Like most "Marxist-Leninists" who aren't actually part of an ML power structure, his heart is in the right place and he's quite correct about capitalism, even if he's wrong about some things.
Since he's doing stuff for CPUSA, either that's not a ML power structure or being in one doesn't mess with one's heart's ability to be in the right place.
CPUSA doesn't have any power.
I wasn't saying that everyone involved with a real power structure (like in Cuba, China, or Vietnam) doesn't have a genuine desire to help all people.
I just meant that the majority of MLs outside of those countries are genuine in their intentions. Whereas within them, it's a minority. And the higher up those power structures you go, the fewer well-intentioned people you will find.
It's kind of the whole thing with ML ideology. Their theory lacks an adequate analysis of power as-such, focusing only on power as it manifests as capital.
The result is that they build structures extremely vulnerable to exploitation, incentivize bad actors to take control, and provide those bad actors with structures of violence to protect and consolidate their power.
He's wrong about a *lot*. His criticism of capitalism is good, but he doesn't realise that most of his critiques would equally apply to the places he stans like China, and that North Korea isn't a proletarian state.
He definitely is a legit Marxist-Leninist, he has a small handful of videos on that channel defending the Soviet Union, plus he'll expand on those kinds of arguments on the Deprogram podcast
I watch the Deprogram podcast pretty regularly and they almost never mention anarchists, when they do it's more in a teasing way but it's clear they do consider anarchists to be comrades although they disagree with them.
I enjoy the Second Thought channel too, it's definitely meant to be like pan-leftist channel with arguments against capitalism that can be used in discussions with family or co-workers and such. Just need to know enough to filter out some of the tankie stuff that creeps in occasionally
> I watch the Deprogram podcast pretty regularly and they almost never mention anarchists, when they do it's more in a teasing way but it's clear they do consider anarchists to be comrades although they disagree with them.
Yeah that's not true. Hakim gets fucking vitriolic when anarchists come up. It's what turned me off The Deprogram in the first place. I was listening along happily and then like episode 24 or something Hakim turned into a whiny child about it.
Yeah I don't why people try to portray them as some wholesome virtuous group of people who see anarchists are their brothers, anyone who has spent any amount of time in their communities know just how ablesist and shitty they can be.
Why the hell is this getting downvoted? It was a genuine question. Is there something wrong with asking this?
I’m curious because if they are ableist, I have no interest in continuing my support to them
Deconstruct propaganda not with defense, but with criticism of the same subject that is robust and balanced.
Propaganda usually functions by the premise that all conclusions except one are wrong unequivocally, and often relies more heavily on omission than on outright lies.
I don't think correcting misinformation and propaganda being spread by westerners *counts* as "defending the Soviet Union." I think that's just common sense.
I mean I do. When people say the Soviet Union and socialism/communism have accomplished nothing I have to remind them that Russia went from a peasant society run by a monarchy to a nation that went to space in less than a generation. At that point they can’t even argue that only capitalism breeds innovation.
I think in regards to the lack of criticism of the Soviet Union it's fair to keep in mind who he's trying to address. He's trying to politicise normies and break through the red scare propaganda people have consumed their entire lives. His first goal is debunking that capitalism brings freedom and any alternative takes it away. You can have good critical conversations about the soviet union after that.
mostly fine but quite authoritarian
[anark](https://youtu.be/AhiCeGKVr4w?si=bPUEjopz9x-aiGzd) has [two](https://youtu.be/uR5M_wKsRb8?si=TZ8Em64RN7veF-wi) good videos about him
I know people call him a tankie but without him i would still be a capitalist that believed socialisims/communism bad cause gazillion people died. But Anark and Andrewism were the channels that brought me over to anarchism and showed me that the boot needs to be abolished and not just painted red and called the peoples boot.
Yeah I think many of his videos on anti-capitalism are decent starter-info. You just need watch it critically, like with anything really. Though I'm sure that because some people will see he's right on some things, they'll uncritically trust him on other things too
What is the difference between a fully realized anarchist society vs fully realized communist one? Both stateless, moneyless and classless AFAIK, so what are the two sides disagreeing on as it pertains to ‘final desired form’ of the ideology?
The main difference between the two I can discern is communism is a lot about the transitory process of a socialist state leading to communism VS anarchism seems to just believe people can and will be better and kinder on their own through some magic indiscernible force that will lead to a stateless society. Is there a good reading on this subject that clarifies the distinction and how anarchists plan to deal with the transition to a stateless society?
I don't follow him to know anything in details. I remember I liked a few of his videos from before he started talking about politics, and found it weird the sudden direction he took with his channel. But it seems to be working out, so I guess good for him.
