I like him. Funny guy. I hold that TheDeprogram fellas are true MLs, just holding out on the most based opinions for YouTube. You can’t expect them to openly critically support Russia or support an AES state without them losing their channels. Edit: see GenZedong subreddit.
See this is where I’m not so sure. Do you lose your channel on youtube if you support Russia? I’ve seen plenty of reactionary voices on the same platform who are outright uncritically supporting the Russians whose channels have remained up, reactionary ones mind you. Would critical support really be likely to get them taken down? At a certain point I think they’ve got to take the risk in order to educate people the right way, or else the sensible position is going to end up being portrayed only by a load of chuds on youtube, making it harder for the average viewer to reach the right conclusions.
It probably wouldn’t get taken down but i think the line of thinking of the Deprogram guys is that they would be much less effective at converting people to communism/Marxism-Leninism or even just getting people to start thinking more about the world along Marxist lines if they openly voiced support for the most demonized states in the world today. It would be very easy for the radlibs and the imperialism-compatible left to smear them as “Putin shills” or some kind of crazy fringe extremists and apologists that shouldn’t be listened to or taken seriously if they just went all out supporting states like China and the DPRK.
But also i think they genuinely do have more of a negative view toward China and toward Russia’s special military operation than we do here, in the first case because i think they would prefer more of a Soviet style planned economy and they don’t like seeing so many capitalistic elements in China (and i mean neither do we but we understand why China felt that it was necessary - and still is - to first develop productive forces and only once that was achieved to slowly transition to the next phase of socialist construction so that they wouldn’t encounter the same issues that the Soviets did), and in the second case because they probably just don’t know about what was going on in the Donbass and Ukraine, or don’t accept the argument that what was happening made a Russian intervention necessary and unavoidable.
Ultimately even though i may understand why they adopt the position that they do, like you i still don’t agree with it. I think they will eventually have to pick a side. And i think there is plenty of evidence that that line of thinking that you cannot openly support Russia and still attract “normies” is incorrect. I think they miscalculate how much reluctance there is, at least outside of the typical liberal-adjacent online left, to accepting the mainstream narrative on Russia-Ukraine. I think the success that the “populist right” has had with its own - albeit opportunistic and unprincipled - anti-imperialist position is evidence that there is a lot more appetite for that kind of position among regular people than we tend to think.
And people like Ben Norton who you mentioned, or even the people at Midwestern Marx and others, are proof that you can be unapologetically anti-imperialist on the left and still appeal to a considerable audience. Having such a principled stance on these important geopolitical issues may even attract people to Marxist-Leninist ideas who would otherwise fall into the hands of the “populist right” or the so-called “patsoc” crowd of right-opportunists. This is not the time to be neutral and overly cautious (except if you live in a state where supporting Russia puts you in physical danger). Otherwise we end up shooting ourselves in the foot just like Jeremy Corbyn did when he refused to take a clear stance on the Brexit issue.
You’re probably right, and I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusions. The time for neutrality is long gone, everyone is picking sides, and if we don’t make it clear what our positions are then we risk losing the masses to right opportunists.
The problem for radicals is the need to work around the distribution monopolies. 100 years ago, leftists had lots of small publications. But all these have been crushed or taken over. The internet provides some respite, but it’s perhaps even worse as it’s absolutely dominated by a handful of corps. At least with radical flyers and leaflets, one could feasibly hand them out to people. On the internet, the corps can hide the leaflet. Left media online seems to be growing again, but almost all of it relies on one of those big corps. There’s some more-independent outlets, but these tend to require funding and so they dilute their message. Rocks and hard places.
I like him. Funny guy. I hold that TheDeprogram fellas are true MLs, just holding out on the most based opinions for YouTube. You can’t expect them to openly critically support Russia or support an AES state without them losing their channels. Edit: see GenZedong subreddit.
See this is where I’m not so sure. Do you lose your channel on youtube if you support Russia? I’ve seen plenty of reactionary voices on the same platform who are outright uncritically supporting the Russians whose channels have remained up, reactionary ones mind you. Would critical support really be likely to get them taken down? At a certain point I think they’ve got to take the risk in order to educate people the right way, or else the sensible position is going to end up being portrayed only by a load of chuds on youtube, making it harder for the average viewer to reach the right conclusions.
It probably wouldn’t get taken down but i think the line of thinking of the Deprogram guys is that they would be much less effective at converting people to communism/Marxism-Leninism or even just getting people to start thinking more about the world along Marxist lines if they openly voiced support for the most demonized states in the world today. It would be very easy for the radlibs and the imperialism-compatible left to smear them as “Putin shills” or some kind of crazy fringe extremists and apologists that shouldn’t be listened to or taken seriously if they just went all out supporting states like China and the DPRK.
But also i think they genuinely do have more of a negative view toward China and toward Russia’s special military operation than we do here, in the first case because i think they would prefer more of a Soviet style planned economy and they don’t like seeing so many capitalistic elements in China (and i mean neither do we but we understand why China felt that it was necessary - and still is - to first develop productive forces and only once that was achieved to slowly transition to the next phase of socialist construction so that they wouldn’t encounter the same issues that the Soviets did), and in the second case because they probably just don’t know about what was going on in the Donbass and Ukraine, or don’t accept the argument that what was happening made a Russian intervention necessary and unavoidable.
Ultimately even though i may understand why they adopt the position that they do, like you i still don’t agree with it. I think they will eventually have to pick a side. And i think there is plenty of evidence that that line of thinking that you cannot openly support Russia and still attract “normies” is incorrect. I think they miscalculate how much reluctance there is, at least outside of the typical liberal-adjacent online left, to accepting the mainstream narrative on Russia-Ukraine. I think the success that the “populist right” has had with its own - albeit opportunistic and unprincipled - anti-imperialist position is evidence that there is a lot more appetite for that kind of position among regular people than we tend to think.
And people like Ben Norton who you mentioned, or even the people at Midwestern Marx and others, are proof that you can be unapologetically anti-imperialist on the left and still appeal to a considerable audience. Having such a principled stance on these important geopolitical issues may even attract people to Marxist-Leninist ideas who would otherwise fall into the hands of the “populist right” or the so-called “patsoc” crowd of right-opportunists. This is not the time to be neutral and overly cautious (except if you live in a state where supporting Russia puts you in physical danger). Otherwise we end up shooting ourselves in the foot just like Jeremy Corbyn did when he refused to take a clear stance on the Brexit issue.
You’re probably right, and I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusions. The time for neutrality is long gone, everyone is picking sides, and if we don’t make it clear what our positions are then we risk losing the masses to right opportunists.
The problem for radicals is the need to work around the distribution monopolies. 100 years ago, leftists had lots of small publications. But all these have been crushed or taken over. The internet provides some respite, but it’s perhaps even worse as it’s absolutely dominated by a handful of corps. At least with radical flyers and leaflets, one could feasibly hand them out to people. On the internet, the corps can hide the leaflet. Left media online seems to be growing again, but almost all of it relies on one of those big corps. There’s some more-independent outlets, but these tend to require funding and so they dilute their message. Rocks and hard places.
MidwesternMarx has lost their tik tok how many times now?