cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/2331989
I don’t really think he knows this site’s culture at all. No one is dissuading people from reading theory lol
Show
Show
Yey or ney for him?
As someone said in the post
As far as I can tell, he's a guy who spends all his time posting about how all leftists do is post.
And this ain't the first time, Roderick's a bit terminally online, arguing against other progressives like JT (Second Thought) and Michael Hudson....
Edit:
Ok I've made a right-deviationist mistake in saying that Michael Hudson is a progressive, and indirectly agreeing with the views of the former....
I've not investigated into JT's MMT videos nor looked carefully into Hudson (I thought he was also against capitalism, turns out, only finance and feudalism..., just cares for industrial capitalism)
And this ain’t the first time, Roderick’s a bit terminally online, arguing against other based progressive like JT (Second Thought) and Michael Hudson…
Why shouldn't he? Hudson's following reproduces Industrial Capitalist apologia in the same way that fed Social Chauvinism in Europe prior to WW1 (and during the height of Imperialism's African carve). I can see the consequences of Hudson in the patsoc space. Second Thought's video on MMT was uncritical and like Hudson reproduces petty booj cope about "the economy" and reform.
Hudson and ST are Marxist educators, they should be criticized so that their performance at that role can improve. If we are giving these people a living as revolutionary educators, shouldn't they be held to the highest standards?
The western left has a deep cultural lack of seriousness (I wonder why that is?). Memes and jokes are fine but bigotry and anti-intellectualism shouldn't be passed off as jokes to avoid criticism.
I like Roderic. He reminds us (communists) that it's not all memes and fun, there's serious effort that needs to be made and the course this effort should take is found in theory.
Yes you could say he's sometimes a bit too harsh in his criticism, but he also makes tons of good points and we need people like him too, with or without their flaws. Nobody's perfect. He's harsh, but he's not insulting (that I've seen) and in the end he does it to reach a better understanding of the matter with the people he struggles with. It took me a while in my life to detach from "neutral language criticism" and not see it as harsh criticism because it didn't have a word of praise in it (like "you're partly correct" or "you're on the right track but"). This is what he does, is neutral criticism. He doesn't go out of his way to insult or demean you but makes you see his point.
He spends a lot of time on Twitter, sure why not, but he's also one of the only people there that will talk to you in DMs and answer your questions there, and even if you have 2 followers -- many do not bother to talk to you either because they have too many notifications (he has a big account so I'm sure he has the notifs too) or because you don't have followers. Also anyone can have a Twitter account, and I know many big accounts like Roderic's that are not half as good at Marxism as he is.
His thing, from what I can tell, is to engage with the points and the criticism. Many people dismiss criticisms because they see it as wrong from the get-go, and don't even want to try and falsify it on that basis. He pushes us rather to engage with it, even if it's wrong, in order to show why it's wrong or doesn't apply, thereby reaching a higher level of understanding from both parties. He can be wrong too and doesn't claim to know everything.
The neutral criticism piece I actually disagree with. I think it's equally on the people's perception as it is on the person delivering/intention, and in a society where most people are going to be much more likely to be responsive to a positive languaged critique, there is no reason not to. We don't have to be logic-lords or Spock, we're humans and we like to be reassured and talked to nicely even when we are wrong. This is all assuming the person is good faith ofc.
It probably differs based on who you're talking to, y'know, other comrades can probably take a little more direct language compared to some random newbie but I think it stands regardless, you have to frame it in a way that is digestible because of the large possibility that it could be blocked by your tone and their response to it. If we want to be practical, we need to consider this.
Personally I still agree with you lol, and am working on/getting better at taking direct criticism as not personal. But that doesn't mean we should expect everyone to take it that way, it's just not the way most people think.
Edit: everything else you said I agree with though, I still just have my own issues I listed above lol ^
I'd really like to know what the "Christian nonsense" part is about lol.
And hexbear is very self-aware that it's just an obscure site in some dusty corner of the internet for hanging out and shitposting, there's no pretense of being an "organization"
Also, we constantly tell people to read theory, even the comment he used as an example does in no way refute that, I have no idea how he got from "not all knowledge comes from books and articles" to "don't read theory"
I think by Christian nonsense he means what we'd call glorifying poverty. He might be saying being impoverished doesn't offer any sort of specific insight.
