I think everyone who has been paying attention saw this coming. Now so-called "socialist" Hasan Piker is putting out CNN level liberal propaganda. Even western polling had to admit that Putin enjoyed an approval rating above 80% just prior to the election, but of course when you have demonized Russia to this degree you have to resort to reality denial to explain what you see.
We need to start using the term "red liberal" to describe these "leftist" political streamers and YouTubers who mimick the aesthetics and language of leftism while feeding into imperialist dogma and liberal assumptions about the world. Hasan also continues to deny the Donbass genocide that had been taking place since 2014 before Russia finally intervened, refuses to accept that Russia had legitimate reason to take action to stop NATO eastward expansion, and downplays the Nazi nature of the Kiev regime.
Now after he made fun of all the dumbass chuds who insisted in 2020 that the US election was stolen and made up all kinds of conspiracy theories to try and justify it, Hasan himself engages in the same kind of behavior when it comes to Russian elections. This is the kind of "socialist" who will act like they are not Democrat shills by superficially criticizing Genocide Joe yet continue to advocate that you vote for Democrats as the "lesser evil".
It is good though that since 2022 all of these sheepdogs for liberal imperialism have been exposing themselves. Now we know where the lines are drawn. Once again Lenin's words ring true:
"We are marching in a compact group along a precipitous and difficult path, firmly holding each other by the hand. We are surrounded on all sides by enemies, and we have to advance almost constantly under their fire. We have combined, by a freely adopted decision, for the purpose of fighting the enemy, and not of retreating into the neighbouring marsh, the inhabitants of which, from the very outset, have reproached us with having separated ourselves into an exclusive group and with having chosen the path of struggle instead of the path of conciliation. And now some among us begin to cry out: Let us go into the marsh! And when we begin to shame them, they retort: What backward people you are! Are you not ashamed to deny us the liberty to invite you to take a better road! Oh, yes, gentlemen! You are free not only to invite us, but to go yourselves wherever you will, even into the marsh. In fact, we think that the marsh is your proper place, and we are prepared to render you every assistance to get there. Only let go of our hands, don't clutch at us and don't besmirch the grand word freedom, for we too are "free" to go where we please, free to fight not only against the marsh, but also against those who are turning towards the marsh!"
I'm not sure we should die on that hill tbh
I have no way of verifying any claim about election fraud. All I know is that Russia has a capitalist mode of production, a liberal political system and that Putin is not a leftist, but he is also opportunistically anti-west which is good.
If you see a potential comrade hyperfocus on this election fraud thing, it's better to open their perspective so they shift their attention on what matters rather than trying to get them to trust Russia more which is pointless at this level of propaganda
Edit : now specifically referring to Hasan - this guy is a massive libshit for endorsing western bourgeois dictatorships while dismissing their enemy-of-the-day bourgeois dictatorships
Elections in Russia, a bourgeois liberal democracy, are no more or less legitimate than elections in the West. If you believe that elections in the West are legitimate, which Hasan does as evidenced by the fact he spent years making fun of conservatives calling into question the 2020 election, then you are a hypocrite or a chauvinist if you claim that Russian elections are not.
For myself i don't believe any elections under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie are legitimate. Real democracy can only exist under the dictatorship of the proletariat. But i take issue with the double standard that is applied by Westerners when it comes to Russia
I very much agree with this. Demonizing Russia only serves to make it look as if the west is somehow better when in practice both are dictatorships of the capital owning class.
Completely agree, he constantly says that "elections are free in the west, they're not free in russia" which is complete liberal crap. All liberal democracies are rigged.
Damn I didn't think his brainworms would be that big honestly, I had a form of sympathy for Hasan but now it's gone. Who tf says they're anti-capitalist and validate western elections??
In the end my reply was more about what you just said, that any bourgeois election is profoundly undemocratic
Thanks for proving my point that Hasan is a Democrat partisan. That is the same AOC who repeatedly voted alongside the entire Democrat party to give billions of dollars and heavy weapons to Ukrainian Nazis while denouncing the Palestinian resistance for striking back against the Zionist occupation and refusing to call what is happening in Gaza a genocide, yes?
We should oppose lies and misinformation wherever we find it, even when it is used against people we don't like or support. You can't combat misinformation by allowing it to continue to fester in other areas. It all needs to be dealt with, or none of it will. We can't have "just a little western media brainworms, as a treat."
