I haven't heard him talk at length like this about labor history but his analysis is so fucking on point here. You can really tell he's from a union organizing background. Electoralism is of course not everything but in retrospect it's pretty wild that this absolute boy was labor leader at all.
Corbyn > Bernie all day.
So is Anna Kasparian actually a socialist? She is labeled that way on some jacobin videos
TMBS and Weekends with Ana and Michael really improved TYT as a news show. She started constantly shutting down Cenk's surprise at capitalist realities
I haven't seen her on TYT in a very long time, do you have any clips?
Smol props to Cenk for introducing me to "progressive" politics, but also we've moved so far beyond the need for Cenk.
I'll try to find some clips, but yeah she's the main show runner now. He obviously has a lot of influence and air time but Ana is good on it. She's definitely a socialist of some type. I don't watch very much TYT anymore though.
For certain topics it's like oh, it's probably gonna be Cenk getting mad about Lindsay Graham or something, but for other topics it's a good news show. And Ana and a few different guests regularly give good critiques of capitalism.
If some building exploded I would be fine watching CNN or whatever, you get the idea.
Yeah I'm with you on the CNN bit, I read NYT for the same reasons.
I've been following the show since it started (that's a lot of hours spent listening to her lol).
On the episode that aired after her cohost Michael Brooks died, she talked openly about her own liberalism and how much Michael had changed her worldview to see things from a Marxist and internationalist point of view. She was pretty honest about still fighting her tendency to not factor in Marxist analysis. If we're really going to psycho-analyze, I'd say she's basically a liberal who's in the early stages of realizing its limits. One recent example that shows this is when Nando and Ana discussed Jan 6 and its implications on an increased police state. Nando's POV was "liberals are using this as a second 9/11 to increase the police state" and she wasn't on board with him, being more worried about not doing anything at all to combat rising fascism. As much as I do understand her fear, considering where the right wing populist movement is going, her liberalism really showed. But like someone else commented, her personal takes are becoming more and more class-conscious.
With all that being said, I really think the tendency of the online left to be so obsessed with media personalities is a massive mistake that we all need to stop making, myself included. All a media personality should amount to is providing a platform where Marxist analysis can be discussed in regards to world events and in interviews with the right people. Most of her actual takes are bad, but I really love the show because Nando and Michael provide a constant Marxist counter.
My biggest critique of Ana is her insistence on participating in Twitter feuds with leftists. It's just so fucking dumb and I truly don't give a shit. She just had to spent 10 minutes in one episode just going off on Brianha Joy Gray and Jimmy Dore and I just had to turn it off. Brianha is no better, if not worse, especially when she screamed "MICHAEL BROOKS WOULD SUPPORT ME" at Sam Seder. Purely provocative and genuinely hurtful to Sam who was one of his closest personal friend (despite the fact that I think Sam Seder has mostly dogshit socdem takes). I think Brianha has good takes, but she's also just painfully naive about how much power she holds over the national conversation.
In conclusion, all these personalities on Twitter needs to just shut the fuck up about their personal fights because I don't give a shit, I'm just not here for it anymore. It's classic leftist sectarianism except much worse, because at least sectarianism used to be based on actual issues, not personalities.
This entire FTV issue is such a circus. Ana, Sam, and BJG all have their hearts in the right place but can't see the forest for the trees. All of this comes from a sense of powerlessness. Michael would have pointed it out instantly, and his internationalism really gave him a clear understanding of power that those three lack. Michael was systemic in his analysis, those three are not.
Yes, you put it perfectly. Michael wasn't even against online feuds (I remember his massive dunk on Jimmy Dore) but he didn't let that leak into the political discussion itself.