That post is literally just saying that material conditions influence people's politics, a point he himself has made.
Show
Yes, but the post says you can’t be a communist unless you experience the material conditions. There is a strong correlation between class and ideology, but class traitors exist from the bourgeoisie like Engels.
They're talking about the general case. Unfortunately I can't seem to locate that user or find the post to clarify. But given two interpretations of, "This person was speaking 100% literally and believes in complete nonsense about poverty fetishization that nobody agrees with," or, "This person omitted a probably necessary qualifier to come across more strongly while making a reasonable and correct point" I'm inclined to go with the reasonably charitable interpretation. Though the poor phrasing might be why it didn't get many upvotes, and more comments.
Hexbear is far too treatbrained to be poverty fetishists lmao
Michael Hudson is not a based progressive, he is a PB academic with a long background working for banks and other capitalist institutions. He posts his work on the literal fascist website Unz review (which he still does years after being notified it was a literal fascist website in case he was unaware) where the comments there are full of people picking up on his fascist and anti-Semitic dog whistles and running with them. All his focus on "finance capital" is quite interesting when you look at his writing about Jesus being killed by Jewish financiers and how his solution to fight finance capital is essentially empowering industrial capital. What other groups were very pro industrial capital and focused heavily on Jews as a financial elite? Probably some of the ones who are big fans of Unz Review, so Hudson seems to have chosen the right place to voluntarily publish his work online.
He was raised by Trots and his hyper focus on economics allows him to avoid any revolutionary analysis; Hudson is essentially pushing a patsoc/demsoc narrative about "fixing" the US economy by trying to roll back finance capital and do some New Deal shit which is caping for capital, not fighting it.
There may be value in his knowledge as an economist but he's absolutely not based or someone I would look to for any info outside of very specific economic data that also isn't super relevant in any organizing arena I've ever seen.
As far as Roderic Day goes, I'm not on social media to know about how terminally online he, his posts, or personality are, but I have read a few of his essays which I found very well done and informative.
how his solution to fight finance capital is essentially empowering industrial capital. What other groups were very pro industrial capital and focused heavily on Jews as a financial elite? Probably some of the ones who are big fans of Unz Review, so Hudson seems to have chosen the right place to voluntarily publish his work online.
He was raised by Trots and his hyper focus on economics allows him to avoid any revolutionary analysis; Hudson is essentially pushing a patsoc/demsoc narrative about “fixing” the US economy by trying to roll back finance capital and do some New Deal shit which is caping for capital, not fighting it.
The hell? I screwed up in thinking that... he may have abhored Larouchites, but I guess his economic policy and thinking is Larouchism...
He has been given a lot of space on many leftish / left adjacent platforms over the last several years which has given him a lot of credibility. I was very surprised to see Ben Norton giving him space on his channel for instance, someone I typically trust more than the majority of other influencers/journalists.
MH is very good at explaining how things currently work and why. I don't think he can be ignored for that because there aren't many who can or are willing to share his insights. That might be why he gets airtime. He does allude to being a Trotskyist. And he clearly knows Marx. But I've never really heard him say anything that I'd consider to be Marxist in terms of what comes next or how we get there. I always thought he was a bit vague on that but I haven't read all his works.
And he clearly knows Marx.
I’m reading Capital right now, and it does not sound like he’s read it. Shouldn’t he know about TRPF, the origin of value, and the inherent contradictions (not someone managing it wrong) of capitalism? It doesn’t sound like he does.
I'm unsure what you've read or heard that gives the impression that MH doesn't know about those things.
I don't see how he could reach some of his conclusions without having understood Marx. You've got to remember that there's a lot that people can take from Marx, and there are fierce differences of opinion within the tradition.
And there's a way of writing that doesn't use the jargon. I'd argue that approach can be a more effective way of communicating to a wider audience in many cases. Maybe that's where your critique is coming from?
