Don’t know why he wastes time criticizing him since JT doesn’t do anything wrong. Also really funny that him and other commenters are complaining about The Deprogram being like Chapo.
Upon deeper research, it turns out Day used to post on the subreddit to dunk on BadEmpanada, which is funny since Day himself has strong BadEmpanada vibes.
I like JT generally but I agree with Roderic here. In context, that video is just responding directly to the bullshit debt ceiling, but it's limitations are built into the framework of trying to speak how capitalism fans understand. MMT is not just a small step or so but a major distraction in many ways.
Class power is hidden by MMT in both idea and in action. It's usefulness will always be limited to a way which is less beneficial to the working class than to capitalists because it undermines/restructures nothing.
My point here is not that it's ontologically wrong or so but that it's a harmful distraction from better paths forward to win. I think there are some concessions which are worth fighting for, and these are all directly fought for. MMT is something one can argue for to reach those concessions, and possibly get some of them, but leads to only misunderstandings among the working class for HOW those concessions are won. Edit: my point about distractions is that not all concessions are distractions, only the concessions which aren't directly related to any material gain. MMT is a method of getting concessions which I find entirely tangential to any real power
The bourgeoisie won't give concessions, MMT or not, without the other much more important things to discuss and push for, like class struggle
I guess from my point of view, it's about boosting confidence in the world that lies on the other side of the revolution. As Marx predicted and the USSR and PRC showed, you can't just completely rearrange society at the snap of a finger, you need some practical economic program to keep everything running until the transition to full communism can be worked out.
Capitalist theory is that money is a mysterious unknowable etheric substance that dances at the whim of the invisible hand, whereas MMT shows that money is simply an organizing tool that a government can consciously control and use to shape and grow the economy intentionally, and actually has been since its invention. And that ultimately, the only 'real' things in an economy are workers, tools and resources.
But, I can see why it would be considered a distraction from outright class struggle if it's presented as a technocratic solution to capitalism's problems, but then again it's incompatible with finance capitalism which needs money to be a scarce resource to squeeze arbitrage from. So even implementing MMT under present capitalism would require such a radical change in economic structure, like the complete abolishment of all private lending institutions, that (to someone with political awareness) it's obviously impossible in the face of financial capital's political power to just 'vote it in'. Anyone still believing in bourgeoise democracy has bigger brainworms to fry, and whichever technocratic solution they happen to cling to is just a matter of aesthetics. Conversely, someone who sees the total futility of electoral politics, even the necessity of revolution, may be disheartened by a lack of a solid theory on how the world afterwards could be constructed from the materials actually available today.
China makes use of MMT ideas, and has full state control of all its banks. Also, one user on here was looking into similarities between MMT and the economic system that Stalin set up during and after WW2 - which was later dismantled by Krushchev to disastrous results - but I never saw the results of their research. It's also similar to how Marx saw capitalism tending to socialism*, through the industrialisation of finance (bank managers becoming industrial engineers), rather than what actually happened in the imperial core, the financialisation of industry (industrial engineers focusing entirely on profit for the next quarter). So, one could reasonably present it as a proletarian economic theory [of the transition phase to communism], in contrast to the provably inferior neoliberalism - which developed inevitably from imperialism, which developed inevitably from monopoly capitalism, which developed inevitably from the "pure and noble" competitive industrial capitalism that bourgeoise apologists always refer back to.
(*or gaining features of socialism that it nevertheless could not use to their full extent, such as nationalized infrastructure and the welfare state)
I fully understand the concern that talking about MMT might create a negative pressure against class consciousness, but I personally think the positive pressure from a greater understanding of economic systems outweighs that. At least, it's something that a revolutionary organisation should take firmly in hand, putting it in its proper place as a useful tool subsumed under the banner of class war. I don't think it should be discarded, and I think that would be more of a problem than talking about it too much, even vulgarly in the context of current capitalist crises.
I like this response, though I still think that what you said hasn't fully contradicted my point and we are in fact not to the root of the problem if you support MMT right now. We must take the time aspect into account for sure (it's not pressing now but may be later?). What does MMT do except for describe the way the bourgeoisie already use the American economy? MMTers support the idea that this should be expanded and used for proletarians, and that's noble. But it ignores that MMT on a global scale does not hold up unless the currency is trusted/insured and there is an external economy against which the currency can be weighed. That requires a big military usually. Even 2 proletarian countries can't allow the other to utilize MMT to somehow gain more in trade against the other.
Begin here: what use in do MMT methods have in a closed system economy? Money can be printed to provide the ability to have more purchasing power to a select group relative to the rest. That's useful, though won't happen without the power of the state. Which means it's currently only useful to capitalists. It's why MMT can be used to radicalize (make people understand how it's already used for bourgeois interests) but I find it less effective than Marxism and Philosophically in poverty.
Now make the system not closed but open to trade with another country. MMT methods can be used to allow the printing and inflation to follow specific time lengths and patterns to allow the extra importation of goods from one country to the other. The losing country will lose trust in the currency though. Either you force that country to continue or start playing nice again and not using monetary theories offensively.
My point here being: the only reason MMT is useful is it allows redistribution by a ruling class (which we hope to be proletarian), but with money and without the need to directly take the goods from those which we want to have less. I guess it's fine, but it's just hiding the root of the process behind a curtain still. I think it's fine to theorize in the best ways to act as a government, but I don't think even a socialist government really NEEDS to use this, and first world countries can only be led astray/into doing unequal trade in damaging ways by trying to use MMT in any foreseeable timeframe.
