Mr. Volodzko, adding to my thoughts regarding your post on democratic socialism: it's really all boiled down to this paragraph you have here: "He had a reputation for taking good care of his men, seeing that they were well-rested..." Doesn't matter how you label yourself, or labeled, the fundamentals of who you are eventually is the most important. A person who is rooted in deep convictions for the welfare of others is the ultimate key. A good person makes bad systems work for people, and vice versa. Cheers, my friend.
Thanks for the edit note, Scott. That's been updated. Although Willich saw himself as more "left" I suppose one could argue he was actually more to the right because he believed in the use of violence whereas Marx believed in the organic and democratic evolution toward communism. I believe that was the nature of the conflict. Willich wanted to take up arms and Marx wanted to take up his pen. Noam Chomsky has talked about this left-right orientation, arguing that support for violence made Lenin more of a right-wing figure, a fascist's socialist if you will. That was the crux of the dispute between Lenin versus Rosa Luxemburg and Anton Pannekoek, the non-violent intellectuals of the mainstream branch of the movement. But they lost and Lenin won so he was ultimately rewritten as the mainstream voice and not many people today even remember the names Luxemburg or Pannekoek. Although I heard that Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant, a member of the Socialist Alternative party, named her dogs Che and Rosa. For what it's worth, I never saw a socialist political party I didn't strongly dislike. I support certain socialist principles as wraparound services for a healthy capitalist democracy. In Europe, one can call that "democratic socialism" without people thinking you're therefore to the left of AOC.
Mr. Volodzko, adding to my thoughts regarding your post on democratic socialism: it's really all boiled down to this paragraph you have here: "He had a reputation for taking good care of his men, seeing that they were well-rested..." Doesn't matter how you label yourself, or labeled, the fundamentals of who you are eventually is the most important. A person who is rooted in deep convictions for the welfare of others is the ultimate key. A good person makes bad systems work for people, and vice versa. Cheers, my friend.
"... one of his aides-de-camp was a man by the name of Frederick Engels." Do you mean Friedrich Engels?
I'd love to hear more specifics on Willich's dispute with Marx. Do you have an example handy of something Marx said that Willich disagreed with?
Thanks for the edit note, Scott. That's been updated. Although Willich saw himself as more "left" I suppose one could argue he was actually more to the right because he believed in the use of violence whereas Marx believed in the organic and democratic evolution toward communism. I believe that was the nature of the conflict. Willich wanted to take up arms and Marx wanted to take up his pen. Noam Chomsky has talked about this left-right orientation, arguing that support for violence made Lenin more of a right-wing figure, a fascist's socialist if you will. That was the crux of the dispute between Lenin versus Rosa Luxemburg and Anton Pannekoek, the non-violent intellectuals of the mainstream branch of the movement. But they lost and Lenin won so he was ultimately rewritten as the mainstream voice and not many people today even remember the names Luxemburg or Pannekoek. Although I heard that Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant, a member of the Socialist Alternative party, named her dogs Che and Rosa. For what it's worth, I never saw a socialist political party I didn't strongly dislike. I support certain socialist principles as wraparound services for a healthy capitalist democracy. In Europe, one can call that "democratic socialism" without people thinking you're therefore to the left of AOC.