He doesn’t deserve the pickaxe, but rather deserves getting mocked for the rest of his life for being a Marxist Philistine instead of a Marxist Leninist…
That’s in his time, REEE was referring to now. Plus what use is being popular if your legacy is one of humiliation and being comically wrong on some very significant points that you staked your claim on?
what about what he staked his claims on would be particularly damaging because I feel like in a post-soviet collapse world his writings and beliefs would resonate quite well with people who are anti-soviet union and its legacy along with the derrived countries and ideologies like china and trotskyism but also find themselves thoroughly revolutionary unlike social democrats and pro-organization unlike anarchists
His main claim was the Lenin and the Bolsheviks had turned the Soviet Union into a “dictatorship” by “prematurely” executing the October Revolution in 1917. He claimed that this set back world socialism by decades, would ruin the Soviet Union, and was completely unaligned with the ideals of Marx, Engles, and himself. Hence why Lenin dunked on him with one of the hardest diss tracks in several essays pulling his points apart at the seams.
He further rejected the notion of the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”, was apathetic to the power wielded by labour unions, and was essentially an idealist anarchist in practice. This is absurd, as how do you reach a communist world, without one of its key and major steps? The world has yet to see a Kaustky based approach because it is all but impossible.
Also who cares about “anti-Soviet Union” chuds? Is that really the audience you want to pander to?
He was disliked and rejected by Luxembourg, Lenin (obviously), Stalin, Trotsky even, Mao, and many more. Guess which side was right in the end?
I am not trying to pander to any sort of audience only talking about the attractiveness of kautsky and his beliefs to people today and giving my theory why. I’m also not very convinced by your line of reasoning because all you’ve said besides appealing to a number of historical figures not agreeing with him is saying he didn’t believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat which is confusing because he wrote an entire pamphlet called “the dictatorship of the proletariat” explaining how he believed in it and believed what russia was doing was not the dictatorship of the proletariat. especially weird since you included rosa luxembourg who famously considered russia to be a police state not adhering to the dictatorship of the proletariat
Kautskys pamphlet is literal dog water. He tried to essentially create his own definition for the “Dictatorship” that was rejected by every contemporary socialist. This is basic socialist knowledge. Have you read any criticism of him, or have you only read his theory? You chose a comical figure to stake your own claim on. The majority of his works are a joke.
What? Rosa Luxembourg died in 1919. She was talking about the Russian Empire. Are you serious?
I’m sorry, but you are both extremely unread and it painfully shows, or you are arguing in bad faith. I hate saying it but sometimes it’s required…… read theory. And not a single disgraced figureheads.
the russian empire did not exist in 1919… is your history that poor?
and here is a quote from rosa luxembourg on the russian revolution
The basic error of the Lenin-Trotsky theory is that they too, just like Kautsky, oppose dictatorship to democracy. “Dictatorship or democracy” is the way the question is put by Bolsheviks and Kautsky alike. The latter naturally decides in favor of “democracy,” that is, of bourgeois democracy, precisely because he opposes it to the alternative of the socialist revolution. Lenin and Trotsky, on the other hand, decide in favor of dictatorship in contradistinction to democracy, and thereby, in favor of the dictatorship of a handful of persons, that is, in favor of dictatorship on the bourgeois model.
as you can read for yourself she did not consider bolshevik russia to be a dictatorship of the proletariat but a dictatorship following the bourgeois model of a handful of people. now I ask again can you actually put out an argument instead of pointing to “rejection by every contemporary socialist” and calling him names please? no need to follow such a childish argumentation style
He doesn’t even have the good skills of Trotsky
He doesn’t deserve the pickaxe, but rather deserves getting mocked for the rest of his life for being a Marxist Philistine instead of a Marxist Leninist…
Tbf, Kautsky is best known for being dunked on by Lenin. So you got your wish granted.
this is unfair, during his time kautsky was the most popular and well known marxist. that didn’t change until after the october revolution
That’s in his time, REEE was referring to now. Plus what use is being popular if your legacy is one of humiliation and being comically wrong on some very significant points that you staked your claim on?
what about what he staked his claims on would be particularly damaging because I feel like in a post-soviet collapse world his writings and beliefs would resonate quite well with people who are anti-soviet union and its legacy along with the derrived countries and ideologies like china and trotskyism but also find themselves thoroughly revolutionary unlike social democrats and pro-organization unlike anarchists
His main claim was the Lenin and the Bolsheviks had turned the Soviet Union into a “dictatorship” by “prematurely” executing the October Revolution in 1917. He claimed that this set back world socialism by decades, would ruin the Soviet Union, and was completely unaligned with the ideals of Marx, Engles, and himself. Hence why Lenin dunked on him with one of the hardest diss tracks in several essays pulling his points apart at the seams.
He further rejected the notion of the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”, was apathetic to the power wielded by labour unions, and was essentially an idealist anarchist in practice. This is absurd, as how do you reach a communist world, without one of its key and major steps? The world has yet to see a Kaustky based approach because it is all but impossible.
Also who cares about “anti-Soviet Union” chuds? Is that really the audience you want to pander to?
He was disliked and rejected by Luxembourg, Lenin (obviously), Stalin, Trotsky even, Mao, and many more. Guess which side was right in the end?
I am not trying to pander to any sort of audience only talking about the attractiveness of kautsky and his beliefs to people today and giving my theory why. I’m also not very convinced by your line of reasoning because all you’ve said besides appealing to a number of historical figures not agreeing with him is saying he didn’t believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat which is confusing because he wrote an entire pamphlet called “the dictatorship of the proletariat” explaining how he believed in it and believed what russia was doing was not the dictatorship of the proletariat. especially weird since you included rosa luxembourg who famously considered russia to be a police state not adhering to the dictatorship of the proletariat
Kautskys pamphlet is literal dog water. He tried to essentially create his own definition for the “Dictatorship” that was rejected by every contemporary socialist. This is basic socialist knowledge. Have you read any criticism of him, or have you only read his theory? You chose a comical figure to stake your own claim on. The majority of his works are a joke.
What? Rosa Luxembourg died in 1919. She was talking about the Russian Empire. Are you serious?
I’m sorry, but you are both extremely unread and it painfully shows, or you are arguing in bad faith. I hate saying it but sometimes it’s required…… read theory. And not a single disgraced figureheads.
the russian empire did not exist in 1919… is your history that poor?
and here is a quote from rosa luxembourg on the russian revolution
as you can read for yourself she did not consider bolshevik russia to be a dictatorship of the proletariat but a dictatorship following the bourgeois model of a handful of people. now I ask again can you actually put out an argument instead of pointing to “rejection by every contemporary socialist” and calling him names please? no need to follow such a childish argumentation style