I think the root of this disagreement is the misunderstanding of what MMT actually is. It's certainly not how the bourgeoisie currently use the economy - exactly the opposite in fact, because the US economy is almost completely controlled by finance capital i.e. those using debt to extract money in an M-M cycle (and cutting out the commodity form M-C-M of industrial capital). Implementing MMT - I should say, the productive insights of MMT - requires the government, or a government-controlled central bank, to be the only one capable of creating and lending money. It would do so solely for the purpose of mobilizing workers and resources, not to extract interest on debt payments.
Because it no longer needs to make a profit, it can also write off debts if paying them down becomes impossible or would damage the real economy. China, where the banks are directly controlled by the government, did exactly this - a steel plant built using a government loan became unprofitable during the pandemic, so they simply wrote off or wrote down or froze the loan (I forget which) and kept the plant and its workers ticking over until demand rose again. Whereas, in the US, the plant would have been scrapped and its components sold off to pay its creditors. And the US government would have been powerless to stop it, indeed would not have even tried, because finance capital is the ruling class. It's true that the US already kind-of knows it has unlimited money when paying for military spending, but even then large chunks of that are spent by defense contractors on stock buybacks to inflate their worth so financialization is taking its cut there too.
Foreign trade, unequal exchange etc. are on a completely different axis. MMT is only concerned with mobilizing resources within the region that the government has monetary sovereignty over. The US ability to demand resources from other economies is due to the dollar being the world reserve currency, the most stable commodity for storing wealth in while trading, which is ultimately due to the US' prime position after WW2, its (then-)enormous industrial capacity and its overwhelming military power. This is what enabled US monetary imperialism - because trade was only done in dollars, in order for small countries to buy necessary goods, they must have dollars. And the only place to get those dollars were US financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank.
If those countries had had the tools and resources to run a self-sustaining economy, including producing enough goods for international exchange to cover things they couldn't produce themselves, they could have implemented MMT and been independent the whole time. Instead, they're slaves to the dollar debt from the IMF and World Bank that they needed in order to buy in necessary goods from other countries. And the conditions of those dollar loans are always the same - austerity and tax cuts, the exact opposite of what MMT suggests. So they're backed into a corner, desperately trading anything they can for dollars to get the food and medicine they've been forbidden from producing themselves, and their goods can be bought cheap by multinationals to sell on at an inflated price in the imperial core.
But this doesn't address class war, except in that the ruling capitalist class will obviously never allow it to be used to its full potential - which is why I suggest it as just one weapon in a Marxist party's arsenal. But others in this thread seem to be treating it like an ideological position rather than what it is, a scientific description of money, and more importantly one that is (to the moderate extent that I have investigated it) true. Like, it's just true that money is created from thin air by governments at the moment they spend it and then destroyed when it is taxed back. It's true that a government can create as much money as it wants, as long as that money serves to increase the forces of production. These are facts that any communist government will have to reckon with, and past and present communist governments seem to have done so already, to their advantage.
However, while writing this and reading other comments, I've realised that maybe I actually am the one missing something. My understanding comes almost entirely from Michael Hudson, who has definitely read and refers constantly to Marx, especially Capital vol. 2 and 3, but then another poster said he isn't an 'MMT guy' and that MMT isn't Marxist. And I haven't read anything from any of the other 'MMT guys', from which I'm gathering there is some kind of classic liberal ideological component that this could be done under capitalism if government officials just had the right ideas. But somehow or other I've been shown the scientific model above, and had it empirically verified to my satisfaction - including its usefulness to a revolutionary government - so while I'm no longer sure whether or not it's called MMT I still believe it's a useful, even vital, thing for communists to know about.
My "how the bourgeoise use it now" means this: for entities that the state wants to keep afloat and give larger portions of the pie, it does anyways. MMT as I understand it gives no prescriptions, but describes a framework for understanding monetary theory as it already is but economists don't realize. I agree that this description is fine for what it is, and can even be used to describe socialist governments in low level socialism (China, NEP, etc). What I disagree with is that it's doing anything more than describing and giving fake prescriptions based on that.
I'm not super familiar with Hudson, honestly. I read about imperialism from him (Super Imperialism) but not MMT.
I'm not done here but need to put down my phone for a bit. I'll be back later ti complete this post lol
What I meant about the describing and prescriptions is this: mmt can describe how money comes into existence in a state-monetary relation. The idea that this has implications beyond is not getting closer to a truth about money but getting further from a truth about production and social reproduction. It may be a proletarian idea, but it's firmly based in a finance-capital world where the root of money is seen as having prescriptions outside of the simple analysis of the goods/services/needs produced, moved, and used.
MMT can show the absurdity of a rich country not purchasing more for cheap and spreading it out to prevent poverty locally. It still requires a production outside of the money relation though. Coupling these 2 makes it possibly Marxist (or at least connected to materialism) but that is not the focus of MMT research
Look I don't know how useful or "good" is it to be extremely aggro on twitter/nitter like Roderic usually is, but he's right.
I can never really fault him for it, it's a dumb social media and there's not much point to it if you don't actually engage with people and are able to criticize what they say, especially when talking about influencial people with a platform. And yea, he's very aggro, but his original response is not really directed at JP as a person, just angry and critical at the ideas he's peddling, and for good reason.
