the_dunk_tank
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
view the rest of the comments
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.
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
Agreed. And yet here we still sit.
A multitude of strategies is a good thing. Different tactics work on different people.
Tell that to all the people here who started their journey to radicalization because of
. 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.
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 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?
Two things about this
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)
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.
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.
marxists can push for, say, a return of manufacturing jobs to the first world, on the grounds that everyone deserves a good job. the goal there is to end up on the workers' side when capitalism is unable to restrain its profit-seeking and people are finally brought face-to-face with a need for change. you're supposed to be there every step of the way fighting "for all the transitional demands, requirements, and needs of the masses" knowing full well that "the democrats will in any case act in a reformist and not a revolutionary manner" leaving socialism as the only viable option.
the other side of the coin, though, is that all of the globalization and financialization that's creating some precarity for first world workers is progressive because it's laying the foundations of the new order and driving the classes into conflict- creating the objective conditions and subjective factors necessary for socialist revolution. in fact, the very worst thing that could happen is for reactionary petty bourgeois to actually succeed in bringing jobs back for a while, because good times for some would only prolong the agony for the rest (i.e. those of us horrified by the prospect of another grinding century of hell world). american nationalists have basically the same economic pitch as fascism, and our position is the same either way: we don't want to shore up capitalism's crumbling economic foundations, we want to demonstrate how capitalism cannot continue to meet people's needs.
I think it's pretty clear how all of the above logic extends to social programs too.
I wouldn't say that people like us should be made to suffer. mainly I don't like the way that's phrased because it implies that we actually have control over what happens here, and because to the extent that we do have agency it's ofc nonsensical to wield it against the people you're trying to convince that you're looking out for.
but also, there's no point in the lowest stratum falling off the map if the middle strata aren't brought down too in a broad deterioration of all of society. conditions were savagely bad for huge sections of the english working class for a long time and it never went anywhere. so I don't think that e.g. putting anti-homeless spikes on ledges would be progressive, it's just senseless pain since nothing else is going to change anyway.
still, I don't fully get your horrified reaction calling this kind of logic sociopathic or toxic. listen to [this short clip] (https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1006666397105000518/1086762469374050395/matt-christman-food.mp4) please and lmk what you think.
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.
you can say you're oppressed and barely getting by and so on but it's not like getting bombed or running a sewing machine 12 hours a day so that your child doesn't starve to death. I'm on a lot of the same programs as you and I would say that it's absolutely the fruits of empire doled out to shut (enough of) us up to stabilize the system. I get probably twice as much in snap every month as I actually need to survive, I get free healthcare that's not good but covers most basic needs. poor people in sierra leone aren't getting $300/mo for food, free hrt, free gas, help with electricity in the summer and heating in the winter, etc. idk it just strikes me as kind of powercry-2 to complain about how bad we have it here; we're exceptionally lucky to benefit as much from empire as we do
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.
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.
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 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".
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?
Agreed
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’.
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.
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