Ngl, Hasan seems to be teetering on the edge of what some people might call socialism.
I think there's something in Lenin's way of speaking that bears a resemblance to Trump's "many people are saying".
In almost every notable speech Lenin always says things like "the eyes of the people are being opened". He is always talking about how a lot of people are coming over to his side, how a lot of people are confirming socialist ideas, he is always talking about the collective affirmation.
I think this is very important for socialists to learn and weave into everything they write and when they speak. I've seen how much it matters to people online whether other people have upvoted something or downvoted something. Collective affirmation matters, and it even matters when you're the one saying that lots of people confirm something. That shit works. It's powerful and it should be weaved into everything.
No no no
What we must continue to do is frantically yell at people for imagined slights and words not being perfectly spoken. It's clearly a winning strategy
I mean, that works too sometimes. I think you should work in a few lines about how people are waking up, our numbers are growing, how people's eyes are opening, how minds are turning to us while you do it though.
All this shit produces the feeling of collective affirmation, and that feeling becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as the snowball starts to roll. People get pulled towards things that they feel like lots of other people are also being pulled to. It produces a kind of movement magnetism.
Talking down to people wins no one over.
The lefts problem is what the right is very good at. Getting past the fact that people are not perfect. That they need molding. And that you got to just let some things slide to a point. And welcome them in.
Once they are ingrained is when you start to actually form and solidify the boundaries.
Talking down to people wins no one over.
Not in one interaction no. But your interaction with someone is not the only interaction that exists. Our interactions with people do not exist in a vacuum.
Take a step back and look at things more holistically. Sometimes the conversation you are having is a lost cause and it is literally impossible for you to win this person over because it is not happening under the right conditions, in the right mood, with the right circumstances, after wolf howled twice at the moon and a black cat crossed your path twice that day.
In these circumstances it is often obvious when you're not going to win this person over... What can you do instead? What you should be aiming for in those circumstances is setting up the next interaction this person has with a socialist to be circumstances that might bear more fruit for that socialist instead.
What does this mean? Sometimes a person NEEDS to have extremely negative interactions with socialists that they were unsatisfied with in order to interact with another socialist in a more good-faith manner. Sometimes a person needs to be upset about an interaction they had previously in order to have a friendlier and more open interaction with a different socialist -- I am almost certain you have heard this story told before, a story of "wow you're so much better to talk to, the last time I tried to speak to someone about this they just screamed at me". This is an exaggeration, the previous socialist didn't just scream at them, they set you up for success because their conversation was never going to be a success in the first place.
We aren't having individual interactions with people. We are interacting with people as a collective movement and there are going to be dozens if not hundreds of interactions people have with socialists. Pick and choose your strategy for the moment based on judgement.
Some people need the stick. Some people need the carrot. Sometimes you need to be the stick so the next person can offer the carrot.
That they need molding. And that you got to just let some things slide to a point. And welcome them in.
To an extent yes. But I think this can only happen in active struggle. At events, at protest, on the picket lines, at the bread line, the food bank, the soup line. I don't think you get far letting any significant :brainworms: in without action and struggle to form bonds that will rip those worms out.
Say what you want.
But there's a reason the left is constantly at each other's throats.
This was something I started doing without even thinking about it, I just started being more and more open about politics whenever it was relevant and as I learned how to communicate my ideas and practiced and gained confidence I noticed people agreeing with me more and more, and that led me to be able to confidently assert that there is this sort of sea change occurring which in turn makes the arguments themselves more persuasive.
Also learning how to paraphrase really good hard hitting bits of theory in a way that the average person can grasp the core of the message with more modern phrasing and terminology is a big plus.
Certainly pointing out people in the present who are winning in the workplace or at whatever electoral level, etc, and why they are worth celebrating is important and using them to rally a winning spirit behind the ideas that back unionizing activities etc is important to be made lucid and relevant and a slice of good ol socialist pie to give people an appetite for it. Because the risk of being associated with real leftism is not inconsiderate
"Folks, the bourgeois, they're no good everyone is saying it. All these workers, very handsome workers come up to me and say, Comrade Trump there is a specter haunting Europe, and you know what, they're right. These bourgeois are very nasty people very very rude and very unfair to the workers. They are stealing our surplus value and no one is doing anything about it. The proletariat comes up to me everyday and says, Comrade Trump will you lead the revolution? And I gotta turn to them and say, Look the instruments of capitalism will be used to bring about its destruction believe me you gotta trust me on this one. The means of production, obama never wanted to seize them. Well guess what? I'm seizing them. Landlords? They're done for folks. Everyone told me they said, Comrade Trump you won't be the vanguard of the revolution and they would laugh, the media laughed the democrats laughed, guess whose laughing now?"