JP's reponse is a pretty typical one for western leftists. Criticism is seen as an attack, it is always reinterpreted in an individualistic lens. Attacking someone's really dumb or dangerous idea is immediately rolled back with "woah there calm down maybe you could be civil" as if the person criticizing is being mean, rude, or violent, when often (as is the case here) that's not the case. If you're going to talk about political things and ideas like there, and someone tells you publically "This is completely wrong and dangerous what the fuck", your response shouldn't be "Why are you attacking me?". Criticism is not a conflict, it's not a fight, it's not personal, and it is extremely important and necessary.
I think RD is being a bit too debatebroish with this. I just watched JTs video and didn't really see anything wrong with it, I don't think he's presenting it as this end all be all solution, just as a tool to get us to communism. He also made it clear he's aware that MMT would have severe limitations in a capitalist state.
I just watched JTs video and didn't really see anything wrong with it, I don't think he's presenting it as this end all be all solution, just as a tool to get us to communism.
my understanding is MMT doesn't work in countries outside the imperial core because they don't have currency sovereignty. MMT theorists are basically describing the USA leveraging its dollar hegemony.
I've been saying this for a while. If a country does not have a highly sovereign project or the ability to influence things such as credit ratings agencies, implementing MMT and printing money is a recipe for credit ratings downgrades, investment withdrawal, sanctions and hyperinflation/currency devaluation. And most countries in the global south do not have a sovereign project or have even begun the process of delinking from the imperial core. Even those in the global south that view MMT as a viable economic strategy place huge emphasis on delinking in order to solve the problem of sovereignty.
Look what happened when the MMT proponents got ahold of things in Greece. It failed rather quickly and buckled back into neoliberal economics because Greece has no sovereignty, it's an EU vassal
Yeah that's a good point, the video was pretty US centric tho but yeah I agree MMT doesn't make sense for a huge chunk of countries.
he's aware that MMT would have severe limitations in a capitalist state
MMT is only coherent under a capitalist state. It's incoherent under a communist state, a communist state doesn't have monetary theory or money. A socialist transition state, ie. a dictatorship of the proletariat should be more concerned with the final outcomes of social policies and less concerned with costs and money printing, increasing planned portions of the economy when possible.
So basically.... it's either incoherent or extremely limited and reformist and we should move past it very rapidly in a dictatorship of the proletariat in a modern capitalist state that doesn't have to build productive forces or bide time. OK, I'm not really that interested.
ie. a dictatorship of the proletariat should be more concerned with the final outcomes of social policies and less concerned with costs and money printing, increasing planned portions of the economy when possible.
I don't really see how MMT by itself goes against this. As I see it MMT would just be a framework for how you're allocating physical resources, I don't see how it'd stop you from implementing good social policies in a socialist country.
Also how would a transition period look like according to you before you can actually implement a planned economy?
he's kinda right, MMT is just social democracy with a hat on. In fact, I don't see how it's even much different from Keynesianism that even Liberals almost universally accepted until the Neoliberal era of Reagan
He's right, but JT's role is selling baby leftists on Marxist topics. A big part of that is convincing people a better world is possible. Roderic is just an overzealous dick. Should save his energy for radlibs.
Lots of places in the world don’t require a baby succ stage and people just get trained in Marxism right away. Why can’t we just do that and skip the cringe stage?
Because we live at the center of the imperial world where the first step is even getting people to think about things like they are an imperial system, let alone how we in the imperial core are getting fucked by that imperial system.
That being said, Day is completely correct here. But that doesn't mean that JT is wrong.
We’ve been trying the succ dem slow pipeline for 200 years in the West and it hasn’t worked. Maybe it’s time for a different strategy than slowly “waking” up Liberals with social democracy, because all evidence shows that most just remain social democrats
Oh, and you're saying a Maoist style insurgency has worked incredibly well in the imperial core as well?
None of these strategies have 'worked'. But one of them gets people in the pipeline, the other doesn't do jack diddly shit unless you are already there. Getting people to even think about this stuff critically at all is a win and if you don't think it is, I highly suggest you go and talk to some people outside of the leftie political sphere, who have zero idea of what any of this shit is.
Where did I suggest Maoist insurgency? Is that really the only options in your view? Guerrilla war immediately or succ dem reformism?
The high water mark of leftism in the west was during the Great Depression when there was a large and powerful unionized working class involved in a central Marxist party, a party that worked with the global proletarian movements abroad. That is the style to emulate, not weatherman adventurism or Berniecrat social imperialism
No, I'm being flippant, which isn't helpful. I'm sorry, I've been unnecessarily combative.
Reform or radicalism will not come until there is a consequential enough war-tien deprivation to actually affect the generalized working class in the U.S., whatever form it takes. Currently, modern unions will roll over if they receive even a portion of the pressure that they received in the 30's. They can make all noise they want, which is good, but they are not going reach anything close to a 'high water mark' unless the actual historical material circumstances support it. They can and historically have, been bought off. Maybe it could support a previously unknown radicalism of MMT socdems, maybe it could support a core Maoist resurgence, maybe it could support a radical unionism. My personal belief is that it will come from emergent historical forms of organizations, but we just don't know which ones yet, so it is pointless to fight about it.