My critique comes from hearing him say silly social-democratic things on the Geopolitical Economy Report. Also, arguing with Day. Look at this if you haven’t: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/2680725 https://hexbear.net/post/1826437
We had an exchange in that top thread. I'm still unconvinced. A useful exercise would be to consider the extent to which Hudson's work displays an understanding and application of Marxism, rather than focusing on what he gets wrong, if anything.
It seems to need that there's a purity thing going on here, criticising MH for not doing XYZ when the real question is, okay, 'To what extent are his economic analyses correct/accurate?'
It's a leap to go from MH misunderstands Marx, to MH isn't a Marxist, to MH hasn't read Marx.
The second thread leaves me leaning towards my original position. That MH broadly knows what he's talking about and has clearly read Marx. I'm fairly sure that MH could go through Day's work and find faults based on his perspective; in the same way as Day can go through MH's work and find faults based on his perspective. But we couldn't conclude that Day hasn't read Marx just because MH would say he's weak on this or that aspect of Marx/ism. Day is generally good and I love redsails but he's not a final authority.
We all have to focus on something when we talk or write, which means deciding what to leave out. We all take different things from texts, too. It's a bit futile to conclude that someone else is wrong or hasn't understood something/anything just because they emphasise something different in an article or talk or take something different from a text than someone else.
Even some great Marxists have erred, spotted their errors, and changed their views. Including Marx and Engels. A more recent pair is Hindess and Hurst, who followed up a strong tract with an 'auto-critique'. Some go the other way, like Kautsky. It's dangerous territory to proclaim that someone isn't a Marxist or hasn't even read Marx on the basis of one-sided criticisms that emphasise errors or slips of which the writer/speaker may be aware. At the very least, we need to hear from the other side.
As for MH advocating reforms to reverse imperialism and return to industrial capitalism, I don't necessarily see it. There's another viable interpretation if you begin with the premise that MH knows Marx. Something like, for domestic progress to be made in the US, the US is going to have to retreat from neoliberal finance capitalism and move through a reindustrialisation phase under a socialist government as in China. Unless he's explicitly ruling out socialist governance, I see no reason to conclude that he must misunderstand the historical chronology.
I also don't see the issue with framing neoliberalism as a choice. There are a lot of factors that go in to making that choice, and there are myriad decision-makers. But it's not inevitable. If it's not a choice, the implication is that socialists may as well not bother fighting for a different future.
Advocating for a political economy with a better balance of industry/finance does not imply a belief that it's possible by flicking a switch like turning on a light. From what I've seen, I have no reason to believe that MH is a light-switcher.
Again, maybe I'm missing something, but I wouldn't be confident in claiming that MH thinks reindustrialisation is possible in the US as the US is currently constituted. I would give him more credit and assume he knows that shifting to a Chinese-style political economy entails massive change.
I encourage you to listen to his geopolitical hours with a critical lense. I have found great errors in the past ones, but I decided to listen to the recent interview with Jill Stein. He seems to think Stein actually has a chance of winning the election with the dissimilarity of Biden and Trump. They suggest the US is not currently democratic but previously was. They also imply that if elected, Jill Stein could legislate out neoliberalism and bring back good jobs (as under industrial capitalism!?). Desai think Stein could fundamentally change the nature of the state. Read state and rev lmao. I’m still listening, but it’s a little off. They really sound like social democrats far more than any Marxist, and I don’t even know if Hudson calls himself a Marxist.
Edit: who’s his audience that makes it ok with the Nazi website someone mentioned above?
I'll take a listen if I can. But I'm not sure how much domestic US politics I can stomach.
Desai tends to be good, too. She says a few things that make me wince. I thought she was a Trotskyist. Her book is based on Trotsky's lines on uneven and combined development, although she keeps the praise kind of academic. Like Trotsky is just a good source/starting point for this idea. But then when I hear here speak, I get the impression she isn't overly keen on China/AES, hence the stronger Trotskyist vibes. A lot of academic 'Marxists' are like this.
