Before Marx

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

So before the communist manifesto there obviously were communists already. So who are some communists before Marx and are they of any value now?

[Caj]

There were the "utopian socialists" such as Saint-Simon and Charles Fourier. Their works lacked any materialistic analysis and are thus of little use today.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Could you explain utopian socialist?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a Socialist Manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand, the adherents of the various Utopian systems: Owenites in England, Fourierists in France, both of them already reduced to the position of mere sects, and gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks, who, by all manners of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of social grievances; in both cases men outside the working class movement and looking*looking rather to the "educated" classes for support. Whatever portion of the working classes had become convinced of the insufficiency of mere political revolutions, and had proclaimed the necessity of a total social change, that portion, then, called itself Communist. It was a crude, rough-hewn, purely instinctive sort of Communism; still it touched the cardinal point and was powerful enough among the working class to produce the Utopian Communism, in France of Cabet, and in Germany of Weitling. Thus, Socialism was, in 1847, a middle class movement, Communism a working class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, "respectable"; Communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning was, that "the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself," there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have ever since been far from repudiating it.
-FREDERICK ENGELS

Along with Caj's post, this should explain communism and socialism before and during Marx' time, even though it was written by Engels.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Also see here...

http://www.marxists.org/archive/index.htm#utopianism

[Blanquist]

You have to remember, guys like Engles and Marx, all men of this type, had really enourmous ego's. So it was important for them to belittle the ideas of predessocores and contempories.

"utopian" was a way of doing that, saying the other theories weren't based on science.

Marx's contribution is extremely overblown, he did a lot but there were many of equal, and even, superior thinkers.

Personally, I think that Trotsky went above and beyond Marx, just as Marx went beyond a few of the so-called 'Utopians'

[JustMovement]

You have to remember, guys like Engles and Marx, all men of this type, had really enourmous ego's. So it was important for them to belittle the ideas of predessocores and contempories.

"utopian" was a way of doing that, saying the other theories weren't based on science.

Marx's contribution is extremely overblown, he did a lot but there were many of equal, and even, superior thinkers.

Personally, I think that Trotsky went above and beyond Marx, just as Marx went beyond a few of the so-called 'Utopians'
I think you ought to give Marx another look before you say something that ridiculous.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Personally, I think that Trotsky went above and beyond Marx, just as Marx went beyond a few of the so-called 'Utopians'

Trotsky did not go above and beyond Marx. If we're building a house and you set the foundation of the edifice, then, automatically, your contributions are above mine. Without Marx, Trotsky would have been nothing.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Trotsky did not go above and beyond Marx. If we're building a house and you set the foundation of the edifice, then, automatically, your contributions are above mine. Without Marx, Trotsky would have been nothing.

implying he is anything now.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

implying he is anything now.

Oh snap! I dared not to say that! :)

[Caj]

implying he is anything now.

Unlike Stalin :rolleyes:

[Blanquist]

Trotsky did not go above and beyond Marx. If we're building a house and you set the foundation of the edifice, then, automatically, your contributions are above mine. Without Marx, Trotsky would have been nothing.

In that case the 'utopians' are automatically above Marx. Marx is nothing without them.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

In that case the 'utopians' are automatically above Marx. Marx is nothing without them.

But as you can see, Marx separated from their ideology and condemned it, so the same concept is not applicable in the case of Karl Marx as it was in the case of Trotsky.

[Kronsteen]

You have to remember, guys like Engles and Marx, all men of this type, had really enourmous ego's. So it was important for them to belittle the ideas of predessocores and contempories.

True, but if someone's going to come up with an audacious new theory that sweeps away the work of hundreds of great thinkers...they need an enormous ego to even think they could do it.

And as for thinking they could inspire the overthrow of not just a philosophical school, not just a national government, but an entire worldwide economic system...that's ambition worthy of Ernst Stavro Bolfeldt. Or possibly Rupert Murdoch.

[Blanquist]

But as you can see, Marx separated from their ideology and condemned it, so the same concept is not applicable in the case of Karl Marx as it was in the case of Trotsky.

Marx separted from socialism and condemned it?

:confused::rolleyes:

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Marx separted from socialism and condemned it?

:confused::rolleyes:

Condemn: To express strong disapproval
Separation: to separate from something.

How do those not go together?

[Brosip Tito]

You have to remember, guys like Engles and Marx, all men of this type, had really enourmous ego's. So it was important for them to belittle the ideas of predessocores and contempories.

"utopian" was a way of doing that, saying the other theories weren't based on science.

Marx's contribution is extremely overblown, he did a lot but there were many of equal, and even, superior thinkers.