We should oppose lies and misinformation wherever we find it, even when it is used against people we don’t like or support
Totally agree. I'll just say that it's important to avoid being disdainful especially when it's ultimately quiet hard to prove this negative and since the precedents aren't strong
On the other hand the conversation around this election can be very interesting if you take it as a starting point to ask more questions like "if the election was actually genuine do you trust the media would admit it?" / "The Russian system and economy have been written by the USA, what does it say about us?" / "All polls say he is actually popular, why would he commit fraud if he's already won?" and most importantly "Why do you seem to think that democracy means everybody needs to be upset at the last politicians in place and vote for a different one given the chance?"
I agree. He is the enemy of my enemy, but other than that you can point to him doing things the west does, which helps libs sometimes open their eyes to how hypocritical they are being. Other than that i maintain that Putin is just another bourgeoisie dictator of yet another oligarchy.
Also hasan being a liberal? lol. That's going a bit far imho.
I only support Russia as a foil to American power on an international level. Russia is not the USSR and Putin is no communist, in fact those absurd ideas are what liberals try to push. I don’t know if people who defend Putin in these ways are incapable of nuance or they’re just Russoboos, but defending Putin’s reactionary far-right nationalistic rule in modern Russia is NOT a leftist position. I’m sure the “democratic victory” in Russia is a farce, just like all liberal democracy is a farce.
But you can be anti-Nazis in Ukraine, against the extreme liberal transformation of Kiev, not think the invasion is good… but also understand that Russia was against a rock and a hard place and had to invade Ukraine to push back on NATO, think Russia is a crucial ally of the PRC and fundamental building block in BRICS+, and also abhor the racist, homophobic, transphobic and capitalist government of modern Moscow… and at the same time understand that Russia cannot be a Western style liberal (and Putin refuses to be communist) and they NEED something to unify the people. Black and white thinking goes against everything we believe in… nuance is what matters.
Modern Russia is like the USA during WW2, an ally of convenience, that’s it. Fuck Putin but also thank the universe for him.
I think this is pretty much the position of most people here. I largely agree with what you wrote, minus maybe calling it an "invasion" (i would say it was a justified intervention that should have and would have happened sooner under a communist government).
It’s an invasion because it’s a war between two capitalist states. If we’re talking about the USSR, it would be an intervention rooting out the miserable liberal/nazi advance in Ukraine.
The objective national security imperatives of a state are not erased by its economic system.
Nor does being capitalist change the anti-fascist character of a war. The US was capitalist in WW2. They were still legitimately justified in fighting against Nazis.
I’m sure the “democratic victory” in Russia is a farce, just like all liberal democracy is a farce.
In that sense, yeah. But it's certainly not inaccurate to say that these elections were also as legitimate as it gets (for a liberal democracy). Putin is genuinely massively popular, for understandable reasons particularly at the moment.
As for the invasion- no, I think it was a good thing. It should have happened sooner, but it's better it happened as it did, than for Russia to have done nothing at all. And the severing of ties- between Russia and the west, particularly Europe- the diminishing of the arsenals of fascism, frankly, the death of many Nazis (and non-Nazis- but those who fought alongside them, admittedly) can only be considered a good thing. The weakening and humiliation of NATO is celebrated across the global south for a reason, and I fully join in with the sentiments- Russia, for all its faults and its compromised/hesitant circumstances that led it to this point- is doing something utterly amazing, beautiful, and liberating for the world, and I fully and utterly support its war efforts as such.
I wouldn't even compare present events to that of WW2-era USA. Russia is not in a position to assume hegemonic status, militarily, economically, or otherwise, or inherit the post-colonial world, for instance- it is playing its part along with a host of nations (much of the global south, really) in ushering a new age of multipolarity. This difference alone could not be greater- Russia has many, many issues, but it is not imperialist, I also disagree with your notion that it is racist (at least, in regards to the Russian state and its influence), frankly, while it is liberal and prone to reactionaryism (particularly in regards to social issues) and we must not forget that, in regards to Russia's reemerging influence and cooperation with other non-western nations- I can only call it as I see it- incredibly, utterly positive (and this is not unconditional approval- this is simply the fact of the matter, in regards to this country which is one of the greatest forces for anti-imperialism in the world at the moment and is tangibly eroding the imperialists' bloc- however much it had sought to join them prior).