~ Lenin, State and Revolution
Having read some of Castro's interviews recently, I've got to say a lot of it reads like this
People definitely want to unironically :so-true: stuff - that what makes the right's framing of stuff as "common sense" so insidious.
That "the eyes of the people are being opened" style of universalizing rhetoric is really common. Newspaper editorials love to do it with phrases like "amidst growing concerns about" and "many are questioning." Also that weirdo from Spirit Science uses it a lot.
Anyway, you're right; rhetoric is neat and worth studying.
collective affirmation
:yes-hahaha-yes-r: :rocz-yes: :mlk-yes: :yes: :sicko-yes: :yes-sicko: :yes-chad: :yes-comm: :chomsky-yes-honey: :yes-hahaha-yes-l:
Someone in replies suggested he go on the Deprogram :CommiePOGGERS:
Collabs like that need to start happening, fr
Brace has been on Hasan's stream. And he was on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjO-BG3ozV0
Someone in chat once mentioned it too and he said he’d be down.
Hell yeah. Now we just need to annoy the deprogram boys until they invite him on
I cannot understand how someone can read Lenin or hear Lenin speak and not just feel the massive amounts of passion and love he has for humanity and the hope he has for a better future
when I first started learning about Marxism I would feel this immense amount of love and joy and awe for people, the Earth, and our universe just by walking around outside in the morning. I had never felt anything like that before
Yeah as much as I talk about Marxism and capitalism as a necronomicon-esque text that describes this vast cosmic horror, dwelling in these sorts of communities for the past several years has given me a great amount of hope and love for people as well as getting me over some reactionary hangups regarding masculinity, gender, etc.
If you want to enhance that love for existence I'd recommend also reading Spinoza. His concept of Nature and the universe is incredibly beautiful. There's a Rev. Left Radio series on him too
Not a massive amount of love for anarchists unfortunately.
His older brother was an anarchist who attempted to bomb the czar and failed. He was hanged for his attempt. I think it is impossible to separate this from Lenin's later attitude towards anarchism.
neither did the rest of the heads of marxism leninism :shrug-outta-hecks:
I am the only one who thinks that hero worship (of anyone, under any circumstances) is kinda cringe?
Hasan's the only left-wing American internet personality I can stomach. His upbringing in Turkey probably helps to give him a more nuanced worldview than the dumbfucks that shit on him like Vaush and Roblox face.
If anti-imperialism is a core part of your beliefs that will carry you a long long way
Wow sorry I misread it and didn't see the American part. I'm dumb lol
I thought Hakim was Iraqi and still living there? Richard Medhurst is another one. I think he lives in the UK but his experience from having lived in Syria really shapes his worldview
I know he said America deserved 9/11 but I always felt he was holding back. He is probably the closest you can be to a tankie while still being mainstream. (I mean this in a positive way)
Yeah Hasan good. People who hate Hasan are either Vaushites (radlibs), Hazbols (PatSocs), or Destiny stans (neolibs).
Hasan is okay, and would basically smash the internet if he went full ML
Not only did Hasan tweet this video about Lenin. He also watched the video on stream and told his audience to read Lenin's books. He lists some of Lenin's books that he has read. Then he explains what Lenin said in the video to his chat, that is that the real enemy of the people are Capitalists, not Jewish people.
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1638140512?t=02h00m49s
Edit - Ignore this comment.
Why're you still arguing a point no one made? Tell me one place where I said he hasn't read Lenin. Or even that he doesn't like Lenin. I"m the one who fucking posted this thread!!!
