this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
52 points (94.8% liked)

Leftist Infighting: A community dedicated to allowing leftists to vent their frustrations

1328 readers
1 users here now

The purpose of this community is sort of a "work out your frustrations by letting it all out" where different leftist tendencies can vent their frustrations with one another and more assertively and directly challenge one another. Hostility is allowed, but any racist, fascist, or reactionary crap wont be tolerated, nor will explicit threats.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Look at the image he literally referenced above.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That post is literally just saying that material conditions influence people's politics, a point he himself has made.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

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.