Anarchists thinking Marxists are the real dogmatists are the most funny ones

This is a fundamental issue I have with Marxism, specifically its state centralization and its fundamental failures at actually abolishing the state, it tends to do the opposite. It cements authoritarians in a seat of power above the proletariat, and new bourgeoise don't let go of that. Imperialism (whether soft or by force) is the final result of statist power accumulation, and China has shown that. While the Belt and Road initiative has succeeded in building infrastructure, and is arguably slightly less predatory than western equivalents. It comes at a cost of autonomy, the states under it are practically China's b**** and if they do to the detriment of the CCP, they will cut them right off and abandon them in a debt trap.

I think if any of these guys were a gateway into leftism we'd have it by now lol but the fact is these guys in the end advocate for nothing more than increased social welfare. the moment one of em starts talking about s*** like gun control you know they aren't principled.

If he really wanted to he could be introducing his audience to some actual theory and leading discussion based on that

The stagiest view of history and productive forces Marx proposed is extremely reductive of its spontaneity, and capitalism does not have to be the forebearer of socialism.

In fact, I'd argue it's more of an anti-socialist statement than pro-socialist, since it says socialism is too weak for the workers to truly manage themselves, rather than having a paternalistic state to dictate over them.

why would they abolish the state
they would immediately get crushed by the world hegemon
like it takes time to do that, material conditions have to be correct

Is he really just a soap boxer. I thought he talks about theory and s*** in parts of his stream

Stateless societies have existed in times of empires (look back through history), and held themselves up quite well, state abolishment does not mean the sacrifice of offensive power towards "enemies of the revolution"

So how do you expect socialist states to be able to effectively combat capitalism without engaging in the realpolitik that is inevitable

Open warfare won’t count because capitalists are willing to sacrifice more (since they’re upper class and have an expendable working class)

Why not economic hegemony

idk too much about his stream but from what ive read/seen he's just reacting to s*** most of the time

I don't think states should exist being called socialist, because that's entirely antithetical to socialism and what history has revealed itself, in terms of the failures of socialist revolutions into basically staying state capitalist and never achieving anything actually concrete for socialism. AES are nothing but glorified social democracy under red aesthetics or just authoritarian party-ran dictatorships ran by bourgeoise.

There is always a connection of means and ends, and when you seize state power, it will always remain a authoritarian centralized class hierarchy, the state will never abolish itself. USSR, China, Vietnam, etc. have/had all stayed in the limbo of re-creating conditions of capitalism without any plans of actually transitioning to socialism.

You need the "social revolution" first, which is why the concept of building up dual power exists, and why "Socialism in one country" was a failure.

Also I've been quite unconvinced by the arguments for state socialism (originating mostly from Parenti in popular discourse) being "THE GDP GOES UP AND PEOPLE ARE FED", like duh, you can even make this argument for neoliberal capitalist states, it proves nothing.

Nah he doesn't really talk about theory. Just name drops Marx every once and a while.

But I will say, I'm one of the instances where I started with Hasan and eventually distanced myself from his streams and started some actual learning. It does happen, but it's probably a few hundred out of his 40k+ viewers.

Also Lenin's interpretation of Marx's "first stage of communism" was f***ing stupid, because wage labor should've been abolished already, with "free association of producers". I'm not surprised he agreed much more with Engels, and effectively emulated Blanquism.

Is socialism just too weak to defend itself? The proletariat are too ignorant and must be led by a paternal, "necessary evil" state to guide them out of their idiocy and to bring them into the Garden of Eden with a global vanguard to rule over the petulant masses?

Why is command more efficient than self-governance?

If worker control is so bad and fragile at developing on its own, why hasn't the state brought in a golden age, where all enemies of the workers are abolished and everyone can live truly free under communism.

You really think a benevolent minority of rulers would willingly dissolve their own state power to the proletariat, in effect, abolishing the state?

You can see throughout history, pre-Capitalism, pre-Marx/Lenin/Engels/Trotsky, every time people make this bid of liberation being entrusted to a group of guiding minority rulers, whether a political party, a state, feudal landlords, and kings, it always ends in subjugation and bondage of the people beneath them.

do you have to have read theory to be a leftist

One more thing, if centralization away from the people and persistence of hierarchy are so good for socialism and the proletariat, what prevents more sabotage and capitalist "counter-revolutionaries", especially since Capitalism desires both, inherently.

I'd argue pro-state socialists act more as "counter-revolutionaries" because it implies socialism is inherently weak at combatting capitalism and that it needs to mimic the power structures of the previous bourgeoise to keep the proles at bay and to keep them "protected from threats"

If the state is allowed to rule, it will continue to want to rule, thus it will turn everything that goes against it, even revolutionary proletarian demands for abolishment, as existential threats to the state, thus it shall always reign. It's the lie every state runs on, to keep perpetuating itself. The state only desires domination and accumulation of power.

Theory is important up to the point in how you wish a leftist territory to be organized politically such that it can effectively execute the goals of leftism

It certainly helps lol

Like you can ofc be one but you might end be more susceptible to reactionary positions or repeating things figured out 100 years ago

Et tu.

You've been blocked sniper you can stop quoting me

you can be a leftist apologist but i don't neccesarily think you can call yourself a leftist if you don't have knowledge of the ideology you ascribe to

@sniper just going to reply with some questions to you for the first 2/3 posts you make; its late

interested in why you think no one has "achieved anything actually concrete for socialism." - what does this mean to you, because i disagree.

do you think current socialist states did not build dual power / a social revolution? if the next socialist states do this, will they have a successful revolution?

what else does a government need to do other than "GDP GO UP AND PEOPLE ARE FED" (or rather, what should governments NOT DO)

i think those streamers have a place in the leftie-sphere, particularly ones like hasan or vaush, cause their personality appeals to ppl that might have otherwise gone down the alt right pipeline, or they brought them back from it

they’re like a stepping stone, it’s about shifting the overton window imo

after that ppl should really do their own research to educate themselves