I agree, nuance is what matters. And a nuanced view should show that Russia is not, and will not, be comparable to the US in its role as a historical ally of convenience- it has its many issues to overcome, but its present actions, its present realities (no matter how its liberal elites may have sought otherwise) have grounded it with the global south and with the true international community. Russia is constrainted, geographically and otherwise; Russia is part of the emerging post-US hegemonic, post-dollar order; Russia is part of Afro-Eurasian and global integration and its circumstances have cemented its role as a force for this, rather than western imperialism. And- unlike the US, Russia in its present form inherited from the Soviets, as a civilization-state, clearly rejects the fascistic racial/ethnic/religious/etc supremacist tendencies of the west, whether in its domestic policy or foreign- unlike the historical WW2-era USA and Anglosphere, which basically collected Nazis and fascists of all stripes to craft their anti-communist bloc with; the difference could not be greater between modern Russia (which, while not socialist, cooperates with and is increasingly close to AES states like China) and the western "allies" in WW2.
That's not to say Russia should be unconditionally supported, nor that it may never play a threat, of course- but I feel there is a world of difference, and in recognizing it- particularly in regards to the Ukraine war, we must not waver in our (critical) support until actually given proper reason to do so- and we must be especially cautious with drawing (sometimes fairly inaccurate) comparisons between Russia and the west, particularly the US- to avoid damaging leftist and general support for Russia in its present actions, which I would call undeniably for the betterment of the entire world. Russia may not have willingly gotten into this fight, and it may be in it for its own self-preservation, but this cause is undeniably just, and one that all of humanity- even the working classes of the west- have a stake in. It's probably of little matter to debate the nuances here where most people get it, but in non-communist spaces, and/or in regards to those with a poor understanding of what is at stake, and what nuances exist, I think it's important to be clear- for instance, that Putin's mandate is as legitimate as it gets for any liberal democracy (ie. not very, if anyone's asking- but infinitely more legitimate than that of any western leaders, and presently with a foundation of genuine, overwhelming popular support) and supporting Russia in its present actions in Ukraine is, I'd argue- the only proper leftist position, even if supporting Putin's government in specific and the various social policies would clearly be not.
Overall I generally agree. Fuck Putin, but thank the universe for him- he didn't want to be a hero (rather the opposite, he tried to join the west), and he is a deeply flawed one, but his actions are changing the world, overwhelmingly for the better all the same. But he's definitely not a fascist, (not even comparable to the likes of Modi let alone the west) nor a racist, nor an imperialist (albeit that is more due to circumstance, perhaps), and I would call the invasion in Ukraine not only good, but an overwhelming triumph and boon for humanity- of course, it would have been better had it never had to happen in the first place, but as things turned out as they did, my only issue with the ongoing invasion is that it should have happened sooner. And modern Russia, flawed as it is, will not and cannot be the next USA- its circumstances do not allow it, and it is choosing an infinitely healthier, mutually beneficial path for itself and the rest of humanity as a result.
Russia seems to be the litmus test in America. If you have takes like:
- Today's Russia is a direct consequence of American (and friends) destruction of the USSR
- Russian protectionist consolidation under Putin is the result of the plunder that ensued the dissolution of the USSR
- Russia has thus a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie because of the US
- American liberals do not care about Russia being totalitarian. They just hound them for it because they are a bourgeois dictatorship that happens to oppose the American bourgeoisie's interests. That is why for every 1000 Putler alarmist in the West there is half a person worried about the BJP authoritarianism in India.
- America has never brought democracy is to any country including itself. It is high time Americans stop worrying about the presence or absence of democracy in an another country.
- There is no third position when it comes to Russia. If you join the liberals clamouring about "free and fair elections" then you are wittingly or unwittingly supporting American foreign policy.
You instantly get labeled a tankie/campist and lose all your engagement on social media.
Putin is clearly an autocrat and the Russia of today, I am sorry to say, is not the USSR and won't become it either. Just because he is aligned against the west doesn't mean we have to like him.
If this whole site has one big stupid obvious blind spot it's the pathological need by many of you to go USA bad -> Russia no like USA -> Russia good.