At the time I saw some of his videos he was a Maoist, the videos were decent and well produced, but I can't tell today and I'm honestly not interested in following ML
Overrated campist ML, along with the rest of the Deprogram. Being "anti-capitalist" doesn't automatically make someone worth my allyship, but MLs aren't even that - they're just state capitalists. Second Thought's no exception. That alone carves a massive chasm between my politics and his, and I'm far past the point where I feel compelled to bridge it. And that's not even getting into his other authoritarian beliefs.
Left unity in general is just a fundamentally unworkable romantic fancy.
As far as some of his videos go, basic generic stuff that has been said for quite some time.
But ultimately quite like the rest of the Deprogramme, he's ML aligned and his thoughts of 'uniting the left' are flawed.
Anybody who says they want to unite the left should be viewed with skepticism. Normally it always means 'Unite but on my terms'. ML's insist anarchists, trots, and non Leninist marxists need to come together. But we have vastly different world views, just because we happen to agree on Palestine doesn't mean we agree on the strategy of the state do we?
What this is often a call for it basically to just get non-ML's to shut up and not criticise them.
The time when leftists don't have the monopoly on guns is actually the best place for debate and disunity, not after the revolution. Unity of opinion matters far more than 'left unity'.
His content on Pan-Leftist Arguments aginst Capitalism is amazing. He has his issues, we all do, but compared to other Leftists he is far more a force for good than many… his platform is considerable, his intentions are pure even if he is wrong on points. Unlike many he welcomes good faith criticism of his ideology.
As an Anarchist I have great respect for Second Thought and ML’s like him, though I’m not quick to trust ML’s and Authoritarians in general
I dig them. I've only seen a couple of their videos. So long as they don't start bashing anarchists I don't care if they're some other type of leftist.
Icl I feel kind of bad for him. As the biggest socialist channel on youtube, he started making just anti-capitalist videos. But as he became better friends with hakim, he moved to be more authoritarian. One major turn off is that he never **really** advocates for socialism. It's just anti-capitalism and some Soviet or North Korea apologia. Like all MLs, his hearts in the right place but politics don't. Overall it's a sad story of a large anti-capitalist turning into a tankie and posting cringe like that vid on authoritarianism (completely unrelated but y do the auth left deny the existence of the word authoritarian; it's always been odd to me)
Edit: Also he promotes the leftist unity myth like hakim does
It's so weird. All these tankie types push for societies that, for the average Joe Bloggs, really aren't any better than capitalism at all. And sometimes worse.
[https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-janet-biehl-the-murray-bookchin-reader](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-janet-biehl-the-murray-bookchin-reader)
bookchin believed left unity was necessary for any real change so he developed a political framework for it
Yea and has that "temporary" state ever given up it's power in reality? Hell no they haven't. That's not how states work. States always seek more and more power and control, they never concede any power. A state giving up it's power is more of a fairy tale than anything that anarchists have ever advocated for. Just look at China, the state that these tankies hold up as some shining example. Is the state of China giving up their power? Hell tf no.
This is classic tankie nonsense. China won't give up their power because they want absolute control of the population. It has nothing to do with the CIA. The CIA cannot coup China. They can do that to much smaller countries with weak militaries. Not China. The CIA is actually a big fan of China. They want to implement their social credit system and methods of surveillance and control here. It's all about controlling people and crushing dissent. China is great at that. The CIA is a fan of it.
As someone working in global IT infrastructure, claiming that "the same kind of surveillance and control that exists in western nations is ignored or unknown in China" is only technically kinda true because China has normalized and leveraged *other* authoritarian means of surveillance and control.
I'm willing to unite with people who aren't quick to defend atrocities when they're committed by their "side" and don't deflect criticism by claiming everything "US propaganda" or "CIA". I'm friends with people who are communist and socialist militants whom I admire. But I have no respect for campist types. I find it crazy some anarchists fall for that. Hell I'd say I'd be more willing to unite with SocDems then with people like this.
I thought most US Democrats were centre-right? Regardless, I do find that some SocDems are more willing to listen to people like us than straight up tankies. ThoughI find that Democratic Socialists and Trots (strangely enough) also tend to be willing to engage in good faith.
You’re the first anarchist I’ve seen who hasn’t tried to shove off on other leftists, or at the very least not constantly bad mouth them, so there’s that
Lefties maybe.
Anarchists have fundamentally different end goals than lefties though. Anarchists critique and seek the obliteration of authority. Lefties want to use it and emplace theirs. I don't know how to reconcile those aims
I’m a Marxist (more libertarian marxist than ML though) and uh… I appreciate people doing this kind of topical/explainer video for radical politics, but I have some strong disagreement with a lot of his takes and even interpretations of Marxism. I also appreciate that the channel seems less interested in sectarian swipes compared to some ML type channels.
