cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/2331989
I don’t really think he knows this site’s culture at all. No one is dissuading people from reading theory lol
Yey or ney for him?
As someone said in the post
As far as I can tell, he's a guy who spends all his time posting about how all leftists do is post.
~~And this ain't the first time, Roderick's a bit terminally online, arguing against other progressives like JT (Second Thought) and Michael Hudson....~~
Edit:
Ok I've made a right-deviationist mistake in saying that Michael Hudson is a progressive, and indirectly agreeing with the views of the former....
I've not investigated into JT's MMT videos nor looked carefully into Hudson (I thought he was also against capitalism, turns out, only finance and feudalism..., just cares for industrial capitalism)
I'd really like to know what the "Christian nonsense" part is about lol.
And hexbear is very self-aware that it's just an obscure site in some dusty corner of the internet for hanging out and shitposting, there's no pretense of being an "organization"
Also, we constantly tell people to read theory, even the comment he used as an example does in no way refute that, I have no idea how he got from "not all knowledge comes from books and articles" to "don't read theory"
I think by Christian nonsense he means what we'd call glorifying poverty. He might be saying being impoverished doesn't offer any sort of specific insight.
Yea its about the poverty cult path some leftists take.
That's not something that happens on hexbear though
Look at the image he literally referenced above.
That post is literally just saying that material conditions influence people's politics, a point he himself has made.
Yes, but the post says you can’t be a communist unless you experience the material conditions. There is a strong correlation between class and ideology, but class traitors exist from the bourgeoisie like Engels.
They're talking about the general case. Unfortunately I can't seem to locate that user or find the post to clarify. But given two interpretations of, "This person was speaking 100% literally and believes in complete nonsense about poverty fetishization that nobody agrees with," or, "This person omitted a probably necessary qualifier to come across more strongly while making a reasonable and correct point" I'm inclined to go with the reasonably charitable interpretation. Though the poor phrasing might be why it didn't get many upvotes, and more comments.
Fair
Hexbear is far too treatbrained to be poverty fetishists lmao