Our posture is to critically support Russia while their interests align with multipolarity and anti-imperialism, we've never claimed that Russia is still the USSR or on the path to restore it that's childish liberal propaganda.
It just happens that, due to the complex circunstamces, in this moment they ended up in the progressive side of history, like it or not.
I'm not pro-russia, I'm just anti-america/NATO. To use the WW1 comparison again I'm not pro-kaiser just because I think king George sucks ass. As always our real enemies are the ones annihilating entire generations to line their pockets.
None of us is saying Russia is good. You won't find a single Putin supporter over here. Critical support is critical for a reason.
Both things can be true.
Both of these nations are “liberal” “””democracies”””. Just because one is acting as a foil to the American imperial ambitions doesn’t mean that it still doesn’t have the same glaring faults.
I agree that both can be true, but i don't see what the usefulness is of stretching the traditional definition of autocrat so far that it includes nominally elected leaders in a liberal bourgeois democracy with separation of powers and a parliament. We already have another term to describe that state of affairs and it's dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. That is a more accurate description than autocracy for what Russia and that US are.
Russia has many but not all of the glaring faults that the US does. We should not fall back on false equivalencies just because two countries share similar traits in some aspects. It would be too much to get into here but in certain respects the way that Russia's state and economy operate is quite different from how things are done in the West, and so is the role that they play in the geopolitical arena. They are not mirror images of each other.
Russia's system may have been put into place and shaped by the Americans but it has since undergone changes and development that have diverged it from that path.
If the US system is a lie, is the Russian system less of a lie? Bourgeoisie “democracies” are hardly known for their fair and honest elections. They’re all shams and window dressing at best, or just fake outright. Do you think Russian capitalists wouldn’t play the same dirty games that’s western ones do?
The word autocrat doesn’t fit here still, but let’s not delude ourselves that this is some wonderful showing of a true proletarian democracy, and not a sham election for the front running capitalist candidate as always, same with Biden.
I think i made it pretty clear that i don't disagree with any of this, all of what you said here is true. All i said was that we should not play into liberal propaganda by using the word "autocrat" unless we are prepared to use it for every bourgeois leader. But that muddles things imo more than clarifies them because these systems are not dictatorships of one person, they are dictatorships of a class.
The difference that i am pointing out between Russia and the US is not in which class rules them - that is the same - but in the degree to which the state intervenes in and controls the economy. This may seem like a small distinction but it results in some pretty big differences in how their respective states behave, and in particular their relationship to their financial systems.
They also have undeniably different approaches in how they behave toward the rest of the world and we should not downplay this.
Who is killing the nazis / NATO imperialists in europe? Certainly not the majority of western leftists.
Whatever we think of Russia, they are helping to do undo the primary contradiction in the world today, imperialism, ie the inequality between rich and poor nations, by harming / draining the military and financial resources of those keeping that system of inequality in place.
Could both these positions not be true at once? Neither these statements seem to be at odds with each other.
The comment above seemed to be a simplistic "russia bad tho"... I think we can and should do much better than that. This isn't a situation of 1800s / ww1-era inter-imperialist conflict.
This point does not get emphasized enough. Is there any other country or force right now that is killing as many Nazis and NATO "mercenaries" as Russia? Is anyone else depleting NATO arsenals and so successfully exposing them as a paper tiger? Has anyone else done so much reputational damage to the US as this unbeatable force that everyone was supposed to be terrified of and to the image of NATO equipment as some kind of superweapons? Is it a coincidence that we have seen the Palestinian resistance take the fight back to the occupier, the Yemenis openly challenge the entire collective West's ability to protect its shipping lanes and win, or entire African nations evict their western neo-colonial garrisons just after Russia struck a massive blow against NATO and its Nazi proxies in Ukraine? We all love and appreciate China and what it has done for the Chinese people and the world, for showing that socialism can and does bring a better life even in this modern era, but it's not China that has dared to take direct military action against the western imperialist hegemony, it's Russia.
Spot on. This reminds me of an Eldritch Cleaver quote that goes something like: "every white cop that gets killed is one less imperialist soldier that goes to kill innocent people in vietnam and elsewhere."
do not follow internet personalities, the internet is basically TV 2; you wouldnt trust people on the capitalist controlled television, you shouldnt trust people on capitalist controlled websites.