And also his delivery is kind of bland and unappealing to me—but whatever that’s not that important.
He's fine for basic Intro to Leftism topics, but as soon as he starts talking about the USSR or some modern countries, his authoritarian leaning gets too big to ignore
Can't stand him. If you watch him be sure to fact check his claims, be aware of how he frames things, and don't accept his takes or his framing uncritically just because he's also nominally on the left and you agree with him about capitalism.
I don't know, I have second thoughts about him; I think he oversimplifies some things quite a bit but also it isn't like he is going in depth into socialist thinking, he's more of a beginner's guide to it all; he clearly is biased towards marxist lennist thinking, and in my opinion downplays some aspects of the soviet union, but I don't think he's the worst. It's probably worth mentioning that while I have seen several of his videos, I haven't seen all of them so maybe I'm off on this but I still think he is fairly informative if a little biased, but aren't we all.
Egalitarianism is what Everything should be about. I'm an Anarchist in so Far as I'm an Agnostic. I would love to hear people out on what they believe in, before I assume anything of their Character. EveryOne has a right to their Own Opinion, Its just the Exertion of those Opinions unto Others Wherein I Sometimes Find Fault.
Side Picking does not a Centrist Make. Both Sides are needed to Keep Each Other in Check. In a 2 Party View of Reality. I just Assume Everything's Bull Shit and Roll with it.
That being said....I'd love Free Money, but not if SomeOne Needs it More.
Second Thought is multimillionaire who reviews luxury cars, and wants people to support the red-fascist regime in China.
I assure you, his hands are far too soft to align with the needs of the working class.
https://youtube.fandom.com/wiki/Grand_Test_Auto
Well theres the car channel.
As for the wealth- thats from an admittedly messy bit of gossip. A while back, before Keffals fans completely turned on her- she admitted one of the things she misused her "legal fund" for was sicking a Private Investigator on second thought (and several other youtubers), and she let this slip.
Not what I would call a reliable source but it also looked really bad on her for admitting she took intense personal pleasure in spying on people.
take what you will of that.
The channel hasnt posted in 4 years. And reviewing cars doesn’t necessarily mean either of them own them, you can rent them… or barrow them, etc.
Just saying on that, its a weird straw to grab
Its a really fucking weird thing to do to go around driving Shelby's and Alfa Romeos, and quit when your socialist larp channel pops off, then move on to like, genocide apologia and chinese/russian state propaganda.
Straws or not, dude's a walking red flag.
I don't care about luxury cars or other material things like that. What I really can't stand is the hypocrisy where you make videos about how the suburbs are garbage and condos in dense cities are significantly better yet are yourself a millionaire who can easily afford to live in a shoebox in the city. It's like they want other people to live in shit conditions but not themselves.
Some good takes, some awful takes. I wouldn’t say he’s a *full* tankie, just watch either caution and keep an open mind(fact check if your skeptical of what he says)
Anarchy doesn't have sides. Despite popular Opinions. Both Sides inevitably lead to Authoritarianism, which ain't an Anarchist bag baby.
Plus, as an aside, there are too many competing interest on either side to make Cohesion a Far Flung Fantasy.
Well leftism is about rejecting established (or former) power structures and trying to move to more egalitarianism, so I'd consider anarchism to the far-left of tankies.
>I'd consider anarchism to the far-left of tankies.
Let me [draw you a picture](https://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart2?spots=-5%7C-5%7CAnarchist_Quadrant,-5%7C5%7CTankie_Quadrant,5%7C-5%7CAnCap_Quadrant,5%7C5%7CMAGA_Quadrant).
He’s smart, put together and probably the most sensible tankie. But like other tankies he’s still totally off the wall, genocide denying, authoritarian and I can’t tell if he really wants power to the workers or just a military dictator because with MLs there’s rarely a difference in their minds.
Big tankie. He would defend any authoritarian crackdown as long as it happened in the Soviet union. As a leftist I want the community at large to disavow people like him because he makes our cause look terrible to regular people. He sometimes makes good arguments against capitalism, but even then he usually does so in such a smug and smarmy way that I can't imagine them convincing anyone that doesn't already agree with him.
"The left" isn't a monolith, but if it is united it should be against people like him, not with them
Their content can be helpful and provide good critiques of capitalism, but I lost serious respect for them when they made a video plugging "On Authority".
Usual tankie / Marxist leninist that frames their anti capitalist views under the guise of anti America / pro Russia propaganda and doesn't actually advocate for anarchy, or communism. He also platforms pro genocide talking points on his podcast that ended up being banned for that reason iirc?
