The purpose of this community is sort of a "work out your frustrations by letting it all out" where different leftist tendencies can vent their frustrations with one another and more assertively and directly challenge one another. Hostility is allowed, but any racist, fascist, or reactionary crap wont be tolerated, nor will explicit threats.
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
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 based progressive like JT (Second Thought) and Michael Hudson....
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
I don’t know if he’s doing anything irl, but redsails is pretty good for making theory accessible.
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.
This is true.
I'm not really understanding his point in the second screenshot
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 ^
Michael Hudson
Literally who?
Better you don’t know
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.
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).
This all just sounds vaguely Trotskyist to me.
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.
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.
Wodewick.