Personally, I think that Trotsky went above and beyond Marx, just as Marx went beyond a few of the so-called 'Utopians'
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Fuckin troll.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Marx separted from socialism and condemned it?

:confused::rolleyes:

No, he separated from utopian socialism, you trolololllol.

[Per Levy]

Personally, I think that Trotsky went above and beyond Marx, just as Marx went beyond a few of the so-called 'Utopians'

lets just forget that you're a troll for a moment, trotsky would punch you n the face for saying something that stupid.

on the topic though, i would bring up gracchus babeuf, often titled "the first revolutionary communist", he strived for a completly egalitarian society without money and was in his thinking further then the utopian socialists wich he was most defenetly highly influenced by. except for historical reasons his work is of no use for us today, still a cool guy in my book(what i've read of him at least).

[Blanquist]

Condemn: To express strong disapproval
Separation: to separate from something.

How do those not go together?

con·demn
Express complete disapproval of, typically in public; censure

[Bostana]

Personally, I think that Trotsky went above and beyond Marx

You can't be serious?

[Blanquist]

lets just forget that you're a troll for a moment, trotsky would punch you n the face for saying something that stupid.

on the topic though, i would bring up gracchus babeuf, often titled "the first revolutionary communist", he strived for a completly egalitarian society without money and was in his thinking further then the utopian socialists wich he was most defenetly highly influenced by. except for historical reasons his work is of no use for us today, still a cool guy in my book(what i've read of him at least).

Trotsky was modest. Of course he wouldn't claim he went 'above and beyond' Marx.

Objectively though, it doesn't mean it wasn't true.

Who was the greater revolutionary strategist?

1. Marx who sat on his bum writing books and saw just two revolutions in which he played no part, and was only able to learn from them and jot down notes on what revolution looks like, such as the 1871 revolution.

2. Or Trotsky, the petrograd soviet leader in 1905, the mastermind behind the theory of permanent revolution, which Lenin was forced to accept in his 'April Thesis', thereby cementing Trotsky as a master theoretician, the Petrograd Soviet leader in 1917, the leader of the Great October Socialist Revolution, the military warlord of the great civil war.

Trotsky planned the Revolution and he implemented that plan, he later saw what was happening to it, he saw and understood everything, like he was possessed by a demon, a prophet.

He wrote the "History of the Russian Revolution" the single greatest tome written on the subject by anyone, anywhere, ever!

He saw the rise of fascism and was the only human alive capable of coming up with a plan to defeat it.

He gave practical advice of incredible, almost unhuman, genius when it concerned the revolutionary situation in Germany, in Britain, in Spain, in China, and in dozens of other countries, laying tome after tome.

Trotsky possessed, said Churchill, “the organizing command of a Carnot, the cold detached intelligence of a Machiavelli, the mob oratory of a Cleon, the ferocity of Jack the Ripper, the toughness of Titus Oates.”

Can any of the same be said for Marx? No, Marx was a bookworm, his lengthy tomes often times ventured into exercises of the hand rather than the mind. He never spoke, he never lead, he hardly saw.

He was a great man in that he put a nice ribbon on the revolutionary ideas of the time. Trotsky took these ideas, improved them, expanded them, and took them to the tops of the Alps.

[Caj]

Personally, I think that Trotsky went above and beyond Marx, just as Marx went beyond a few of the so-called 'Utopians'

The vast majority of Trotskyists would disagree.

[Bostana]

There was no time before Marx, Marx has always been

[Bronco]

Well you had the likes of Saint-Simon, Proudhon, Considerant etc. who were prominent Socialists in France, people like to dismiss them as "bourgeois idealists" and so on but they did nevertheless have a big influence on Marx

Going back further you had the likes of the Diggers, and other radical sects, in the English Civil War during the mid-17th century who you could describe as Communist. They might not hold much relevance today but they're still fascinating organisations; calling for the abolition of property, promoting more rights for women, forming egalitarian communes etc.

[Manic Impressive]

The idea of a stateless classless society has been around almost as long as states and classes. You've got the Cynics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynics) and Zeno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_Republic) the founder of Stoic philosophy in ancient times. Then in the middle ages you've got Christian communists; the Taborites, the Dolcinites, the anabaptists and others. Kautsky's Communism in Central Europe in the Time of the Reformation (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1897/europe/index.htm) is probably the best work on them, it's an area I'm particularly interested in so if others have suggestions I'd be eager to hear them. Then as people have mentioned you've got people like St. Simon and Robert Owen and Proudhon which Engels explains in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch01.htm) which is one of the most essential works of Engels as we're still blighted by much utopianism today. So yeah lots of well meaning people who have the right idea but the wrong practice.