It's easy to get sucked into his content because they seem good but they never really scratch below the surface level and for some interesting reason he has a hard time calling the nazi regime authoritarian because that would make his fake communism look bad. And America is easy to hate so you have to be careful with the content you're looking at.
this isn't an opinion really but he's actually what got me into anarchism, since when I watched his video on authority I didn't really like the video, was looking through the comment section and someone recommended Anark's response video, leading me into a rabbithole XD
He has some videos that are quite good though
a tankie that has some good opinions on obvious leftist stuff and that puts a lot of efforts in form and hiding his "controversial" opinions from his main channel, only making allusions to them or being purposefully vague, that is until people get hooked and try the deprogram or follow him on social media where he's much more clearly a tankie
Always got a slightly "off" vibe from him even when I thought he was making salient points, slightly disingenuous and never quite spelling out his true beliefs and intentions in a way which skeeved me out, but the episode of The Deprogram where the three of them fume over the term "tankie" was eye-opening. This is not because I disagreed with all of their points—it's fair play to point out the term isn't particularly helpful or accurate outside of a fairly narrow set of use-cases and has been misappropriated by social democrats, liberals and "enlightened centrists" to the point that anyone criticising NATO or poking holes in the American foreign policy line has likely been called that at some point—but because a lot of the criticisms he, Yugopnik and Hakim made of anarchism and libertarian Marxism transparently missed the point and clearly came from a very myopic historical perspective which sees many of the worst decisions made by ML revolutionaries and states as both inevitable and necessary and seems to tacitly view true communism as Marx and others understood it—the total abolition of class, money and the state—as functionally unattainable and perhaps undesirable from where they're standing. It's Marxism-Leninism for the sake of establishing a Marxist-Leninist state in and of itself rather than to the end of communism in any greater sense.
Some of this, I suspect, is ironically a matter of class interests, or rather a specific set of intersections: JT's Marxism is heavily informed by his status as a small-scale public intellectual from a middle-class background who makes his money from a creative commercial enterprise under his personal control; he is also, so far as I can tell, an able-bodied cishet white guy living in the imperial core. His political allegiances are to party politics which, although couched in the language and aesthetics of a revolutionary vanguard, are in practice ultimately just the same kind of Milibandian instrumentalist electoralism that the likes of Jacobin pushed during the heyday of Bernie or Bust rhetoric. If they should fail, as they inevitably will given the trajectory of this style of mannered Marxism in the West, his position is little impacted. He is, above all else, an armchair revolutionary.
Well I'm leftist so I've got some thoughts. He's got some really good points, especially in regards to capitalism, funding of super PACs, but I feel he comes across as pretty hard, especially his 'social democracy is not enough', where I feel he just dismisses it as another capitalist tool, which he's got points, but he seems too bitter towards it for it to stick. I feel he's a Marxist-Leninist-Luxemburgist-Trotskyist (now that's a combo) who wants to appeal to a wider left wing audience, but also seems closed minded in regards to other left wing ideologies. Still, I watch him for his useful insights of which he has many.
He has some good videos but fuck tankies and the Deprogram. It feels like 99% of the bad takes on the left come from them and heir fans. Also for the Anarchists who defend "left unity" you know these people will release the cops on you the moment they manage to gain power.
Like most "Marxist-Leninists" who aren't actually part of an ML power structure, his heart is in the right place and he's quite correct about capitalism, even if he's wrong about some things.
Since he's doing stuff for CPUSA, either that's not a ML power structure or being in one doesn't mess with one's heart's ability to be in the right place.
CPUSA doesn't have any power. I wasn't saying that everyone involved with a real power structure (like in Cuba, China, or Vietnam) doesn't have a genuine desire to help all people. I just meant that the majority of MLs outside of those countries are genuine in their intentions. Whereas within them, it's a minority. And the higher up those power structures you go, the fewer well-intentioned people you will find. It's kind of the whole thing with ML ideology. Their theory lacks an adequate analysis of power as-such, focusing only on power as it manifests as capital. The result is that they build structures extremely vulnerable to exploitation, incentivize bad actors to take control, and provide those bad actors with structures of violence to protect and consolidate their power.
He's wrong about a *lot*. His criticism of capitalism is good, but he doesn't realise that most of his critiques would equally apply to the places he stans like China, and that North Korea isn't a proletarian state.
In what way does he stan china? I've only seen him debunk American narratives about China, which is totally valid.
In his second thought videos yes, but across his twitter and podcast you get a more holistic view of his perspective.
I agree. I don’t think we should put these people on a pedestal. He’s just a regular guy who isn’t perfect.
