I love how the commenter above me already agreed with me but you still feel the need to defend them for no reason.
They used the term Utopian Socialism, not implying that they were Marxist. There are more than two ways. Kropotkin for example was neither. All you’re saying is “he wasn’t Marxist so he was Utopian” which is wrong as I and the commenter above me already agreed on.
You can even be Marxist and still reject Historical Materialism as John the Duncan does even tho he sadly never dedicated a video on that, just hints it here and there.
Utopianism isn’t really a movement, though there are of course movements that are Utopian. Utopian is a specialized definition. Conquest of Bread is the most classic kind of Utopian literature, trying to puzzle out a way of building society from the ground up to not have the social ills and poverty Kropotkin saw in his time. Not all anarchists are Utopians (not all of them concern themselves specifically with the positive machinations of the proposed final circumstances), but Kropotkin definitely was.
They used the term Utopian Socialism, not implying that they were Marxist. There are more than two ways. Kropotkin for example was neither.
Kropotkin absolutely was Utopian.
All you’re saying is “he wasn’t Marxist so he was Utopian” which is wrong as I and the commenter above me already agreed on.
Not at all what I said.
You can even be Marxist and still reject Historical Materialism
You cannot reject Historical Materialism and remain a Marxist, that’s a firm rejection of the core of Marxism.