Remember that my claim was that Hudson had clearly read Marx. You challenged that claim. I'm not arguing that he is or claims to me a Marxist. I'm not trying to 'defend' further than to say that his economic analyses shouldn't be ignored. I'm arguing that there is evidence to suggest that he has read Marx. Maybe that is only Theories of Surplus Value, maybe more, but Hudson has almost certainly read Marx.
Edit: who’s his audience that makes it ok with the Nazi website someone mentioned above?
Come on now, let's keep this in good faith. I was responding to your comment, not theirs, and in a different context. My point was that if Hudson is in an interview with e.g. Norton, assuming a US audience interested in a different view but which usually gets it's news from other US sources, he might appropriately say things trying to persuade the audience that XYZ is a good idea, leaving it to the audience to decide how to implement that idea. We're talking about an audience that largely doesn't seem to understand that neoliberalism isn't the only option. It's going to need a lot of work to shift the overton window.
I thought she was a Trotskyist.
They’re both at best trots.
I’m arguing that there is evidence to suggest that he has read Marx.
Maybe he’s read a little bit of Marx. He doesn’t seem to put it into practice. He basically has is own niche fusion of MMT, Keynesianism, and seeing China working without understanding that much.
Come on now, let’s keep this in good faith.
Fair, he might be assuming Geopolitical Economy Report people are baby leftists or something, but honestly I’m not sure if that assessment’s true. Plus they go in depth a lot of the time and idk if they’re expecting the same people to understand. Anyway, the nazi website including his rhetoric is inexcusable.
Imo its an L take, sure there are some childish hexbearers but there are many more promoting reading theory and organizing, they are actually very deep into das Kapital. Its a big community..
Although its kind of fun to poke our hexbear comrades from time to time.
the post in question only has 20 something upbeats, and like 60 comments
hexbear is suddenly a united front umbrella group and we all agree all the time.
Yay, he’s right. He’s a little too online, but principled. I may be why he knows about hexbear. Idk what he said about JT, but it was probably reasonable. I have my own criticisms of him, but he’s overall positive. Also, Hudson’s a total revisionist. I struggled against that stance and was defeated.
Idk what he said about JT, but it was probably reasonable.
If you don't know what he said, why would you just assume it was "probably reasonable"?
I don't know much about either of these guys, but that just seems like a weird position to take.
Day has a good track record, and I can think of a handful of things to criticize JT for? Knowing it’s the MMT video I’m even more convinced.
Ok, and so what?
Are we just doing hero worship now?
"This guy said something I liked once, so now I'm just going to assume that anything he says is good"
Come on
No, it’s not hero worship. It was a reasonable and correct deduction. I have criticisms of Roderic, but I have argued against and been convinced to support his position against MMT and Micheal Hudson.
The MMT Video of JT... R.D crit-sesh'd him....
I have no idea what that's about, but that's not the point I'm trying to make.
The point is that it's weird to go "I have no idea what this guy said, but it was probably reasonable". That really shouldn't be controversial?
"No investigation, no right to speak" and all that jazz
I think he expects too much from what at its foundation is a link aggregation website.
What he expects is for the western left to take itself more seriously if it's to have any success at all, and dodging critique by hiding behind "it's a site for memes" isn't doing any good to anyone that actually wants change.
Not "expecting too much" from a link aggregation site is like not expecting too much from any western communists. The masses are online and online spaces are not separated from "real" life like that. No one is saying we can't have any fun, but at the end of the day If we don't take ourselves seriously why should anyone else take us seriously.
While I do find lemmygrad a bit better than hexbear in regards to this, it also still has an abundance of low effort meme posts and a lack of serious discussion.
It's not about individual comms, and there is, of course, a place for being silly. The problem is that the "silliness" "spreads" to the entire site. Look at how people are "arguing" against Roderic's point on the hexbear thread about it, in what's supposedly a comm for critiquing bad takes. Most of the comments are random jokes, and most of the actual written out ones are blatant lies, strawman arguments, or similar (some of the really bad ones did get removed as far as I can tell). The same exact tactics anti-communists regularly use to shit on AES states or our ideology in general.
The actual origin of it is western anti-intellectualism which we have to overcome in our organizing. Of course hexbear won't be a vanguard, but we're not doing our job as communists if don't fight against these tendencies.