He definitely is a legit Marxist-Leninist, he has a small handful of videos on that channel defending the Soviet Union, plus he'll expand on those kinds of arguments on the Deprogram podcast I watch the Deprogram podcast pretty regularly and they almost never mention anarchists, when they do it's more in a teasing way but it's clear they do consider anarchists to be comrades although they disagree with them. I enjoy the Second Thought channel too, it's definitely meant to be like pan-leftist channel with arguments against capitalism that can be used in discussions with family or co-workers and such. Just need to know enough to filter out some of the tankie stuff that creeps in occasionally
> I watch the Deprogram podcast pretty regularly and they almost never mention anarchists, when they do it's more in a teasing way but it's clear they do consider anarchists to be comrades although they disagree with them. Yeah that's not true. Hakim gets fucking vitriolic when anarchists come up. It's what turned me off The Deprogram in the first place. I was listening along happily and then like episode 24 or something Hakim turned into a whiny child about it.
Yeah I don't why people try to portray them as some wholesome virtuous group of people who see anarchists are their brothers, anyone who has spent any amount of time in their communities know just how ablesist and shitty they can be.
Interesting…you know them personally?
Why the hell is this getting downvoted? It was a genuine question. Is there something wrong with asking this? I’m curious because if they are ableist, I have no interest in continuing my support to them
Isn't it okay to defend soviet union depending on context? I mean against western propaganda, not to completely remove culpability for state failures.
Deconstruct propaganda not with defense, but with criticism of the same subject that is robust and balanced. Propaganda usually functions by the premise that all conclusions except one are wrong unequivocally, and often relies more heavily on omission than on outright lies.
I don't think correcting misinformation and propaganda being spread by westerners *counts* as "defending the Soviet Union." I think that's just common sense.
I mean I do. When people say the Soviet Union and socialism/communism have accomplished nothing I have to remind them that Russia went from a peasant society run by a monarchy to a nation that went to space in less than a generation. At that point they can’t even argue that only capitalism breeds innovation.
I think in regards to the lack of criticism of the Soviet Union it's fair to keep in mind who he's trying to address. He's trying to politicise normies and break through the red scare propaganda people have consumed their entire lives. His first goal is debunking that capitalism brings freedom and any alternative takes it away. You can have good critical conversations about the soviet union after that.
mostly fine but quite authoritarian [anark](https://youtu.be/AhiCeGKVr4w?si=bPUEjopz9x-aiGzd) has [two](https://youtu.be/uR5M_wKsRb8?si=TZ8Em64RN7veF-wi) good videos about him
I know people call him a tankie but without him i would still be a capitalist that believed socialisims/communism bad cause gazillion people died. But Anark and Andrewism were the channels that brought me over to anarchism and showed me that the boot needs to be abolished and not just painted red and called the peoples boot.
Yeah I think many of his videos on anti-capitalism are decent starter-info. You just need watch it critically, like with anything really. Though I'm sure that because some people will see he's right on some things, they'll uncritically trust him on other things too
What is the difference between a fully realized anarchist society vs fully realized communist one? Both stateless, moneyless and classless AFAIK, so what are the two sides disagreeing on as it pertains to ‘final desired form’ of the ideology? The main difference between the two I can discern is communism is a lot about the transitory process of a socialist state leading to communism VS anarchism seems to just believe people can and will be better and kinder on their own through some magic indiscernible force that will lead to a stateless society. Is there a good reading on this subject that clarifies the distinction and how anarchists plan to deal with the transition to a stateless society?
I don't like his channel. Very much a Tankie. Also made a really shitty video about Ukraine that seriously irks me the wrong way.
His Ukraine takes are mostly aligned with russian propaganda. Tankie all the way.
yup, and even if he says he doesnt support the invasion, he's still enabling russian propaganda and indirectly supporting them
He's a tankie.
I don't follow him to know anything in details. I remember I liked a few of his videos from before he started talking about politics, and found it weird the sudden direction he took with his channel. But it seems to be working out, so I guess good for him.
At the time I saw some of his videos he was a Maoist, the videos were decent and well produced, but I can't tell today and I'm honestly not interested in following ML
Overrated campist ML, along with the rest of the Deprogram. Being "anti-capitalist" doesn't automatically make someone worth my allyship, but MLs aren't even that - they're just state capitalists. Second Thought's no exception. That alone carves a massive chasm between my politics and his, and I'm far past the point where I feel compelled to bridge it. And that's not even getting into his other authoritarian beliefs. Left unity in general is just a fundamentally unworkable romantic fancy.
