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
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.
Critiquing =/= attacking. Marxists can and should critique each other.
This reads far more like an attack than a critique though.
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
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.
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 
. 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.
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’.
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.
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
what an amazing sentence
MMT does suck ass so i cant blame him
Twitter personality arguing with Youtube personality
Settlers right yet again
friendly fire. You hate to see it.
I mean its cool when Lenin does it to Kautsky. Revisionism is dangerous.
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.
Nothing like playing the “I’m a better communist than you” game. Dude needs to get off his high horse.
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?
Twitter and its consequences...
E-celeb #8276 has sent in a silly post. We shall neither print it nor reply to him.
I hate when my Dads fight
Dumb podcast infighting, news at 11.
Does JT mention that MMT depends on imperialism? (Not interested in watching the video even though I appreciate his news reporting.)
Just watched the video, nope, he pins it to currency sovereignty as is the typical mmt line.
he pins it to currency sovereignty as is the typical mmt line.
only imperial core nations have the requisite amount of currency sovereignty for MMT to be applicable, is the big secret. Hope Hakim gives him a couple slaps over that.
Currency sovereignty as it currently exists, depends on imperialism.