Lemmygrad is a more serious site, I agree, and that's why I use it instead of hexbear. However, I do still think we can improve. I've noticed a decline in the frequency of the type of theory discussion posts that I really liked when first coming to lemmygrad, and an increase in low effort posts, probably coinciding with the reddit exodus last year.
One thing I really like here is that certain matters are considered settled in the lemmygrad community. For example, each time a new "is Russia imperialist?" thread pops up, prople quickly link to past threads with excellent answers or post another version of those answers. I just think we could do that sort of thing - debate, come to a conclusion, adopt it as our stance backed by our arguments and proper sources, and present it when asked - with many more topics which still just "hang in the air" somewhat.
I am not sure what taking itself more seriously entails. What would a serious Western left Lemmy instance look like to you? Is there any other website in this domain that you point to for inspiration?
Doesn't specifically have to be a lemmy instance, but any online communist space could be a serious place where anti-intellectualism is not tolerated, and where discussions with proper sourcing could lead to actual debate where certain issues are actually settled. Instead, now you have most people just yelling out their opinions with no sources, not bothering to actually engage with the counterpoints being made, and any criticism is taken as a personal attack and kts substance is ignored. No actual debate is being held, and any issues that come up stay unresolved and get brought up again and again with the same results.
What communists in the past did in newspapers and journals, we should be doing online.
The communists who were doing that in newspapers and journals were on the forefront of organizing, they were actually learning and developing new things to write about. the western left hasn't even digested the lessons of the past, it won't be them who suddenly develops into the vanguard of revolutionary theory and ideological innovation.
Those communits weren't somehow "at the forefront of organizing" before, and then decided to start publishing articles. They became the forefront of organizing by publishing these articles, having these debates, and putting the things they figured out into practice. This is a centeal thesis of Lenin's What is to be Done?
Yes, the current western left is not going to form a vanguard tomorrow, conditions will still need to change. But at some point a vanguard will need to be formed by western communists, no one else can do it for us. These barriers aren't permanent, and they can be overcome. A part of that includes ideological struggle and debate within communist spaces.
Sure those things were happening simultaneously but most of those folks spent all their lives organizing with real people who had much more similar class interests to them, and the media dissemination was a part of it. The largest periods of writing and publishing were often in exile from state repression. It was through their actual organizing and life experience that they had the position to be writing and debating such things. A bunch of westerners who have barely struggled for anything in their life, who benefit immensely from systems of oppression and don't have the same class interests as the majority of workers in the world, and self identify as communists but still choose to spend more time online than trying to organize in the real world, are not the people who will be forming a vanguard which also might not ever actually be formed. There is no promise that a vanguard must develop in any nation, especially the imperial core.
My point is mostly to highlight the reasons why I don't think you can create such an online space that will be very active, because the majority of people online who self identify as communists have no reasons for a space like this, they are looking to socialize and shitpost with a certain aesthetic. The .0001% of westerners who would want such a space without the casual elements would be such a small community of people that there probably wouldn't be enough going on in such a space to make it active enough and couching such a thing in a place like lemmygrad or hexbear seems like a better move than trying to remove the casual elements and have a purely studious, serious organizing space online.
I mean hexbear is just one online place. It's not like the revolution depends on how hexbear is operating. Same for Lemmygrad. If I look at my own work for our party I think my real life efforts are endlessly more important than the shitposts I make on Lemmygrad. To me he comes off as a bit sour because he sees people having fun and he decides that's a problem to him lol. Sure, we could turn this place into a discussion board majority only but I have a feeling that we will be without users at the end of the year. Discussion is always welcome of course and we encourage it even. Everyone is free to ask whatever they want.
Exactly, I often tell this to my friends; the reason you cant find my views on youtube or whatever is because people like me are actually out here doing shit in real life; you should be sus of people whos entire grift is posting online, they are likely detatched from reality.
He's talked several times about creating such a space, and why not? We are experimenting many things still, maybe this kind of space could work. I take the view that there's always something to learn about anything, whether we like it or not, or whether we intended for it to be a lesson or not.