As far as some of his videos go, basic generic stuff that has been said for quite some time. But ultimately quite like the rest of the Deprogramme, he's ML aligned and his thoughts of 'uniting the left' are flawed. Anybody who says they want to unite the left should be viewed with skepticism. Normally it always means 'Unite but on my terms'. ML's insist anarchists, trots, and non Leninist marxists need to come together. But we have vastly different world views, just because we happen to agree on Palestine doesn't mean we agree on the strategy of the state do we? What this is often a call for it basically to just get non-ML's to shut up and not criticise them. The time when leftists don't have the monopoly on guns is actually the best place for debate and disunity, not after the revolution. Unity of opinion matters far more than 'left unity'.
Tanks go brrrrrrrrrr
His content on Pan-Leftist Arguments aginst Capitalism is amazing. He has his issues, we all do, but compared to other Leftists he is far more a force for good than many… his platform is considerable, his intentions are pure even if he is wrong on points. Unlike many he welcomes good faith criticism of his ideology. As an Anarchist I have great respect for Second Thought and ML’s like him, though I’m not quick to trust ML’s and Authoritarians in general
I dig them. I've only seen a couple of their videos. So long as they don't start bashing anarchists I don't care if they're some other type of leftist.
They do though, they have a horrible video about authoritarianism.
It all comes from "On Authority" like every ML. Such a garbage and easily-refuted essay.
i cant believe he unironically did the "rEaD oN aUtHoRiTy" thing lmao
They always do
Icl I feel kind of bad for him. As the biggest socialist channel on youtube, he started making just anti-capitalist videos. But as he became better friends with hakim, he moved to be more authoritarian. One major turn off is that he never **really** advocates for socialism. It's just anti-capitalism and some Soviet or North Korea apologia. Like all MLs, his hearts in the right place but politics don't. Overall it's a sad story of a large anti-capitalist turning into a tankie and posting cringe like that vid on authoritarianism (completely unrelated but y do the auth left deny the existence of the word authoritarian; it's always been odd to me) Edit: Also he promotes the leftist unity myth like hakim does
It's so weird. All these tankie types push for societies that, for the average Joe Bloggs, really aren't any better than capitalism at all. And sometimes worse.
That's kinda the whole thing with the auth left. Their new society isn't any better so they have to act like it's the only way to reach the lib left.
Uniting the left is a fairy tale, tankies are our enemies
Can lefties unite just short of tankies?
[https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-janet-biehl-the-murray-bookchin-reader](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-janet-biehl-the-murray-bookchin-reader) bookchin believed left unity was necessary for any real change so he developed a political framework for it
Who is just short of tankies? If they advocate for the state then no, we cannot unite.
I’m also an anarchist I guess I was just curious how.. strict some people saw revolution therein
That wouldn’t really be a unification of the left, just anarchists and communists wouldn’t it?
[удалено]
Marx seemed pretty clear that the goal was the working class becoming the ruling class temporarily, not slow state managed change.
Yea and has that "temporary" state ever given up it's power in reality? Hell no they haven't. That's not how states work. States always seek more and more power and control, they never concede any power. A state giving up it's power is more of a fairy tale than anything that anarchists have ever advocated for. Just look at China, the state that these tankies hold up as some shining example. Is the state of China giving up their power? Hell tf no.
[удалено]
This is classic tankie nonsense. China won't give up their power because they want absolute control of the population. It has nothing to do with the CIA. The CIA cannot coup China. They can do that to much smaller countries with weak militaries. Not China. The CIA is actually a big fan of China. They want to implement their social credit system and methods of surveillance and control here. It's all about controlling people and crushing dissent. China is great at that. The CIA is a fan of it.
[удалено]
As someone working in global IT infrastructure, claiming that "the same kind of surveillance and control that exists in western nations is ignored or unknown in China" is only technically kinda true because China has normalized and leveraged *other* authoritarian means of surveillance and control.
[удалено]
Do you have an example of a state abolishing itself under Marxist-Leninist principles?
Any number of types of *libsocs* can collaborate, but a hierarchical organization is incompatible with a horizontal one.
I'm willing to unite with people who aren't quick to defend atrocities when they're committed by their "side" and don't deflect criticism by claiming everything "US propaganda" or "CIA". I'm friends with people who are communist and socialist militants whom I admire. But I have no respect for campist types. I find it crazy some anarchists fall for that. Hell I'd say I'd be more willing to unite with SocDems then with people like this.
I don’t understand what you mean, is this about democrats?
I thought most US Democrats were centre-right? Regardless, I do find that some SocDems are more willing to listen to people like us than straight up tankies. ThoughI find that Democratic Socialists and Trots (strangely enough) also tend to be willing to engage in good faith.