Ultimately and personally, I think the Marxist view of the monetary economy is superior and more historically analytical, but I also genuinely don't think it matters that much where we are at this point historically. Personally, I've been able to turn many libertarian socialists into more Marxist thinkers using MMT as an entry point into structured economics. It's not an entry point for libs or socdems, it's an entry point for libertarian socialists. I support your view here, it would be nice if JT self-crits and discusses those problems in a later post. I just don't think we're at a point it matters to argue about it, imo any systemic thinking 'at all' is good. Propoganda is propoganda is propoganda. I could be wrong though.
Oh, and you're saying a Maoist style insurgency has worked incredibly well in the imperial core as well?
Maoist style Protracted People's War isn't the only alternative to social democracy, nor is Maoist PPW really intended as a strategy for imperial core nations anyway.
Not to debate the larger point but actualy yeah the most successfull and theatening to the status quo socialist movement in the US, the Black Panther Party, was organized mostly along Maoist lines and influences in practice
people just get trained in Marxism right away. Why can’t we just do that and skip the cringe stage?
A multitude of strategies is a good thing. Different tactics work on different people.
We’ve been trying the succ dem slow pipeline for 200 years in the West and it hasn’t worked.
Tell that to all the people here who started their journey to radicalization because of
Show. Also, JT doesn't advocate for succdemery, he explicitly states it's not socialism and actual socialism is what's needed. The fact remains, one of the best strategies for getting people in the core to even begin questioning the water they've been swimming in their entire lives is to meet them where they're at, then go from there.
MMT is social democracy, they are pretty much interchangeable concepts
I admit I don't know enough about MMT and am willing to learn about where I'm wrong. But from my limited understanding, MMT is narrowly just theory about how economics works without anything prescriptive to say about revolution. You can recognize that MMT explains a lot of the things that western "economists" are utterly blind to (and outright refuse to look at) and still be a dedicated Marxist/ML. Doesn't even Michael Hudson talk a lot about MMT? Should we write him off as not worth paying attention to because of that?
I don't know what JT's views are on MMT, and I am skeptical it even matters. But I do know he's not a social democrat, he's a radical Marxist and has openly and frequently said so. If I remember right, even said so here during the last AMA.
MMT is narrowly just theory about how economics works without anything prescriptive to say about revolution.
Exactly, it’s talking about how capitalist economics work and how to best exploit your working class under capitalism. Keynesian spending is good for capitalists in the long term, but their short term interests are outweighing their long term ones.
I don’t see the utility in convincing a bunch of people in the imperial core that they should be investing more into the long term interests of the western bourgeoisie. That they should be concerned about stabilizing capitalism and reforming it.
I don’t see the utility in convincing a bunch of people in the imperial core that they should be investing more into the long term interests of the western bourgeoisie. That they should be concerned about stabilizing capitalism and reforming it.
I completely agree. I just don't think that the dude who runs Second Thought is doing that. That channel is among the best there is, if not the best, for getting liberals to start considering things outside of their bullshit worldview. The guy is as at least as radical as most people here, but he's cognizant of the fact that the typical western libs aren't capable of going from supporting "the lesser evil" blue team to calling for a protracted people's war against the US. Pipelines are real, and JT as well as the other Deprogram boys have made an excellent opening for people to jump into it, people who would otherwise just scoff at anything that seems to resemble gommulism.
I think communists should not conceal their views or hide their intentions. I don't support the idea of teaching liberals a fake capitalist middleground ideology as a transition to ours. It's cynical and false. It muddles discourse and makes us look duplicitous and like we don't even know our own ideology or believe in it ourselves.
I think all of that is a gross mischaracterization of what he's doing. Have you watched his videos or listened to The Deprogram podcast? None of what you said is required to meet people where they are at. As I said upthread, I think it's best to have a multitude of different approaches. But to act like going immediately from "socialism is when the government does stuff" to "Death to America" is the only correct way of introducing people to concepts and realities that they have been taught to despise and reject since they were old enough to speak, is naive at best. (Btw, they often say "Death to America" on The Deprogram, only it gets bleeped just barely enough that they won't get instantly banned from every podcast platform.)
If a purported Marxist is advocating for MMT, a non-Marxist concept, either that Marxist is lying or confused. Neither looks good.
Alright, like I said, maybe I need to learn more about MMT, but as I've understood it so far, it's a way of understanding the nuts and bolts of what's actually going on with things like inflation, dollar hegemony, etc. It's not contradicting Marxism at all, just delving into the ridiculous cult-religion of neoliberal economics and attempting to materially explain all those things that are taboo to classic western economists. It's not a refutation of a Marxist concept of economy and it's not advocating for social democracy. Do you think Michael Hudson is lying or do you think he's confused, or is what he talks about not actual MMT?
because all evidence shows that most just remain social democrats
Two things about this
- Them being social democrats is still probably a marked improvement on whatever they were before. Having more people advocating for social programs is not bad. Even if they are not Marxists.
- The number of people who move from the pipeline from social democrat to communist is not immaterial. The other poster mentioned former Berniecrats who are now communists and you ignored it. And the amount of "I used to be a liberal, then I started watching Contra points, now I'm a communist and I hate her" Ive seen is pretty remarkable. Like that wasnt my journey (I was a communist before Breadtube or leftist podcasts were even really a thing, my radicalization was more social in nature) but its still apretty common one. Just saying "it hasn't worked" when it demonstrably has for a not insignificant number of people is strange to me.
For the record, I'm not advocating AGAINST trying a more agressive strategy where we try to pipeline people without a stop at the socdem counter. But diversity of tactics is fine. Folks like JT are not useless and definitly aren't doing harm.