He's also not entirely against fun and memes, it's just that it's not his thing. I've talked to him in DMs once and he said that's fine with him, it's just not what he's looking for. That's valid too.
I think on some level people think of him to be infallible and the end all be all, but I don't think he claims to be. He's just very present and he makes a lot of good points, which perhaps cultivates this image in the process (which I don't think is intended). I mean that we can have Lemmygrad and Hexbear, and there can also be a third instance that's this more serious, heavier moderation space.
Could it be that the western left prefers spending more time socializing online than seriously undertaking the construction of revolution because of their inherent foundation in a labor aristocracy which benefits more from imperialism and neo-colonialism than it has to gain from destroying capitalism? With most people so socially alienated in the west, coupled with having limited capacity outside of productive and reproductive labor, it isn't hard to imagine that westerners would default to commiserating on the internet over using any free time they have to study, be of service to the masses, and improve themselves. For the west, shit posting on the toilet is much easier than looking in a mirror.
In today's world, socializing online is not some distinct separate thing, it's an integral part of daily life for basically everyone.
Yes, the western masses benefit from imperialism, but they are also exploited and it's the communists job to successfully link the struggles against this exploitation with wider anti-imperialist struggles in the Third World.
It is easier to just sit idly in the status quo, but do you find that to be an acceptable level for communists to be at? We're not talking about the masses in general here, we're talking about self-identified communist spaces. I want and expect more from them, and a critique of their current errors is a first step to changing them.
Personally I don't think it's worth spending the limited energy one has to improve self-identified communist spaces and try to make them more rigorous over trying to organize the masses. Only one of those groups has actual revolutionary potential, and it's not the self-identified online western communists.
Even lenin shitposted in private letters comrade, we shouldnt be expected to be anything in a anon shitposting space.
We will not respond to his silly letters...
dodging critique by hiding behind “it’s a site for memes” isn’t doing any good to anyone that actually wants change
Our political memes should be both funny and a good reflection of our politics; it's right there in the concept itself. Of course you don't hold them to the same standards you would theory, but if the political point is sloppy enough it's just not a very good meme.
That's also setting aside occasions where people are having a substantive discussion and someone cops out with "come on this is just a meme board." That flies some for memes themselves and joke threads, but there are plenty of run-of-the-mill news discussions where that pops up, too.
Well now I'm going to have to spread the rumor that Hexbear is about weird Christian nonsense instead of Marxism.
I'm not really understanding his point in the second screenshot
Someone well worth reading. He grew up in a Trotskyist household. Became a banker/economist. His mentor agreed to mentor him if he read Marx, Theories of Surplus Value and everything cited in it. Hence Hudson's ability to see and explain how bourgeois economics works and why and where it fails/will fail. He wrote a report that made him semi famous and apparently wealthy; later published as a book now in it's third edition, Superimperialism.
Just don't expect a Leninist conclusion of 'that's why we need a revolution and here's how to do it'. He frequently kinda implies that all the bad things will simply disappear due to the weight of capitalist contradictions.
Have to admit, he's hard going even for me, who's read a reasonable amount of political economy. It's the same with his video/audio recordings and writing, tbh. I struggle to follow what he's saying because of the structure. He kind of starts too far into the argument IMO but you can piece things together by the end.
Superimperialism
Kauskyism!
Kind of a weird deviation honestly... I've tried to grasp it but the idea that middle managers are the ultimate bad guys seems to be missing the mark.
He is certainly lacking an understanding of capitalism as a whole system, suggesting reforms to make it run smoother rather than seeing it as a fundamentally flawed and contradictory system.
Maybe I've not read enough of his work, but I haven't interpreted MH as saying that.
He’s always going off about how the US was stupid to have neoliberalism and high debt (the result of the natural evolution of capitalism) and instead they should’ve stayed Keynesian industrial capitalist similar to Germany or China.
I responded to this in my other comment but in addition I agree that neoliberalism was a poor choice. I don't think you can read much into this kind of thing unless you (a) ask for clarification and more detail and/or (b) know who he thinks is the intended audience. I don't think there's much inherently wrong with pointing out the US's missteps. The difference may be in how the message is delivered.