Honestly, I've never followed any YouTube "Leftist". I kept hearing people here speak so highly of him and I'm not surprised he ended up having Western chauvinist stances.
His chauvinism was never hidden, he has described himself for years as an "Ameriboo". They just gave him a pass for his more problematic stances because he had good ones on other issues in ways that no one else with his reach and platform size did.
He’s only ever mentioned being an Ameriboo in the context of when he was a child and early teen and thought the US was an amazing incredible place that he wanted nothing more than to be in. Idealism that very quickly died when he understood the material reality of the US.
I do agree, his postures on Russia are indistinguishable from a lib, him saying that Navalny would've been better than Putin for russians is absurd. That being said i think he has to be very careful with his words in this specific subject because he lives in the US after all and his livelihood is tied to it, he could easily end up in jail for saying something not allowed by US media.
They don’t put you in jail, they disinvite you from corporate media, demonetize your YouTube channel, suppress your Twitter reach, etc.
Look at the history of Chris Hedges’ career. Ever since he questioned the arguments for invading Iraq, he’s been banned from all corporate media. And when Russia became the enemy du jour, his RT YouTube account was deleted and his years of content purged. Now he lives on Substack donations. Hedges: On Being Disappeared
he could easily end up in jail
Let's not exaggerate, the US isn't yet on the same level as Germany. There are plenty of people in the US in alternative media who have a much less anti-Russian stance than Hasan, some are even openly pro-Russian. They get harassed yes, but generally if you are a big enough public personality there is not much that will happen to you. Hasan himself even got away with telling the truth about 9/11.
and his livelihood is tied to it
This is more accurate. He has a vested financial interest in continuing to toe the liberal pro-imperialist line. He would indeed lose a good chunk of his audience and perhaps advertiser contracts if he did not go along with the anti-Russia talking points. This just indicates that he is a self-interested coward who is more worried about keeping the millions flowing in from subscriptions and advertisements than in actually using his platform responsibly and bringing (unpopular) truth to his massive audience.
I'm sorry but when you have a platform you also have a responsibility. He is not some working class regular Joe who out of self-preservation needs to shut up or else fear losing his job and his home. He has made a choice to support the propaganda narrative that is leading us down an ever more slippery slope of escalating war with Russia. "Putin is a tyrannical dictator", "China is genociding Uyghurs", "Saddam Hussein has WMDs", these are the kinds of lies that lay the groundwork for wars.
In addition to serving the pro-war neocon agenda this kind of rhetoric is also putting Russians living in the West in physical danger just as anti-China propaganda puts Chinese people at risk. Already there have been people who have been fired from their jobs for admitting that they voted for Putin. In other countries people have been investigated by police and even arrested just for posting "pro-Russian" opinions online.
Hasan has both the money and the clout to be able to safely speak out against this atmosphere of paranoia and persecution but chooses to feed into it instead.
Let’s not exaggerate, the US isn’t yet on the same level as Germany. There are plenty of people in the US in alternative media who have a much less anti-Russian stance than Hasan, some are even openly pro-Russian. They get harassed yes, but generally if you are a big enough public personality there is not much that will happen to you.
He is easily the most influential leftist figure, maybe it's just me but if i was in his shoes i would be very careful with my words because the US does have an history of minecrafting dissident figures. Another point, his audience is mainly baby leftists filled with liberal propaganda, if i was in his shoes i'd take it step by step, avoid talking about some topics while focusing on others that might be more important like China.
We definitely should call out the liberal propaganda he spews, so people ready to outgrow him can find the criticisms, but lets pump up the brakes a bit with calling him a sellout, he is doing this 24/7 and is bound to eventually say stupid shit, IMO he is a very important part of the communist pipeline.
because the US does have an history of minecrafting dissident figures
Well then Hasan is perfectly safe. You're not much of a dissident when you repeat state department talking points about the US's geopolitical enemies.
he is a very important part of the communist pipeline
He is part of a pipeline alright, i'm just not sure it's a communist pipeline. More like a pipeline leading baby leftists away from anti-imperialism and back into system-compatible radical liberalism.
if i was in his shoes i'd take it step by step, avoid talking about some topics while focusing on others that might be more important
This argument would make sense if he was actually avoiding talking about it. He could have kept his mouth shut about the Russian election if he didn't want to be accused of legitimizing Putin, but instead he chose to speak on it and basically call it rigged. And again, i have to stress it's not that i am against saying that an election under a liberal democratic political system is, in a certain sense, illegitimate. It's that he doesn't ever say the same thing about elections in the US and Europe. He would never speak about Western elections in the same condescending, dismissive tone.