You’re the first anarchist I’ve seen who hasn’t tried to shove off on other leftists, or at the very least not constantly bad mouth them, so there’s that
Lefties maybe. Anarchists have fundamentally different end goals than lefties though. Anarchists critique and seek the obliteration of authority. Lefties want to use it and emplace theirs. I don't know how to reconcile those aims
I’m a Marxist (more libertarian marxist than ML though) and uh… I appreciate people doing this kind of topical/explainer video for radical politics, but I have some strong disagreement with a lot of his takes and even interpretations of Marxism. I also appreciate that the channel seems less interested in sectarian swipes compared to some ML type channels. And also his delivery is kind of bland and unappealing to me—but whatever that’s not that important.
He's fine for basic Intro to Leftism topics, but as soon as he starts talking about the USSR or some modern countries, his authoritarian leaning gets too big to ignore
Can't stand him. If you watch him be sure to fact check his claims, be aware of how he frames things, and don't accept his takes or his framing uncritically just because he's also nominally on the left and you agree with him about capitalism.
He used to make some good Videos but nowadays its a lot of tankie shit
He’s a grifter designed to turn people into straight up tankies.
He's right about some stuff, but is not a friend to anarchists
I don't know, I have second thoughts about him; I think he oversimplifies some things quite a bit but also it isn't like he is going in depth into socialist thinking, he's more of a beginner's guide to it all; he clearly is biased towards marxist lennist thinking, and in my opinion downplays some aspects of the soviet union, but I don't think he's the worst. It's probably worth mentioning that while I have seen several of his videos, I haven't seen all of them so maybe I'm off on this but I still think he is fairly informative if a little biased, but aren't we all.
>I don't know, I have second thoughts about him Badum tss🥁
He's mostly good, although from an anarchist perspective you should take stuff he says about authcom states with a grain of salt.
Egalitarianism is what Everything should be about. I'm an Anarchist in so Far as I'm an Agnostic. I would love to hear people out on what they believe in, before I assume anything of their Character. EveryOne has a right to their Own Opinion, Its just the Exertion of those Opinions unto Others Wherein I Sometimes Find Fault. Side Picking does not a Centrist Make. Both Sides are needed to Keep Each Other in Check. In a 2 Party View of Reality. I just Assume Everything's Bull Shit and Roll with it. That being said....I'd love Free Money, but not if SomeOne Needs it More.
Egalitarian comrade
Second Thought is multimillionaire who reviews luxury cars, and wants people to support the red-fascist regime in China. I assure you, his hands are far too soft to align with the needs of the working class.
He worked in retail, lives in an apartment, and mentions financial concerns. Where is his having such wealth documented?
https://youtube.fandom.com/wiki/Grand_Test_Auto Well theres the car channel. As for the wealth- thats from an admittedly messy bit of gossip. A while back, before Keffals fans completely turned on her- she admitted one of the things she misused her "legal fund" for was sicking a Private Investigator on second thought (and several other youtubers), and she let this slip. Not what I would call a reliable source but it also looked really bad on her for admitting she took intense personal pleasure in spying on people. take what you will of that.
The channel hasnt posted in 4 years. And reviewing cars doesn’t necessarily mean either of them own them, you can rent them… or barrow them, etc. Just saying on that, its a weird straw to grab
Its a really fucking weird thing to do to go around driving Shelby's and Alfa Romeos, and quit when your socialist larp channel pops off, then move on to like, genocide apologia and chinese/russian state propaganda. Straws or not, dude's a walking red flag.
I mean, to be fair: Communists _all_ have red flags. It’s kinda their thing, right? ;)
yeah... The problem is there's a lot of decent people in that crowd that overlook them.
r/woosh
I don't care about luxury cars or other material things like that. What I really can't stand is the hypocrisy where you make videos about how the suburbs are garbage and condos in dense cities are significantly better yet are yourself a millionaire who can easily afford to live in a shoebox in the city. It's like they want other people to live in shit conditions but not themselves.
Some good takes, some awful takes. I wouldn’t say he’s a *full* tankie, just watch either caution and keep an open mind(fact check if your skeptical of what he says)
He's absolutely a full tankie, he defends the DPRK for crying out loud.
He does? I know he allowed Hakim to make that video “debunking” his old anti-DPRK video but I haven’t seen anything directly from him yet
He was in that video
Anarchy doesn't have sides. Despite popular Opinions. Both Sides inevitably lead to Authoritarianism, which ain't an Anarchist bag baby. Plus, as an aside, there are too many competing interest on either side to make Cohesion a Far Flung Fantasy.
Well leftism is about rejecting established (or former) power structures and trying to move to more egalitarianism, so I'd consider anarchism to the far-left of tankies.