(ik I said disengage on the other topic, but this is a new topic, but please dont get aggressive again)
Them being social democrats is still probably a marked improvement on whatever they were before. Having more people advocating for social programs is not bad. Even if they are not Marxists.
I disagree specifically for western imperialist nations. Social imperialism is a particularly pernicious and stable form of imperialism that shares the stolen spoils with the entire imperial population, making revolution and anti-imperialism more difficult. Social Democracy is a superior form of capitalism that is more stable and more likely to defeat communist projects and competently manage empire without internal crises.
The number of people who move from the pipeline from social democrat to communist is not immaterial. The other poster mentioned former Berniecrats who are now communists and you ignored it. And the amount of "I used to be a liberal, then I started watching Contra points, now I'm a communist and I hate her" Ive seen is pretty remarkable. Like that wasnt my journey (I was a communist before Breadtube or leftist podcasts were even really a thing, my radicalization was more social in nature) but its still apretty common one. Just saying "it hasn't worked" when it demonstrably has for a not insignificant number of people is strange to me.
Lets the succ dems preach the succ. Communists should be preaching communism. That way our hands don't get tainted by their shit when it hurts the global proletariat over and over. The pipeline could still happen without communists lying and pretending to be social democrats. We don't need to do their social imperialist work for them. JT is a communist right? A marxist? Why is he spreading non-marxist concepts?
I basically agree with the second part actually, communists should probably not waste their time that way. You make a good point.
But as a disabled person who relies on social programs to have housing, food, and healthcare, I find the idea that policies that help vulnerable people in western imperialist nations are actually a bad thing because it stabilizes capitalism a particularly toxic idea that I see far too often. The idea that people like me should be made to suffer more so that communism can happen sooner seems outright sociopathic to me. And I've never understood the argument.
And don't tell me that barely surviving on barely functioning social programs is me enjoying the spoils of the third world. I'm not living the high life lol. I'm living a terrible existence actually.
Like, be honest with your intentions here. Do I deserve housing, food, and healthcare NOW. Or should I wait until communism happens (which probably wont happen in my lifetime, especially if I dont have housing, food, and healthcare) to have those things?
I think communists should should focus on doing things that help the proletariat in their countries, to win over those people. Whether thats direct action/mutual aid or by advocating for social programs. Like I'll tell you honestly, when I hear communists say things about this about the social programs that I require to live, I do not feel cared for by my comrades. I feel abandoned and set aside. If we aren't fighting to make things better for the vulnerable, then what is the point of all this? Obvbiously the real way to help the vulnerable a communist revolution, but I dont see whats wrong with making things better in the short term as well.
If worrying about my own material conditions and ability to survive is a bad thing, I'd love to know why. Because I literally would not be alive without social programs.
Where did I ever say communists shouldn't advocate for social programs? I'm not disparaging or abandoning anyone. Of course Marxists should organize and agitate for these programs, but they should do so because they are a human right and in our material class interests and not because of fabricated MMT nonsense. Ideally they should be planned and administered for free, regardless of any costs or monetary policy. If capitalism reaches crisis because it's unable to sustain all the social programs we need, we should take that time to push past the contradictions of capitalism and force through the programs anyway. Basically, MMT lies and obscures class conflict whereas Marxism prepares us for it. One says we can have our cake and eat it too (class peace and proletarian class interests fulfilled), and one tells the truth that the cake will be gone (it will require class war to fulfill proletarian interests).
One, when confronted with economic crisis like the social democrats of Greece in recent years, will balk and buckle. The MMTers will be left flabbergasted and confused by rampant inflation and economic sabotage by the bourgies. The Marxists will be prepared for it and be ready to stomp on their little throats to force what needs to be forced, regardless of what the line was supposed to do within capitalist logic. MMT are stuck inside capitalism and cannot break out of it.
It's my opinion that western nations cannot support all the necessary social programs for its people without imperialist superprofits, and that inability should be confronted directly - ie, we shouldn't lie to everyone and say that there's a magic way we can be both capitalist and have all the things we want! We need to be direct, and be clear that the things we want are not possible in the current arrangement of things so the current arrangement must change.
Sorry, looks like I jumped to a conclusion or misread you then. That sounds good to me.
I don't necessarily disagree with you I just dont think its a message that helps us or gets people on our side. "Your food stamps come from the plundering of the third world" might be technically true (I guess, I think its more clawing back a bit of the plunder that would otherwise just sit in some billionaire's bank account in a tax haven) but if you tell someone that who needs that shit to live you're pretty effectively driving them away and I think is incredibly misguided to call that a selfish impulse. I definitly think western Marxists should advocate for social programs like the other reply to this said, but I also think western Marxists should focus heavily on mutual aid that feeds people in ways that dont rely on the government as well.
I get probably twice as much in snap every month as I actually need to survive
Me too but its not true for most people on snap, particularly poor families. And partially this is only true because of the state I live in. If I was on what the feds give only it would be significantly less the case. Saying this strikes me as welfare queen rhetoric that I dont think we should be engaging in. Also I only have so much extra snap because i'm not able to spend it on hot meals lol. Also I was running out of Snap fairly quickly before the Covid bonus.
I agree that the only reason we get this stuff is to make us complacent. But whenever anyone suggests that maybe Americans would be more revolutationairy if they didnt have these things I just think "how is someone supposed to do revolution if they're starving?" I think of hierarchy of need pyramids here. I don't think its impossible to agitate people on welfare, considering I'm a communist on welfare.