You don't have to like Putin (i certainly don't, and i am reminded of that every time he shittalks Lenin) to acknowledge the reality that he is just more popular in his own country than any Western politician has been in theirs in a long time. An ostensibly leftist political commentator like Hasan could choose to have a productive discussion with their audience about why that is and try and understand the political dynamics inside Russia from a materialist perspective and gain some actual insights. But instead, like liberals typically do, he refuses to even entertain the idea that another country's leader that he doesn't like can actually enjoy a considerable degree of support from the people of that country.
Liberals project their own likes and dislikes onto the rest of the world and assume everyone secretly thinks like them and just needs to be "liberated" by the enlightened West. Here is where that condescension and dismissiveness of other people's cultures and political systems comes in. This same applies not just to Russia but to other countries whose leaders are demonized by the West and labeled as "autocrats" or "dictators" even when they win elections and available evidence shows that they have a pretty good approval rating.
I might be biased and have a soft spot for him because i used to watch him religiously. But to raise another point, does it really matter if liberals demonize Russia?
Don't you think that its in our best interests that the west focuses its attention on Russia, an ideologically aligned state, than in China?
It matters when so-called "leftists" participate in and encourage that demonization. It matters when it is done against any country that the neocon psychopaths have set as a target for their destabilization and warmongering efforts. It matters when it is done to Syria, it matters when it is done to Iran, it matters when it is done to the DPRK, and it matters when it is done to Russia.
This kind of rhetoric is not harmless, it is the kind of rhetoric that lays the groundwork for wars and murderous sanctions. The same kinds of lies that were used to justify the invasion of Iraq, the bombing of Libya, the bombing of Yugoslavia, the dirty war on Syria, etc. Each time they claimed that the leader of the country was a tyrannical despot who needed to be deposed, and each time a certain section of complicit "leftists" helped them to solidify and legitimize their narrative.
That being said i think he has to be very careful with his words in this specific subject
He doesn't just have to worry about US authorities, but his platfom as well.
The guy has to perform a balancing act of not pushing too far against the narrative or he gets cancelled and then nobody is listening to him.
It's why Western streamers are ultimately controlled opposition, and there's only so much they can do to defy that control.
By that same logic you could argue we all should have stayed on Reddit and continued to self-censor our opinions.
There are alternative streaming platforms you know...
… like what?
Don’t get me wrong, I do agree there’s plenty to criticize Hasan over, but what’s the alternative streaming platform besides YouTube?
You mean an alternative to Twitch? Because on YouTube at least there are still channels that are being allowed to be "pro-Russian" (or at least what Ukraine supporters would call pro-Russian which most of the time just means still living in reality instead of delusional fantasies).
Of course we don't know how long that will last so it's good to start finding alternatives now. For videos there's platforms like Odysee, and i'm sure similar alternatives for streaming will pop up eventually too if enough people are forced to move away from the mainstream platforms.
YouTube is not that different than twitch, if anything they tend to be much more restrictive, so it’s not really a good alternative. And yeah, I meant live streaming. There are no real alternatives atm besides shit like kick/rumble which are basically infested by nazis.
Well there you go, you mentioned Rumble, that's an alternative platform. Rokfin is another one that comes to mind. And yes many of these alternatives are infested by nazis because they've been kind of forced out of the mainstream platforms, and when that happens to anti-imperialists and communists then we're likely going to have to move to platforms like that too, even if they do have less moderation and are kind of cess pools filled with all kinds of reactionary low lifes and idiots. It's either that or be censored/banned by the liberal dominated big tech platforms. Unless leftists create their own platforms like we have done with Lemmy (although by now it's already sadly been infected with liberals) we're probably going to end up sharing platforms with people that we despise. It's just something we have to live with. It's not like that doesn't happen on YouTube and Twitch already.