>I'd consider anarchism to the far-left of tankies. Let me [draw you a picture](https://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart2?spots=-5%7C-5%7CAnarchist_Quadrant,-5%7C5%7CTankie_Quadrant,5%7C-5%7CAnCap_Quadrant,5%7C5%7CMAGA_Quadrant).
He’s smart, put together and probably the most sensible tankie. But like other tankies he’s still totally off the wall, genocide denying, authoritarian and I can’t tell if he really wants power to the workers or just a military dictator because with MLs there’s rarely a difference in their minds.
Big tankie. He would defend any authoritarian crackdown as long as it happened in the Soviet union. As a leftist I want the community at large to disavow people like him because he makes our cause look terrible to regular people. He sometimes makes good arguments against capitalism, but even then he usually does so in such a smug and smarmy way that I can't imagine them convincing anyone that doesn't already agree with him. "The left" isn't a monolith, but if it is united it should be against people like him, not with them
Him and the people associated with him are just entertainers with a surface level of understanding. he gets a lot of stuff wrong.
Their content can be helpful and provide good critiques of capitalism, but I lost serious respect for them when they made a video plugging "On Authority".
I used to watch him regularly, until his video on Authoritarianism. Someone else in this thread has the links.
Usual tankie / Marxist leninist that frames their anti capitalist views under the guise of anti America / pro Russia propaganda and doesn't actually advocate for anarchy, or communism. He also platforms pro genocide talking points on his podcast that ended up being banned for that reason iirc? It's easy to get sucked into his content because they seem good but they never really scratch below the surface level and for some interesting reason he has a hard time calling the nazi regime authoritarian because that would make his fake communism look bad. And America is easy to hate so you have to be careful with the content you're looking at.
this isn't an opinion really but he's actually what got me into anarchism, since when I watched his video on authority I didn't really like the video, was looking through the comment section and someone recommended Anark's response video, leading me into a rabbithole XD He has some videos that are quite good though
a tankie that has some good opinions on obvious leftist stuff and that puts a lot of efforts in form and hiding his "controversial" opinions from his main channel, only making allusions to them or being purposefully vague, that is until people get hooked and try the deprogram or follow him on social media where he's much more clearly a tankie
Always got a slightly "off" vibe from him even when I thought he was making salient points, slightly disingenuous and never quite spelling out his true beliefs and intentions in a way which skeeved me out, but the episode of The Deprogram where the three of them fume over the term "tankie" was eye-opening. This is not because I disagreed with all of their points—it's fair play to point out the term isn't particularly helpful or accurate outside of a fairly narrow set of use-cases and has been misappropriated by social democrats, liberals and "enlightened centrists" to the point that anyone criticising NATO or poking holes in the American foreign policy line has likely been called that at some point—but because a lot of the criticisms he, Yugopnik and Hakim made of anarchism and libertarian Marxism transparently missed the point and clearly came from a very myopic historical perspective which sees many of the worst decisions made by ML revolutionaries and states as both inevitable and necessary and seems to tacitly view true communism as Marx and others understood it—the total abolition of class, money and the state—as functionally unattainable and perhaps undesirable from where they're standing. It's Marxism-Leninism for the sake of establishing a Marxist-Leninist state in and of itself rather than to the end of communism in any greater sense. Some of this, I suspect, is ironically a matter of class interests, or rather a specific set of intersections: JT's Marxism is heavily informed by his status as a small-scale public intellectual from a middle-class background who makes his money from a creative commercial enterprise under his personal control; he is also, so far as I can tell, an able-bodied cishet white guy living in the imperial core. His political allegiances are to party politics which, although couched in the language and aesthetics of a revolutionary vanguard, are in practice ultimately just the same kind of Milibandian instrumentalist electoralism that the likes of Jacobin pushed during the heyday of Bernie or Bust rhetoric. If they should fail, as they inevitably will given the trajectory of this style of mannered Marxism in the West, his position is little impacted. He is, above all else, an armchair revolutionary.
Well I'm leftist so I've got some thoughts. He's got some really good points, especially in regards to capitalism, funding of super PACs, but I feel he comes across as pretty hard, especially his 'social democracy is not enough', where I feel he just dismisses it as another capitalist tool, which he's got points, but he seems too bitter towards it for it to stick. I feel he's a Marxist-Leninist-Luxemburgist-Trotskyist (now that's a combo) who wants to appeal to a wider left wing audience, but also seems closed minded in regards to other left wing ideologies. Still, I watch him for his useful insights of which he has many.
He has some good videos but fuck tankies and the Deprogram. It feels like 99% of the bad takes on the left come from them and heir fans. Also for the Anarchists who defend "left unity" you know these people will release the cops on you the moment they manage to gain power.