Matt goes off live on http://www.twitch.tv/chapotraphouse buy our book: http://www.chapotraphouse.com/book http://www.soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house http://...
I don’t ever watch these, I kinda assumed it was just him spewing nonsense while inebriated because I watched an early one way back and it was pretty much that. Listened to all of this one, he makes some interesting points but I find his assertion that “the contradictions exist but we have no ability to intervene in them” to be quite an anti-Marxist stance tbh.
Studying the contradictions to best know how to intervene, to me, is one of the cornerstones of Marxism. If intervention in the interplay of the contradictions (i.e. the course of history) is impossible, what is the point of party building? What is the point of praxis?
“Sit back and watch the contradictions resolve themselves” flies in the face of Marxism imo. If it’s impossible to impart an effect on how contradictions are resolved, how are they ever resolved? Someone, something, somewhere, is affecting change in the balance of aspects within any given contradiction, otherwise there wouldn’t BE a contradiction.
If this is the kind of stuff he’s putting out all the time I think it’s kind of concerning that so many people seem to eat it up.
He reads (he's posted books on his Twitter), but he's not a voracious reader like he was/used to be.
His primary interest (and what he was getting a degree for) is history. He's big into Civil War history (IIRC, this was in one of the March-April posts). But he's not a political scientist. So what he's ranting about is coming from a sort of "layman" perspective and not an actual theorist/scientist (not sure of what you'd call it) perspective.
This sort of scientific historical determinism was actually really in vogue amongst marxists of the late 19th/early 20th century and you still hear it a lot of it in the way marxists today speak. There is an inevitably of conditions and it’s not for us to force because the conditions aren’t there. Gramsci, for one, was very much critical of this trend in Marxist thinking.
*To clarify my initial response, I was commenting on the marxism in the parent comment. NOT Christman himself or what he’s actually presenting. Christman does not speak of a discernible future, but the opposite, what he’s identifying are the dynamics of our particular social relations in this moment. He’s ready to admit that these are his feelings about the general shape of the future and that he’s uncertain about our ability to adjust that trajectory. This is the exact kind of analysis that you need as a base awareness. From there change what you can’t accept.
I’d also add that I’m sympathetic with the idea of causal determinism and that it’s not incompatible with Marxism or what Matt is saying. Also, Matt hedges that “fine wedges” can be used to dislodge structures at points of friction, and is actually pretty damn Gramscian in recognizing the influence of cultural tendencies in political social realities.
I love Matt and cannot ever not. His willingness to broadcast his thoughts uncut and his lucidity and words are 💋 👌. Deep affection ngl
He’s talked about this before in an earlier vlog but his takes certainly aren’t anti-Marxist. He’s stated that the impetus has to be on building institutions that are powerful enough to supplant bourgeois institutions in times of capitalist crisis rather than trying to predict the oncoming wave and rally everyone for it in the hopes that something happens. A lot of what he says boils down to disengaging from the aesthetics of politics and returning to the material so we can actually do the work necessary to create an revolutionary moment
I don’t ever watch these, I kinda assumed it was just him spewing nonsense while inebriated because I watched an early one way back and it was pretty much that. Listened to all of this one, he makes some interesting points but I find his assertion that “the contradictions exist but we have no ability to intervene in them” to be quite an anti-Marxist stance tbh.
Studying the contradictions to best know how to intervene, to me, is one of the cornerstones of Marxism. If intervention in the interplay of the contradictions (i.e. the course of history) is impossible, what is the point of party building? What is the point of praxis?
“Sit back and watch the contradictions resolve themselves” flies in the face of Marxism imo. If it’s impossible to impart an effect on how contradictions are resolved, how are they ever resolved? Someone, something, somewhere, is affecting change in the balance of aspects within any given contradiction, otherwise there wouldn’t BE a contradiction.
If this is the kind of stuff he’s putting out all the time I think it’s kind of concerning that so many people seem to eat it up.
deleted by creator
Matt has said before - though I'm not sure I believe him - that he never reads books.
He reads (he's posted books on his Twitter), but he's not a voracious reader like he was/used to be.
His primary interest (and what he was getting a degree for) is history. He's big into Civil War history (IIRC, this was in one of the March-April posts). But he's not a political scientist. So what he's ranting about is coming from a sort of "layman" perspective and not an actual theorist/scientist (not sure of what you'd call it) perspective.
*Marxist
Edit: or if you're being serious the word is probably sociologist
intelligent*
ah yes, serious academics, those people out there making it happen
Yet people want to “serve in his army” & “I’m not sure there’s anyone I look up to more than Matt.” Just absolute goofball shit in this thread.
This sort of scientific historical determinism was actually really in vogue amongst marxists of the late 19th/early 20th century and you still hear it a lot of it in the way marxists today speak. There is an inevitably of conditions and it’s not for us to force because the conditions aren’t there. Gramsci, for one, was very much critical of this trend in Marxist thinking.
*To clarify my initial response, I was commenting on the marxism in the parent comment. NOT Christman himself or what he’s actually presenting. Christman does not speak of a discernible future, but the opposite, what he’s identifying are the dynamics of our particular social relations in this moment. He’s ready to admit that these are his feelings about the general shape of the future and that he’s uncertain about our ability to adjust that trajectory. This is the exact kind of analysis that you need as a base awareness. From there change what you can’t accept.
I’d also add that I’m sympathetic with the idea of causal determinism and that it’s not incompatible with Marxism or what Matt is saying. Also, Matt hedges that “fine wedges” can be used to dislodge structures at points of friction, and is actually pretty damn Gramscian in recognizing the influence of cultural tendencies in political social realities.
I love Matt and cannot ever not. His willingness to broadcast his thoughts uncut and his lucidity and words are 💋 👌. Deep affection ngl
He’s talked about this before in an earlier vlog but his takes certainly aren’t anti-Marxist. He’s stated that the impetus has to be on building institutions that are powerful enough to supplant bourgeois institutions in times of capitalist crisis rather than trying to predict the oncoming wave and rally everyone for it in the hopes that something happens. A lot of what he says boils down to disengaging from the aesthetics of politics and returning to the material so we can actually do the work necessary to create an revolutionary moment
Mmm. I guess people see something I don’t in these videos