Plus every time this comes up I just tihnk of the guy on the old sub who told me that disabled people on welfare have different class interests that the working class, and cant be comrades. That pissed me off so much.
we're exceptionally lucky to benefit as much from empire as we do
Yes we are, but it its ignorance to expect people to think of that first when their own survival is on the line. And I think its bad messaging. Like maybe we can say it to people who are already at an advanced level but even here, now, there is an instinctual side of me that feels pushed away and uncared for by the narrative. Higher level thinking keeps me away from that but for a lot of people that wont be the case. I think we need to focus on what works here, where we are.
I think people are generally right to not give a shit what happens to americans. we obviously have a vested interest in our own survival but I wouldn't blame anyone who's unapologetic about wanting to bring down the american empire no matter how many american lives it costs.
I can understand having that impulse as an emotional response to the exploitation of empire. But I stand pretty solid in thinking that wanting working class people who do nothing but try to live the best lives they can under a hellish system deserve to die because of where they were born and just because they got lucky on the "where you are born" lottery to be misguided. Maybe I'm being a chauvinist idk. But I don't think it really makes sense to say "you should align yourself with people who think your life is expendable".
still, I don't fully get your horrified reaction calling this kind of logic sociopathic or toxic.
I think saying "worse conditions for the disabled and other vulnerable people are better for creating revolution" is... ok I get it in a way because they're saying "more suffering now for better results later". And I know wanting revolution isnt a selfish cause. So maybe "sociopathic" is a bit far. But I think its fair as an emotional reaction for me to go "you wanting me to suffer more so I revolt sooner feels like you dont actually care about me, just see me as a tool, and that doesnt make me want to fight for your cause, also the more I suffer the less I am able to think about things like revolution so you're wrong anyway." I'm not going to abandon leftism over it but it does make me go "do my comrades really care about me?". Like you outright said that some leftists may think of me as expendable. How am I supposed to feel about that?
Because we live at the center of the imperial world where the first step is even getting people to think about things like they are an imperial system
I think inculcating people with social-democratic ideology is a bad way to do this, tbh. Because one of the problems with social democracy is that imperialism is a blind spot. I have seen a lot of people go through a socdem phase where they admire the nordic countries, preach MMT, etc., but then they get wise. But I have also seen a lot of people get stuck there, and never exit that phase.
(This isn’t directed at anyone in particular) It’s so weird when we all become Nate Silvers of the left fighting about which Internet personality is the true way forward for socialism as if one of them can get out of the way and then suddenly the other one can finally usher the mass movement into America. I say this in complete hypocrisy as my brain is also completely under the thrall of internet ‘discourse’.
(This isn’t directed at anyone in particular) It’s so weird when we all become Nate Silvers of the left fighting about which Internet personality is the true way forward for socialism as if one of them can get out of the way and then suddenly the other one can finally usher the mass movement into America. I say this in complete hypocrisy as my brain is also completely under the thrall of internet ‘discourse’.
If the rise of the far right is anything to go by we actually need as many as fucking possible, all peddling things in different ways reaching the different audiences that require very specific approaches to appeal to. There is no one size fits all, things need to be viewed holistically.
(This isn’t directed at anyone in particular) It’s so weird when we all become Nate Silvers of the left fighting about which Internet personality is the true way forward for socialism
Well this isn't about Roderic Day and JT, it's about whether MMT is Social-Imperialist. Roderic Day and SecondThought are just very public figures who happen to be arguing about it.
I absolutely agree with this sentiment. I don't think either of them have even close to the understanding, intellect, and vision of say, Luxemburg or Lenin, but why should they? They have lived through so much less tragedy than those figures, they, and we, can scarce understand the suffering and deprivation that inspired and animated their struggles. I think we are barreling closer to that time though, but it's not here yet, fortunately, but it's going to be difficult to prevent it from happening and affecting all of us for awhile. I'm trying not to be doomer about it, but these things can and could get much worse , but it will likely happen slowly as we grow older, then suddenly all at once. I'm still not certain which is exactly the right path.
Doesn't matter though, imo you should always try live with a little joie de vivre, life is short, kinda sucks, but we only get one so get into weird stuff.
Convincing liberals to be social democrats is even worse in the imperial core, because they will just become social imperialists. It’s one thing to convert a former colony into a self-sufficient social democratic capitalist nation, that’s a net improvement. It’s entirely another to try and work on a project of an imperialist social democracy
Critiquing =/= attacking. Marxists can and should critique each other.
This reads far more like an attack than a critique though.
I seriously hate MMT and often refuse to even discuss it, but that said Day just comes off like a terminally online debate pervert here, something a lot of Maoists fall prey to whether they are correct or not and it's always tiring and unproductive.
Whomst among us hasn't gone too ham on a correct point? Definitely haven't been banned for that before
do these anti MMT crusaders actually think a revolutionary government would knowingly undermine itself with bad monetary policy because leftists in capitalist dictatorships say concessions can be payed for under capitalist means? what does whining about esoteric economic theory in opposition to left-leaning programs materially produce, except less enthusiasm for those programs under capitalism?
one more case of arguing about the restaurant choice in New York before we've left San Diego
Presumably you believe Marx shouldn't have written The Poverty of Philosophy.
The MMTers are wrong and their ideas largely come from Keynes, a diehard anti-communist. MMT has a fundamentally anti-communist and anti-planning character which should be criticized.