But just reading Lenin doesn't make you a Leninist. He has to actually believe in Leninism (as a political ideology) - in Leninist principles of party organizing, the importance of a vanguard to the revolution etc. He does not believe a revolution is possible in the West. He believes in Democratic Socialism - using electoralism and trade unions to slowly convert society to socialism. Hasan doesn't even fully believe in the value theory of labour! He frequently states that all value comes from labour etc. But he also states that value is subjective in a way that Marx didn't account for. I disagree with him on this point; I think he hasn't read Marx correctly. Just like I disagree with him on the viability of a Democratic Socialist transition away from capitalism in the West. But my disagreement with Hasan is a non-issue.
Hasan is a Democratic Socialist. Why? Because he says he is, and he's given no indication that he's lying about it.
I'm going to stop arguing with you at this point. I've realized it's pointless. You keep arguing points no one is making, and seem to believe Hasan is hiding his true Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Third-Worldist beliefs from everyone but still dropping hints to his true power levels with literally no evidence to support it, just vibes. Go ahead, man. Hasan is totally building a guerrilla vanguard party in the mountains of Appalachia that is going to overthrow the US.
We've been discussing whether Hasan's a DemSoc or not, and I thought this was the latest comment in that thread, not a standalone comment.
I don't know what this big post is about. I just thought it was cool that he told his audience to read Lenin's books and wanted to show other people. Are you okay?
My bad. I thought your comment was a part of the thread where we were arguing back and forth, not a standalone comment.
why are you always getting into pointless arguments
Death to America
I'm legit beginning to think he's doing this on purpose.
Can’t tell how many layers of irony this thread is on. Hasan is a self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist.
I don’t think he’s ever said he’s an ML directly. He clearly has read Marx and Lenin though.
He’s said stuff to the effect of “I do my best to promote Marxist-Leninist ideals”. Maybe it’s not his exact tendency if you get down to specifics, but given that he’s a glorified babysitter to thousands of baby leftist teens, it’s close enough for me.
I doubt he’s ever said that either tbh though he does talk favourably of Lenin and he obviously loves Marx. But politically he’s said he’s a DemSoc.
He is cool almost certainly isn't a power level hiding marxist leninist
I told you before that he has already mentioned that he had read Lenin. I even told you which day that he mentioned it and you didn't believe me.
What makes you the arbiter of whether Hasan is socialist? That's parasocial behavior.
Lmao you’re literally obsessed with me. Jesus.
I never fucking said he hasn’t read Lenin. Or Marx. Or anyone. I fucking said he describes himself as a democratic socialist. Which he does. I produced proof. Now it’s your fucking turn to do the same. Show me where he says he’s a ML. Directly. Show me.
I never said that I know that he's ML. I said that he's read Lenin. I said that he's read Marx and that he applies his understanding of Marx to his daily news coverage and analysis of current events. I said that he rarely uses the phrase "democratic socialist" and that he most of time refers to himself as just "socialist". You found one time where he used the phrase democratic socialist and that was when he was trying to appeal to libs.
I don't try to label him as a certain sect because I'm not parasocial. I call him a socialist because he understands Marx, promotes Marx on his stream frequently, and calls himself a socialist.
You’re so weird lmao. Even after I literally showed a video with him saying he’s DemSoc you still deny it. You can be a DemSoc who’s read Marx and Lenin. That’s Hasan. If you have proof he’s lying then go ahead. But otherwise you’re just wasting time. He’s a socialist. He may be a Marxist (given certain definitions of Marxism). But he has shown no beliefs in a vanguard party or a revolution in the West or anything that would even imply he’s a Leninist. But he constantly focuses on electoralism as a strategy for achieving change. You can keep arguing with yourself that he’s just hiding his power levels or whatever.
There's a segment from his stream yesterday where he makes fun of Democratic Socialists for being radical liberals.
He was doing coverage of the Nancy Pelosi husband attack and he was making fun of the attacker. One of his chatters gets upset that Hasan is making fun of the attacker, so he calls out the chatter. He says the chatter is trying to making the conversation about themselves and "doing dumb radlib bullshit".
Two minutes later at 03:32:00, Hasan is talking about the same chatter still, he says his stream "is not like a DSA meeting where we're snapping (our fingers) and doing points of conversation and that kind of shit". He then says that people are watching the stream to listen to him talk and that the chatter is ruining the content for everyone.
If he were a Democratic Socialist, why would he negatively associate the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) with radical liberalism?
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1636939531?t=03h29m46s
Leftist thinks other leftists are radlibs. Wow. This has never happened before.
