LOL
>Mazdak was an ancient Iranian Philosopher, who believed the scriptures (Zoroastrianism scriptures, this was pre-Islam) dictated radical social equality. He thought all property should belong to everyone, and wealth shared equally. He was so convincing that he even convinced the king to go along with it, and was able to successfully implement many of his social reforms. He also believed in getting rid of clerics, because they held religious authority over the population, which he thought was illegitimate. Eventually other rich and powerful Zoroastrian and Christian kings got wind of it, and challenged Mazdak to "debate" their clerics. These other kings were the judges, so naturally their guys won, and they brutally executed Mazdak and thousands of his followers. If Mazdak was a prototype for socialism, or even communism, I suppose you could say their reaction to it was a prototype for how to defeat socialism in the good old "marketplace of ideas". As with most ages and societies, those with huge amounts of power and property have never been too keen on philosophers that want to take it away.
>>776244*loud wrong buzzer*
anachronisms aside, the key difference is that he didn't represent a model that could overcome the system of his time. getting killed for being a nuisance to the kings was, in the long term, his only objective and achievement. this has nothing to do with modern (marxist) socialism
he was an adventurist , rightfully killed
>>776248>his only objective and achievementachievement maybe, but objective, what? you believe he
wanted to get killed without achieving the change he wished for?
>this has nothing to do with modern (marxist) socialismthats like saying utopian socialist have nothing to with marxist socialist. They share a similar goal, even if they dont share an analysis that didnt exist yet and the means to reach their goal according to more modern theories