But if these alternative platforms suddenly saw an influx of some really big content creators like Hasan then they could start to change for the better and push the more unsavory types into the background. Content creators who do make the move would bring with them a good chunk of their sizeable audiences
It is a kind of stepping on a mine thing in the US. You just cannot agree with Russia or against Ukraine or you will be deplatformed and branded a Russian shill. I'm not convinced Hasan is a principled Marxist but on this he has two choices which are shut up and say nothing or say this. Any other choice would result in Twitch likely demonitizing him, his sponsors leaving him, much of his audience leaving him and a good chance he gets straight up banned from Twitch at which point his influence and livelihood would be done, over, gone forever.
I personally in his position would just stay mum but he either does believe this as well or wants to cash in on the views from saying so. Though in his position I admit not talking about it would be seen as odd given what he discusses.
I don't trust Hasan as he and many others could be part of the swerve strategy, recuperation, etc but this is the least surprising thing ever.
They kicked Roger Waters off his record label for understanding Russia. No one who is not a billionaire with their own media distribution (Musk) is immune from being cancelled over this and even Musk is the type who can have pressure applied given his position he could be dragged in front of congress and screamed at, humiliated, just in general harassed by the government. So while it's true they almost certainly wouldn't kill him, that's because they could just ruin his life instead.
Super weird how liberals agree all russians (even those living abroad or completely apolitical athletes) deserve to be discriminated against and ostracized because they all support what putin is doing in Ukraine but then when there's a vote it's suddenly impossible that 80% of russians support him.
Same as how they make fun of how supposedly weak and incompetent the Russian army is, yet insist that at the same time it is so strong and fearsome that it is a huge threat and about to invade all of Europe if we don't stop them.
Hasan doesn't recognise that his main source of income, REACT CONTENT, is a form of exploitation. No original content or ideas and a very fucking high ego, I don't like him.
Why the fuck is he popular, I have no clue.
How is it exploitation?
He explicitly reaches out to and requests permission for everything he reacts to beforehand, unless it is some conservative drivel. Further, for those that agree, many note that their videos and channels skyrocket with engagement after their videos are watched by him. He even watches their ad and sponsor reads fully.
I would highly recommend watching DarkViperAU's playlist about React Content: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAnJ4ZuTYaeGv4WIexP9C5LAuMEnMkG-Q
But if you want a shorter explanation, basically, it doesn't matter if you have consent of the original creator. We don't look for consent from workers when they sell their labour, whether they like it or not, it is exploitation.
Reaction content harms not only the original creator, but other creators too just because of how the YouTube algorithm works.
To make a 30 min video the original creator needs to spend a day, two, a week, a month to finish the project and in the end hope that his video will be picked up in algorithm and get a lot of views. Hasan needs to spend the duration of the original video plus his commentary to, essentially, make the exact same content. Why? Because information didn't change. No matter how much commentary you add, the original video in its entirety is on Hasan's channel.
How is this bad? Well, because how much less time the reactor needs to make a reaction, no matter what, the original creators on the platform lose because not the most exceptional creator wins the lottery of the algorithm, but the one who gets a lot of watch time constantly. No matter what, Hasan will be faster, more efficient in making videos because he just steals what another person did, talks about it a little, and then reuploads it on the YouTube channel.
So, after the person watches Hasan's commentary on the stream or on YouTube and even if it so just happens that the original video will be recommended to him on the home page, will he click and watch it? He already saw it, what's the point.
Yes, sometimes reaction gives a boost to the original creator, but it doesn't matter. Because not only him is harmed in the process.
Because Hasan made a reaction and it was reuploaded to the YouTube channel, he now competes in the algorithm with thousands and thousands of other videos on the platform, original videos from original creators. Eventually, because Hasan is so popular and because he steals interesting videos and puts them on his channel, he will be recommended to other people.
How is this bad? Because a video with Hasan's face showed up on the home page means that someone else's video didn't. Not necessarily the original one Hasan reacted to, but some other original content. But they lost this chance to show up on the home page because, to the algorithm, Hasan's channel is much more attractive, this guy spams awesome content almost every day, he is no match to other people who spend time making their videos.
When reaction gives a lot of views to the original video, it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things because many thousands of people were harmed in the process.