I’m gonna become a Polemics Bro if people here keep trying to civilitywash the ruthless criticism of all that exists
Keynes, a diehard anti-communist.
b-b-but this meme told me keynes was a comrade!!!!
Twitter personality arguing with Youtube personality
Settlers right yet again
Can somebody explain MMT and the controversy here to me? I get it like fundamentally but I don't really get how it functions.
It's not marxism for a start. There are no marxist MMTers: Michael Hudson, Roberts, Wollff, etc. are not MMTers.
From what I understand, MMTers generally posit the problem as primarily ideological rather than class interest which prevents the state from using it's power to help working people. Marxist of course see the state as a tool of class warfare.
For example (again, from what I understand), the Marxist sees the state not having universal employment and states this is to undermine the working class's power. The MMTer see the same phenomenon and says it is because the state doesn't believe it can simply create the currency/capacity to employ everyone.
Therefore, for the Marxist, the MMTer is engaged in a kind of idealism that denies the classed nature of society.
This is probably an oversimplification.
Deleted that because I guess original MMTers were trying for full employment while making the descriptions. I think that disconnect that I mention must be made much more clear though; that monetary policy is only secondarily related to unemployment, and it masks the direct powers that truly relate to unemployment
I don’t think it’s necessarily a Marxist or nonMarxist concept. It basically just points out a huge flaw in the popular understanding of how capitalist economies function. And when you pull on that thread enough it reveals that they’re all predicated on lies. Which in turn reveals the fundamental truth of Marxist class analysis. At least if you’re open to those ideas. I think MMT is fine in that regard, and because it’s never going to be implemented within capitalist governments, it’s useful more as rhetoric than as an actual strategy for change. But I dunno. I’m not into MMT enough to know all the ins and outs.
Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting at. I don't think MMT is necessarily wrong about how money works on a certain technical level. It's just that capitalist states depend on myths about money that are contrary to MMT. So yes, MMT within these states is a fantasy that will never come to be. But understanding why this is the case can be on on-ramp to Marxism for the curious baby leftist.
I mean its cool when Lenin does it to Kautsky. Revisionism is dangerous.
This is such nonsense. These two probably agree on 99% of issues. Capitalism is killing the world as we speak and some bozo calls out another bozo over his favorite flavor of leftism. Who gives a shit if MMT is an "alternative to marxism" or whatever when we're lightyears away from either?
There is a huge difference between "public debate" and "defend your position in public [by writing what you think I'm wrong about or why you're right]". Day writes a ton of theory and is outspoken about his views and wants people to either take them seriously by challenging or engaging with them. The bullshit of "agree to disagree" gets us nowhere. I think publicly posting is fine as a medium for such
Debate shit is when you wanna do a quick fire bullshit thing. Day wants JT to write out where he disagrees so they can resolve or one be shown to be in error. That is good. Resolving differences has to happen.
Day wants JT to write out where he disagrees so they can resolve or one be shown to be in error.
And yet he doesn't really write out any thoughtful critique of his own to start such a good faith conversation. He simply comes off like he is offended at the mere mention of MMT (something I also fucking hate talking about because it's bullshit but that is neither here nor there).
If he truly wanted to engage with the content he is complaining about it would be better done in an actual article and not on twitter of all places. Especially Musk's twitter.
I found the descriptions he gave and references to other works handling similar positions plenty to begin the conversation. I found it to be plenty good enough to dismiss MMT, too, though I already had my issues with it. JT should defend it if he finds those not enough to dismiss MMT, and make that argument then. I don't think MMT deserves the time for expanded dismissal if Marx handled similar shit centuries ago well enough
I do think though that I agree about twitter being not great, but a public place to handle such things doesn't exist with as wide of reach unfortunately. Go and write articles in Jacobin or International, but who reads that anymore? We have to deal with that at the moment, and writing articles on your own site and referencing it on twitter seems the best option I've seen so far. And that's what Roderic does
You would call Poverty of Philosophy debatebro shit if it was published today. I recommend logging off to attempt to see things in the lens of public discussion and not the circus performances people have on Twitch and Jordan Peterson's patreon.
Reminds me how Marx wrote Value Price and Profit to publicly dunk on an old Owenist in the first international, and give people a preview of Capital Volume 1.
Don't forget all of Anti-Duehring being entirely a refutation of Duehring used as an opportunity to expound upon a variety of subjects. Using the preface to Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, which is part of that project:
As is well known, we Germans are of a terribly ponderous Gründlichkeit, [. . .] Whenever any one of us expounds what he considers a new doctrine, he has first to elaborate it into an all comprising system. He has to prove that both the first principles of logic and the fundamental laws of the universe had existed from all eternity for no other purpose than to ultimately lead to this newly discovered, crowning theory. And Dr. Dühring, in this respect, was quite up to the national mark. Nothing less than a complete System of Philosophy, mental, moral, natural, and historical, a complete System of Political Economy and Socialism ; and, finally, a Critical History of Political Economy—three big volumes in octavo,17 heavy extrinsically and intrinsically, three army corps of arguments mobilized against all previous philosophers and economists in general, and against Marx in particular—in fact, an attempt at a complete “revolution in science”— these were what I should have to tackle. I had to treat of all and every possible subject, from the concepts of time and space to bimetallism, from the eternity of matter and motion to the perishable nature of moral ideas; from Darwin’s natural selection to the education of youth in a future society. Anyhow, the systematic comprehensiveness of my opponent gave me the opportunity of developing, in opposition to him, and in a more connected form than had previously been done, the views held by Marx and myself on this great variety of subjects. And that was the principal reason which made me undertake this otherwise ungrateful task.
