He seems obsessed that the errors of the USSR and China, or any other self identifying Marxist group/country are due to Marx's theory itself, rather than literally anything else. Really just shows he has no engagement with Marx or most Marxist theorists. Like if he doesn't like MLs theory, you don't have to blame Marx for that lol. Make him go read like Mario Tronti or another autonomist Marxist, or just actually read Marx.
Also, any even remotely decent Marxist should understand that material conditions dominate the reality of all presently and previously existing socialist projects, regardless of their opinions on said projects..
I'd say that's selling ideas a bit short but yeah, there's material and social and ideological conditioning on all systems, and you need a very strong argument to blame stuff on one thinker.
It really annoys him when Marxists point out that his (Utopian/Liberal) theory of revolutionary change has never succeeded in establishing Socialism in the Global North. He knows he can't attack Marxists on material grounds, so he decided to either ignore it or critique it on the basis that it doesn't meet his arbitrary standard of "moral" or "democratic" enough.
his (Utopian/Liberal) theory of revolutionary change has never succeeded in establishing Socialism in the Global North
Neither has any sort of literal revolutionary (as in, protracted people's war) socialism. There's ample opportunity for critique when nothing has worked in the Global North.
deleted by creator
He seems obsessed that the errors of the USSR and China, or any other self identifying Marxist group/country are due to Marx's theory itself, rather than literally anything else. Really just shows he has no engagement with Marx or most Marxist theorists. Like if he doesn't like MLs theory, you don't have to blame Marx for that lol. Make him go read like Mario Tronti or another autonomist Marxist, or just actually read Marx.
Also, any even remotely decent Marxist should understand that material conditions dominate the reality of all presently and previously existing socialist projects, regardless of their opinions on said projects..
I'd say that's selling ideas a bit short but yeah, there's material and social and ideological conditioning on all systems, and you need a very strong argument to blame stuff on one thinker.
He writes extensively about how bad many other things are, and publishes a magazine and runs a podcast that boosts other people doing the same thing.
For example, he wrote an entire book on how bad Clinton-era democrats were on amplifying racial disparities in criminal justice.
It really annoys him when Marxists point out that his (Utopian/Liberal) theory of revolutionary change has never succeeded in establishing Socialism in the Global North. He knows he can't attack Marxists on material grounds, so he decided to either ignore it or critique it on the basis that it doesn't meet his arbitrary standard of "moral" or "democratic" enough.
Neither has any sort of literal revolutionary (as in, protracted people's war) socialism. There's ample opportunity for critique when nothing has worked in the Global North.
You know why...
Uh same reason he thought a law degree from Yale the best thing he could do?