Again, I highly recommend watching DarkViperAU's playlist because I can't explain it better than him, but if you want to know specifically about Hasan, here's the link: https://youtu.be/va1zPshj5f0
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Yes, Putin is popular because he is a crucial part of the state. After the shitshow that was the 90s, his name is synonymous with stability. You quite literally have to be an extremist to want to put that stability on the line. Even if you're not fond of him, you have to recognise there's no safe, viable alternative. There's no way that the people most invested in the Russian state would let anyone else take the presidency without Putin's consent.
In that sense the elections are fake: they're not letting anyone else near the Kremlin no matter what. As opposed to the US where you'll have two fake options.
Personally I think it's weird to reject electoralism in the US/West and then to start defending Russian election results as 'real' because Putin is popular. You're still playing the liberal game of electoralism.
In that sense the elections are fake
I don't see how that makes elections fake, having only one realistically viable option. You can't say an election isn't real just because one candidate is massively more popular than everyone else.
What makes bourgeois elections illegitimate is that they are actually really decided by the bourgeois class through their control over the media apparatus which indoctrinates and manipulates the people into voting how the bourgeois class wants.
Also, conditions for electoralism are not the same in Russia as they are in the US. The US for instance has no politically viable communist party that could ever win any significant elections. Russia does.
At the end of the day I'm not saying that Russia's bourgeois elections are legitimate, but that they are really not that different from those in the West, apart from the results. Also it's not hard to understand why Putin is so popular:
Show
Mind you this is essentially propaganda, it lies by omission of the more inconvenient social and economic indicators while focusing too much on averages instead of the median. But otherwise it is pretty accurate as far as the numbers that it cites.
People in Russia can feel the improvement in their material conditions. With the exception of those already ideologically predisposed to dislike Putin (either communists like us, or on the other side, pro-Western liberals) i think most people cannot help but admire him for what he has seemingly ("seemingly" because he or course didn't do it alone) achieved these past 20 years in Russia.
🌎 👨🚀 🔫 👩🚀
Also that quote is so much better in Russian! Lenin's biting humour often gets lost in translation. In Russian "go into the swamp" is an insult akin to English "bugger off", so Lenin starts with this poetic description of comrades advancing under enemy fire, but by the end of the passage turns it into the most polite "go fuck yourselves" possible: "you're free to go into the swamp and we are prepared to render you every assistance to get there, only let go of our hands"
idgaf, putin isn't a communist, not even socdem either why should i care.
Honestly yeah. Like, I don't agree with everything Hasan says, but like, he's got a lot of good takes, and he is slowly dripfeeding theory to a wider audience. Why is this the cancellation criterion?
He's pretty positive on China, opposes American imperialism, like, sure a few of his takes don't hit fully, but this is a crazy reaction overall.
Let's not pretend Russia has any semblance of true democracy, is just as bad or worse than any other capitalist regime
All I'm saying is that i don't see people like Hasan talk in the same condescending way about US or other western elections. He is implying that the Russian elections are more rigged or unfair than those in the US which i personally see no reason to believe. He is also implying that the 87% number is fake, which again, i see no reason to believe given that Putin is a wartime president and even NED funded NGO polls (not Kremlin polls) showed prior to the election that his approval rating is around 86%.
Of course i don't think that the results of elections under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie are legitimately democratic in the way that a proletarian democracy is. Media, money, the pool of candidates being pre-approved by the bourgeoisie, etc. play a huge role in manipulating how the people vote.
But i never see Hasan say that the 2020 US election was rigged. I never hear him imply that Biden did not actually get the percentage of votes that is officially claimed. When MAGA chuds call the result fake, rigged, or say things like "no way did Biden get that many votes" he makes fun of them, and rightly so because that is not how bourgeois elections are rigged. Yet when it comes to Russia he behaves like those same chuds that he makes fun of in the US.
When MAGA chuds call the result fake, rigged, or say things like “no way did Biden get that many votes” he makes fun of them, and rightly so because that is not how bourgeois elections are rigged. Yet when it comes to Russia he behaves like those same chuds that he makes fun of in the US.
This is a highlighter-worthy contradiction to illuminate. I don't watch him; so I don't really have a dog in the race to illustrate a pattern of liberalism; but given how much money streaming is making him, I'm not betting on him performing any kind of meaningful self-crit over it in the near future.
