liberalism has no intention of holding itself to its own standards. Liberalism is itself a negation of "divine right" hierarchies, but it replaces birthrate with "merit", it does not abolish the hierachical structure itself, and has no intention of doing so.

Socialism doesn't negate the contradiction, it resolves it. What you are referring to is largely a contradiction between liberalism's philosophy and its material outcome.
Liberalism naturally descends into fascism. Socialism reaffirms liberal philosophy against the new conditions.

Somehow I don't think Locke and Rousseau went to all that trouble writing shit they didn't believe in.

Except negative liberty bites the dust.

It's not "liberal philosophy" that socialism reaffirm, it's the actual goals of the Enlightenment which liberal philosophy fails to meet. A mere separation of church and state is not sufficient, therefore you have state atheism, etc.

fascism is not "Enlightened", it is the very negation of enlightement, actually i'd argue it is what happens when the contradictions of capitalism make enlightement imposible under the current mode of production, socialism would be then the negation of the negation, arriving at a higher enlightenment

A liberal parties collaborated with fascism during its rise because…?

because as i told you capitalism makes enlightenment imposible under it, so the liberal has to choose between an enlightened world, or a capitalist world, he then proceds to choose the capitalist world, because he confuses the two and thinks capitalism eventually will restore enlightenment, he doesn't see the contradiction

Fascism explicitly rejects the enlightenment and everything it ever stood for, right down to rationalism. The other user's are right, socialism is the result of applying the ethics of liberalism to the realities of capitalism.

and they where all autists and anti-materialist

Because the bourgeoisie (whom the liberal parties serve) only support enlightenment ideals insofar as they serve their interests. That's not a flaw in liberal ethics, but in their cynical use by porky.

Big brain

I'm still 50-50 on the diggers, to an extent one could see their motives to in line with feudalist perspectives, such as this emphasis on the relation of people to the land - even if so-called free people and commons… not to be too Hegelian on the subject

start your own gift economy now

In regard to his apostles, Peter and Paul could very well be said to be proto-communists. Peter for obvious reasons en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ananias_and_Sapphira , Paul for his universalism and revolutionary attitude. Peter was definitely more libertarian then Paul though, who was certainly more ☭TANKIE☭ and pragmatic in his rhetoric.
Peter functioned as the spokesperson for the disciples if anything and he died before any concrete position like that of the Pope could be created.
James is also good, but despite being more direct in his views on the wealthy (his time was that of destabilization in Roman Judea in which poverty and corruption we're rampant and the threat of emerging violence and war was being made more apparent) was not as revolutionary. Fun fact: James and Paul did not get along very much, with James believing in a more of a traditionalist Jewish Christianity while Paul believed that faith in Jesus came above and before Jewish law with it in most circumstances usurping it. Peter was mostly between these two.

Attached: slide_2.jpg (728x546 93.56 KB, 59.2K)

If only he weren't go full paranoid in the mean time.

Spartacus maybe

Please for the love of all that is good do not compare Locke to Rousseau. Lockes entire philosophy is literally a post hoc justification for settler colonialist displacement of natives, chattel slavery and the complete dominion of property owners over all of society. Nothing more nothing less. All of the second treaties of government is nothing but page after page of justifying that sort of shit by appeals to spooky shit like "natural law".

"The French Revolution was nothing but a precursor of another revolution, one that will be bigger, more solemn, and which will be the last."

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

That 2nd pic gave me Lenin vibes.

marx loved spartacus

Robespierre was SocDem. Babeuf and (arguably) Hebert were (proto)Communist.

this sounds anti-marxist as fuck though
the ultimate petit bourgeois utopia

Attached: exorcist.jpg (879x628, 62.58K)

I'm not even remotely right-wing but saying Fascism "rejects rationalism" is a dangerous statement.
True modernism/enlightenment holds that all ideas are fair game in the field science, as ideas can be scientifically tested. Fascists only reject the former (a la purges and book-burning), but accept the ladder. It's much more selective modernism than postmodernism, it's only viewed as postmodern due to the paradoxes in its principles.
Though many Nazis are effectively postmodern in practice, the anti-egalitarian philosophers they listen to are not, since bias is not equivalent to postmodernism.

The Munster Anabaptists were communists before it was cool, unironically

The OG Gracchi, since someone already mentioned Babeuf

This dude.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Anshi
Wang had realized Legalism was the only effective method to save China just like Comrade Xi.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Policies_(Song_dynasty)

And He got some person butthurt for real even almost 10 decades later.

Attached: Wang_Anshi.jpg (1500x2011, 1.7M)