I actually thought about also bringing up Anti Duhring but I figured I only needed 1 example lol. but while we're on the subject the entirety of german ideology is just Marx yelling about
and calling him "Sancho Panza" and "Saint Max" lol
Day did not insist on having the conversation on Twitter that I had seen. Perhaps I missed where he did, in which case, would you mind pointing it out to me?
However, you will notice that Poverty of Philosophy was not, in fact, a letter written privately to Proudhon, but was published and distributed to the public so that the people who read Philosophy of Poverty could read Marx's rebuttal of it. Refuting a public figure in private is not a very useful practice.
To my knowledge, Day insisted only that the response be public and not on the specific medium where JT happened to respond initially, and if JT said he'd, I don't know, make a video or write an essay of his own or whatever, Day would accept that just as readily.
The issue with this strategy that should be most immediately apparent is that bad faith can be difficult to evaluate and we've had well over a decade of perfecting how to string someone along in DMs indefinitely. A hypothetical Prudent and Polite Roderic Day can see JT publishing and popularizing reactionary hogwash, try to engage in DMs, and be stuck at that step for a week or a month because JT drags his feet responding, insists on tediously litigating minor points, misinterprets Days' assertions, etc., and if Day pulls the trigger at any point, JT can go "Woah, hey, what happened Rod?! We were having a private discussion and then you just publish it because I have a work schedule that I also need to keep up with? Are we communists or drama-mongers here?" just like he did anyway with the public statement. JT was already responding in bad faith in the two tweets we already saw ("passive aggressive", etc), how much should Day bank on JT behaving in an upstanding way if things are already going this poorly for The Discourse between them?
Whether JT (or anybody for that matter) is intentionally or unintentionally promoting imperialism shouldn't matter. It is good to criticize a bad idea even when the person putting it forward has a good track record.
No worries about the double reply. I think maybe after combing through enough of JT's oeuvre he could come to that conclusion but, not to put too fine a point on it, a lot of what JT says is reasonably mistakable for being "and then we have peaceful welfare co-ops"-style social-chauvinist pablum that doesn't adequately oppose the exploitation by nordic-style states.
Nothing like playing the “I’m a better communist than you” game. Dude needs to get off his high horse.
Why do you insist this is a game? Roderic is someone who I respect highly for seemingly taking theory and philosophy very seriously, which includes not letting contradicting theories float around to distract from the main ones. Comparisons to Marx and Lenin are trite, mostly, but he's doing his best not just to imitate their styles but to be performing the same tasks intellectually. He's not an "internet personality" but someone who writes succinct theory and talks publicly about in on twitter. Your accusation would fit just as damn well to any of the most successful communists who have existed, and I find it misplaced and ignorant
It’s a game because instead of having either a private conversation, writing a good faith response, writing an article critiquing MMT, or better yet, extending an olive branch and offer collaboration, he just attacks JT like an asshole. This isn’t the first time he’s done this too so it comes off as less Day wanting to criticize a leftist supporting MMT and more so an example of professional jealousy. JT’s worthy of criticism, but this ain’t it. Just because Day is a good writer, it shouldn’t exempt him from criticism either.
This is some lingering liberalism comrade. Privacy cannot be afforded to critique, and the response to that critique also cannot be afforded privacy especially in international contexts. Lenin was more of an "asshole" than Day to his contemporaries and I love him for it. So was Marx. Conflation of being direct and piercing with being an asshole/being jealous is a form of liberalism.
Day writes articles all the time, and has referenced his and others previous works related to similar topics. His critique, which you can attack and should if you think you know better, hinges on the fact that MMT is functionally no different than the other, already well critiqued, ideas and needs no extra and analysis.
You accusation of jealousy would also condemn all people from critiquing those more well known than oneself and is just misplaced. You only noticed because Day is also a public figure in this community. Is he supposed to stay on his level or something? Only critique those under 100K followers?? Nonsense.
Criticize Day, I encourage it and have my own, though I have very often found that my criticisms didn't land once I read more deeply about the topics.
This is some lingering liberalism comrade.
LMAO
Good to know the Day stans are working overtime, especially when they are comparing him to Marx and Lenin and as well as ignoring the points I’ve made.
Maybe you should ask JT about this when he does his AMA.
"stans" Fuck off. Stop being a lib, your bullshit anger at "attacks" as some form of individualized unnecessary violence is absurd. You're the one trying to defend a figure in spite of a critique by claiming the critique is not @Civility@hexbear.net
I responded to everything you said; literally every sentence has its response in my comment.
My comparison is not about some "he's as good as Marx" dumbass bit, it's talking about the function in society of piercing analysis and relentless critique which Roderic does and I don't see near enough of in any movements, and Marx remarked the exact same things in his time.
If I'm around at the time I will ask JT why he would want to take such a debate private as well as what function he thinks MMT has to society. I suspect this has to do with CPUSA, and I'm not gonna be angry at JT for that. I don't care really, because I think it's bigger than him or Roderic but something whole orgs/movements will have to grapple with. But, even if JT theoretically is only pushing it because of demcent, I still think he should do his utmost to defend it (and fail and bring that back to change the org).
I responded to everything you said; literally every sentence has its response in my comment.
LMAO
Lol you complained about me ignoring your "points" Then name one that I didn't address