It highly implies it’s best to reform the system into a better “industrial capitalism.” I think a Hudson supporter told me that he thinks a “purer” contradiction between the working and capitalist class could bring about socialism better, which is weird because it never has, that would take too long, and it’s a reactionary position wanting to return from a higher phase of capitalism to a lower one just like liberals (caring about small businesses).
It is, because Kaukyism, the core of this idea is anti-lenin and revisionist against the USSR.
Its a strain of 'othrodox marxism' which basically treats Marx like the bible. It also funnyily enough, while trying to claim no bias ends up inserting the authors own (wrong in my opinion) takes on it.
It is a strain of social democracy, not communism.
I hope I'm not crucified for this but I can't stand this guy. People have made good points about him, and theoretically/intellectually he is brilliant - we all know communists need to be engaged in serious business and not just spam posting memes and hanging out in our circle-jerk platforms.
But is he not a flaming hypocrite? I swear I've read something about how he isn't even involved in an organization because he "just can't find anything serious enough" (this could be a dream on my part tho) - that is just insufferable. There are a few good orgs in the US/Canadian area and it's ridiculous to throw everything out because they don't adhere to page 4858584 line 5 of some obscure Marxist's writing. It seems to me that he dishes out criticism after criticism and spams writings on the internet, engaging in borderline useless beef that doesn't get much traction, all while being... chronically online himself?
I just think that like, anyone who is willing/able to understand/actually applying this level of Marxist thought isn't just sitting online anymore and doesn't need constant "takedowns" because someone said something vaguely wrong. JT makes one iffy MMT video that is literally one of his least effectual creations and dude wets his pants over it. I'm not saying don't criticize but the frequency in which he makes them, combined with his harsh ass wording, combined with the (maybe?) fact that he is not even doing anything serious in real life? Rubs me the wrong way and just paints the stereotypical insufferable communist picture we all know.
He extrapolated very erroneously that anyone said don't read theory here, and although the "you have to be a literal slave to be a commie" is braindead, he seems to latch on to literally anything that could be false and go deboonk mode.
Part of flowing through the masses and being one of them is not being an insufferable nerd. If this guy preaches sincerity and seriousness, then I think we should get serious that this rhetoric and behavior online isn't doing shit other than MAYBE fine-tuning already-ML-aligned people. There's a use for that, but good lord, if he tried this shit in an organization he would be hated. You can't be obnoxious to your comrades or random members of society if you expect anything.
I could be going too harsh here honestly, I just have had these thoughts for quite a while and never really said anything lol. If it is proven true that he is in fact in a real life org then a lot of this would fall through and I would only stand on "stop being annoying" point, but I don't know. You have to be personable and digestible to be an effective communist, not just "I know my shit and you don't and here's why"
Mucho texto over, burn me alive if necessary
Edit: Stawp downvoting me and explainnnnn
I think the problem with the nature of being an online content creator is that is drives people to be polarizing and harsh because that generates clicks. I've never been on social media since like 2015, especially twitter, so I get to avoid the results of such a cycle, but when any comrades clue me in on the latest online leftist gossip it always seems to be some form of this type of thing. Ostensibly principled or politically developed people consciously or subconsciously stirring up internet drama for clicks.
That could be true, and definitely is for a number of "left-wing" creators. I don't know if that's the case for this, though, because he seems to (no hate to him here) really not be that popular? Or content-creator-y? Like he writes essays and critique pieces, he doesn't make videos or whatever and to my knowledge none of this is monetized, so would that even be a motive? I don't know, but either way it's an "ugh" moment lol.
I think there is a lot to say about the brain's reward center motivating a desire for post engagement for any social media user, regardless of their size. Him being a content creator who likely has some inner desire for his work and theories or whatever he he producing to be spread would likely only increase the feeling of reward that the average user gets from a like or a share, since for him it might feel like praxis or education or something that would be extra rewarding. You don't need to be well known or get huge engagements to have a subconscious motivation for more.
I don’t know if he’s doing anything irl, but redsails is pretty good for making theory accessible.
Wodewick.
