100% true. I was just very weirded out by the original comment “socialism isnt marxism”, without any context it’s just confusing, and the only context I got from the person themselves is “there are other forms of socialism”, which is not what the original comment said at all. If it did I wouldn’t have replied in the first place. If that’s what they meant then it should say “socialism isn’t just Marxism, then it would make sense and we could discuss what that means. But that’s not what was said. might be an English thing and I’d feel like a dick if it were
Yeah, and that’s why Marxism = socialism. Same with Maoism, Stalinism, Trotsky, Gramsci, etc. saying “but Marxism isn’t socialism” is WAY different than saying “it’s only a type of socialism” and I don’t understand why you’d try to lie about what you said when it’s right there.
lol no Marxism is socialist theory. Quit being pedantic. That means it IS socialism. Just one type still means it is socialism. And ML having differences from just Marxism doesn’t make it not socialism. I really don’t understand your argument and I don’t really care enough to.
If you consider yourself socialist you have to read Marx and Lenin at some point, same with Trotsky and Stalin. Etc. does no good to separate 2 parts of a whole, if that makes sense.
you’re upset that a socialist organization has socialist book clubs?
Socialism is not marxism…
Edit: What I’m trying to say is socialism is not just marxism.
Marx and Lenin are absolutely necessary for socialist theory. what are you talking about? and God, why do I always take the bait??
There was a socialist tradition before Marx and Engels, and some people still read those authors. Robert Owen is one example
That doesn’t make Marx not socialism you people are being kinda weird and I still do not understand
I don’t think anyone was saying that, I certainly wasn’t. Just that there is non-Marxist socialism
100% true. I was just very weirded out by the original comment “socialism isnt marxism”, without any context it’s just confusing, and the only context I got from the person themselves is “there are other forms of socialism”, which is not what the original comment said at all. If it did I wouldn’t have replied in the first place. If that’s what they meant then it should say “socialism isn’t just Marxism, then it would make sense and we could discuss what that means. But that’s not what was said. might be an English thing and I’d feel like a dick if it were
Marxism is a type of socialism. So almost all marxisms are socialisms and not all socialisms are marxisms.
Yeah, and that’s why Marxism = socialism. Same with Maoism, Stalinism, Trotsky, Gramsci, etc. saying “but Marxism isn’t socialism” is WAY different than saying “it’s only a type of socialism” and I don’t understand why you’d try to lie about what you said when it’s right there.
If it’s not socialism then what is ML ?
Marxism is not equal to socialism, because marxism is a type of socialism. They’re not synonyms.
I reworded my first comment to avoid confusion.
And Marxism-Leninism is not the same as Marxism, but it is still a type of socialism (but a different type)
lol no Marxism is socialist theory. Quit being pedantic. That means it IS socialism. Just one type still means it is socialism. And ML having differences from just Marxism doesn’t make it not socialism. I really don’t understand your argument and I don’t really care enough to.
If you consider yourself socialist you have to read Marx and Lenin at some point, same with Trotsky and Stalin. Etc. does no good to separate 2 parts of a whole, if that makes sense.
I concede defeat.