This isn't my fight, but this whole thing irks me because you are trying to apply ideological and party consistency to a man who claims no specific ideology and (more importantly) claims no party. Attempting to specifically pin down an individual, especially an American, and claim that he adheres to a specific ideology, is a game of shifting goalposts. There is no party line to apply ideological consistency of the mass line or vanguard, therefore he can wax and wane as he wants. Some days he plays the demsoc, others the ML. It is irrelevant, we are all liberals without a party.
Hasan is 'fine'. Under different material conditions, he may even be 'good'. He's the pretty boy streamer of the vague left, and at least shows to have a basic grasp of leftist theory.
Except nothing that he describes of his ideology after that is unique to democratic socialism, at least in terms of party structure, or belief in specific developmental ideology. He simply describes an end to exploitation, which can apply to any amount of socialism, utopian or otherwise. Unless there are also clips where he says that voting is the most important expression of democratic will, or that labor is not the proper organizational method of the left.
The problem is that he can say he's a democratic socialist, but there is a party line that historically makes one a democratic socialist that he (and most modern-day self-proclaimed democratic socialists) does not adhere to. Hell, even professing a belief in Marx renders one a non-democratic socialist historically.
It countinues to be a part of the muddling of ideologies that occurs in the American left. Which is fine dialectically, and I hope a more unifying ideology spawns from it, but it creates an impossibility to speak clearly and track distinct historical tendencies within the left if we cleave to it religiously. Is this a semantic argument? Yes. But it is also a material historical argument that tracks the development of ideology.
That is a recent phenomena, in the last 6 years or so. A by-product of the large tent philosophy of the Bernie social democrat movement. During the development of the ideology (particularly within the DSA itself) that was not the case.
Ok? I never claimed otherwise? I mean, back in his day, Lenin’s party were Social Democrats!!! Words change meaning. You’re (also) arguing points no one is making.
That's my point. You have made a post to claim Hasan for one ideology or another, when he doesn't have a party to claim ideological allegiance to. His claims towards democratic socialism are well and good, but don't fit historically with the beliefs of American democratic socialists, and it's not as if he follows the DSA party line of modern democratic socialists. He is at least a leftist, but trying to pin down what exactly he is doesn't matter unless you think he will be the voice of the revolution. He's just a swagged out pog-daddy until then.
Edit: Also, Marx and Lenin were Social Democrats in a time before socialism, utopian or otherwise, had a coherent ideology. Also at a time when being a social democrat meant that you would man the barricades against monarchy. I doubt modern social democrats would do the same if a monarchy sprung up.
It’s not even like we disagree. Hasan, as far as he has an ideology, is a Democratic Socialist. Why? Because he says so, and there is no indication he’s lying. He also believes in Marx’s theory of value (mostly) and Lenin’s theory of imperialism. None of this matters. This whole thing started because someone mentioned how Hasan is better than others but not great and I replied he’s a DemSoc. Here.. At which point someone else jumped in to say he’s a Marxist (implying I’m wrong about him being. DemSoc, as if the two are exclusionary). I then clarified in what sense I think he’s a Marxist and in what senses he’s not. This new person then claimed I was wrong because he’d never heard Hasan say he was a DemSoc and tried to say he knows more than me becuase he’s listened to Hasan for two years. That of course annoyed me so I provided proof of him literally saying he’s a DemSoc at which point this dude starting making up conspiracy theories. This entire thing is pointless. But I’m not going to fucking back down when I’m not wrong.
This isn't my fight, but this whole thing irks me because you are trying to apply ideological and party consistency to a man who claims no specific ideology and (more importantly) claims no party. Attempting to specifically pin down an individual, especially an American, and claim that he adheres to a specific ideology, is a game of shifting goalposts. There is no party line to apply ideological consistency of the mass line or vanguard, therefore he can wax and wane as he wants. Some days he plays the demsoc, others the ML. It is irrelevant, we are all liberals without a party.
Hasan is 'fine'. Under different material conditions, he may even be 'good'. He's the pretty boy streamer of the vague left, and at least shows to have a basic grasp of leftist theory.
He literally says he’s a DemSoc. It’s at the 33 minute mark.
Except nothing that he describes of his ideology after that is unique to democratic socialism, at least in terms of party structure, or belief in specific developmental ideology. He simply describes an end to exploitation, which can apply to any amount of socialism, utopian or otherwise. Unless there are also clips where he says that voting is the most important expression of democratic will, or that labor is not the proper organizational method of the left.
The problem is that he can say he's a democratic socialist, but there is a party line that historically makes one a democratic socialist that he (and most modern-day self-proclaimed democratic socialists) does not adhere to. Hell, even professing a belief in Marx renders one a non-democratic socialist historically.
It countinues to be a part of the muddling of ideologies that occurs in the American left. Which is fine dialectically, and I hope a more unifying ideology spawns from it, but it creates an impossibility to speak clearly and track distinct historical tendencies within the left if we cleave to it religiously. Is this a semantic argument? Yes. But it is also a material historical argument that tracks the development of ideology.
You can be a Democratic Socialist who agree with Marx’s theory of value and Lenin’s theory of imperialism.
That is a recent phenomena, in the last 6 years or so. A by-product of the large tent philosophy of the Bernie social democrat movement. During the development of the ideology (particularly within the DSA itself) that was not the case.
Ok? I never claimed otherwise? I mean, back in his day, Lenin’s party were Social Democrats!!! Words change meaning. You’re (also) arguing points no one is making.
That's my point. You have made a post to claim Hasan for one ideology or another, when he doesn't have a party to claim ideological allegiance to. His claims towards democratic socialism are well and good, but don't fit historically with the beliefs of American democratic socialists, and it's not as if he follows the DSA party line of modern democratic socialists. He is at least a leftist, but trying to pin down what exactly he is doesn't matter unless you think he will be the voice of the revolution. He's just a swagged out pog-daddy until then.
Edit: Also, Marx and Lenin were Social Democrats in a time before socialism, utopian or otherwise, had a coherent ideology. Also at a time when being a social democrat meant that you would man the barricades against monarchy. I doubt modern social democrats would do the same if a monarchy sprung up.
It’s not even like we disagree. Hasan, as far as he has an ideology, is a Democratic Socialist. Why? Because he says so, and there is no indication he’s lying. He also believes in Marx’s theory of value (mostly) and Lenin’s theory of imperialism. None of this matters. This whole thing started because someone mentioned how Hasan is better than others but not great and I replied he’s a DemSoc. Here.. At which point someone else jumped in to say he’s a Marxist (implying I’m wrong about him being. DemSoc, as if the two are exclusionary). I then clarified in what sense I think he’s a Marxist and in what senses he’s not. This new person then claimed I was wrong because he’d never heard Hasan say he was a DemSoc and tried to say he knows more than me becuase he’s listened to Hasan for two years. That of course annoyed me so I provided proof of him literally saying he’s a DemSoc at which point this dude starting making up conspiracy theories. This entire thing is pointless. But I’m not going to fucking back down when I’m not wrong.
Christ, this is a bunch of silly crap about a man who dresses like a middle schooler.
No he doesn’t.
Fine, like a middle schooler with alot of money.
And here he is today calling himself a socialist
Uh, yeah, he’s a socialist? When did I say he’s not? That would be absurd.
He’s a socialist who uses Marxian analysis to understand capitalism and believes in a Democratic Socialist transition to socialism.