Cmon. The only thing we know for certain, based on him literally saying it, is that he’s a Democratic Socialist. Everything else is projection.
He’s never said he’s a member of the DSA. I never said he’s a member of the DSA. You’re fighting invisible enemies.
I claimed he’s DemSoc based on proof. I don’t know why that has you so fucking riled up.
This isn't my fight, but this whole thing irks me because you are trying to apply ideological and party consistency to a man who claims no specific ideology and (more importantly) claims no party. Attempting to specifically pin down an individual, especially an American, and claim that he adheres to a specific ideology, is a game of shifting goalposts. There is no party line to apply ideological consistency of the mass line or vanguard, therefore he can wax and wane as he wants. Some days he plays the demsoc, others the ML. It is irrelevant, we are all liberals without a party.
Hasan is 'fine'. Under different material conditions, he may even be 'good'. He's the pretty boy streamer of the vague left, and at least shows to have a basic grasp of leftist theory.
He literally says he’s a DemSoc. It’s at the 33 minute mark.
Except nothing that he describes of his ideology after that is unique to democratic socialism, at least in terms of party structure, or belief in specific developmental ideology. He simply describes an end to exploitation, which can apply to any amount of socialism, utopian or otherwise. Unless there are also clips where he says that voting is the most important expression of democratic will, or that labor is not the proper organizational method of the left.
The problem is that he can say he's a democratic socialist, but there is a party line that historically makes one a democratic socialist that he (and most modern-day self-proclaimed democratic socialists) does not adhere to. Hell, even professing a belief in Marx renders one a non-democratic socialist historically.
It countinues to be a part of the muddling of ideologies that occurs in the American left. Which is fine dialectically, and I hope a more unifying ideology spawns from it, but it creates an impossibility to speak clearly and track distinct historical tendencies within the left if we cleave to it religiously. Is this a semantic argument? Yes. But it is also a material historical argument that tracks the development of ideology.
You can be a Democratic Socialist who agree with Marx’s theory of value and Lenin’s theory of imperialism.
That is a recent phenomena, in the last 6 years or so. A by-product of the large tent philosophy of the Bernie social democrat movement. During the development of the ideology (particularly within the DSA itself) that was not the case.
Ok? I never claimed otherwise? I mean, back in his day, Lenin’s party were Social Democrats!!! Words change meaning. You’re (also) arguing points no one is making.
That's my point. You have made a post to claim Hasan for one ideology or another, when he doesn't have a party to claim ideological allegiance to. His claims towards democratic socialism are well and good, but don't fit historically with the beliefs of American democratic socialists, and it's not as if he follows the DSA party line of modern democratic socialists. He is at least a leftist, but trying to pin down what exactly he is doesn't matter unless you think he will be the voice of the revolution. He's just a swagged out pog-daddy until then.
Edit: Also, Marx and Lenin were Social Democrats in a time before socialism, utopian or otherwise, had a coherent ideology. Also at a time when being a social democrat meant that you would man the barricades against monarchy. I doubt modern social democrats would do the same if a monarchy sprung up.
It’s not even like we disagree. Hasan, as far as he has an ideology, is a Democratic Socialist. Why? Because he says so, and there is no indication he’s lying. He also believes in Marx’s theory of value (mostly) and Lenin’s theory of imperialism. None of this matters. This whole thing started because someone mentioned how Hasan is better than others but not great and I replied he’s a DemSoc. Here.. At which point someone else jumped in to say he’s a Marxist (implying I’m wrong about him being. DemSoc, as if the two are exclusionary). I then clarified in what sense I think he’s a Marxist and in what senses he’s not. This new person then claimed I was wrong because he’d never heard Hasan say he was a DemSoc and tried to say he knows more than me becuase he’s listened to Hasan for two years. That of course annoyed me so I provided proof of him literally saying he’s a DemSoc at which point this dude starting making up conspiracy theories. This entire thing is pointless. But I’m not going to fucking back down when I’m not wrong.
Christ, this is a bunch of silly crap about a man who dresses like a middle schooler.
Uh, yeah, he’s a socialist? When did I say he’s not? That would be absurd.
He’s a socialist who uses Marxian analysis to understand capitalism and believes in a Democratic Socialist transition to socialism.
You guys will one day understand that I'm right, all streaming celebs are bad.
