we’re all marxists and use the marxian conception of scientific socialism, not the libs who make up that most of the world thing.
it is still coopting, even then, as the early socialist movements were revolutionary mainly. see: paris commune, 1917, etc, etc.
…You do know that Marxism came before the Paris Commune and that many socialists were against it, right? Utopian socialism is still socialism, that’s the reason why we have to differentiate and should emphasize marxism and the shit that grew out of it instead. (or just be an anarchist i guess)
Yes? Ergo, socialism is a coopted term even though socialist movements on the ground in the early days were mainly revolutionary? We’re not disagreeing here? Utopian socialists existing doesn’t mean they actually had movement movements.
It’s not a coopted term because Marx, Lenin etc had to actively differentiate themselves from common forms of socialism. They did have movement movements, they just existed back before Germany and Britain expanded sufrage. Pretending that socialism is synonymous with communism is an Americentric viewpoint that leads to fundamental misunderstandings of how “socialism” operates on a spectrum. Not all socialists are good, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t socialists. Socialism is not necessarily marxism. No one teaches party history anymore.
