Yep, this is the concept behind “Social Democracy.” Class collaborationism is a myth used to justify the perpetuation of Capitalism, not ending it.

Historically, this just doesn’t work, and it even risks supporting PatSoc movements like the American Communist Party (not to be confused with the CPUSA), also known as “MAGA Communism.” Essentially Imperialism combined with Communist aesthetics.

In the lead-up to the Russian Revolution, there was disagreement over the necessity of reading theory. The SRs thought it was unneccessary, and got in the way of unity. Lenin and the Bolsheviks disagreed, as theory informs correct practice. The SRs became a footnotez and the Bolsheviks succeeded in establishing the world’s first Socialist state. One of Lenin’s most fanous lines, from What is to be done? is “without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary practice.”

As studying theory is necessary, people will realize you’re repackaging Socialism. This will backfire, and people will realize they’ve been tricked. This will hurt the movement.

As for Dialectical Materialism, in a nutshell it’s the philosophical backbone of Marxism. It’s an analytical tool, focusing on studying material reality as it exists in context and in motion through time, as well as their contradictions. If you want an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list that will teach you the fundamentals, I have one here that I made.

H3H3 is a Zionist who defended his wife’s IDF membership, who volunteered for raids to “break up the monotony.”

All 3, including audiobook links, are on my list in the parent comment for this thread! Great suggestions, too.

AES leaders have never been “saints,” no human has been, but the Socialist systems nevertheless have resulted in robust systems with dramatic improvements in the lives of their people. The PRC is an example, I wouldn’t call Xi a perfect saint but the Socialist system itself works well.

I suspect that this vague gesturing doesn’t really have a point for me to go off of if you aren’t giving an example. If you don’t want to, that’s fine, but I don’t see the point in this comment without one.

“No investigation, no right to speak” is a good mantra. One should not speak on matters they don’t know enough about. Vaush is confidently incorrect, Hasan more often than not just won’t speak if he isn’t knowledgeable (in comparison). The fact that it “preserves his image” is a side-effect, the true benefit is not contributing to a miasma of misinformation and misguided analysis like Vaush does.

That’s why Vaush is a danger to Leftists, while Hasan is generally not.

The US Empire being incredibly evil and predatory towards anyone daring to exert domestic control over their economies and even their own allies does paint a better picture for AES states. It doesn’t make them automatically good, but it starts them off on the right foot.

Then you can analyze how AES states have brought immense democratizations of the economy, massive expansions in key quality of life metrics like education, literacy, life expectancy, Home Ownership, and more, while expanding worker rights and supporting the Global South against the Imperialist countries, it’s hard to see AES as “bad.”

There are genuine critiques of AES countries, but I wouldn’t call them “autocratic,” considering they are generally more democratic than western countries, and moreover the needs of the people are better met. For example, people in China believe the government represents their interests at rates surpassing 90%, and more Chinese workers believe they have democratic control than USian workers.

All of these considerations need to be taken into account, and the fact that these AES states have been treated with the harshest of violence from the US Empire means they are deserving of support for their own existence.

I’ll repeat, shutting up when you don’t have a clear and thorough understanding of a problem is a skill, and it’s one Hasan tends to have more than Vaush.

Hasan isn’t the most well-read, but he also isn’t a debate-bro either. Vaush constantly trying to debate people online isn’t being “ideologically honest,” it’s bloodsport for clout, ironically enough.

Both serve as content creators that live through having enough “clout” to continue existing, but as influences on the Western Left Vaush does more harm than he does good, while Hasan does more good than he does harm. At the end of the day, shutting up when you don’t have a clear and thorough understanding of a problem is a skill, and it’s one Hasan tends to have more than Vaush.

Neither are good for theory, for that it’s far better to engage with the reading yourself.

The struggle depicted perfectly lol

Historically, that doesn’t actually fix systemic issues, though, like the only parties of relevance electorally being pre-approved and backed by the bourgeoisie. Moreover, electoral reform doesn’t have a real path to implementation that would make more sense than revolution to begin with.

A big difference between Hasan and Vaush is that Hasan generally wastes very little of his time with sectarian nonsense or left-punching, while Vaush makes that one of his core focuses. Hasan networks with the Deprogram crew, Chapo, and other more Marxist aligned groups without screaming about “tankies,” while Vaush leans heavily into that.

Hasan is also generally much better with foreign policy, even though I don’t always agree.

The biggest thing is that Hasan serves as a great gateway to Leftist radicalization, while Vaush ends up preventing further Leftist movement, kinda like a more Libertarian Socialist-coded Destiny.

My fiancé and I will still watch Hasan even when we may disagree with him on some issues because he is generally entertaining and generally more correct than not, but would never watch Vaush.

Oh my bad, I’m kinda stupid. Thought it was really a deal where Germans combine a bunch of words to make one word thing

Ah, gotcha! Makes sense, still funny in English.

The “in one word” bit I believe is a remnant of older speaking styles, but it’s always funny. I also really love the abrupt pivots to dunking on Kautsky Lenin makes all the time, lmao

Vaush has to, by virtue of his profession, at least pretend to know what he’s talking about with Marxism, so it can seem convincing. The issue is that it is abundantly clear every time he makes a mistake to anyone who takes theory seriously, yet that isn’t Vaush’s target audience, who are mainly western liberals and occasionally pro-US Anarchists.

That’s why I recommend reading theory, the only way to be 100% sure is to go the source.

And no problem, ask any time!

Yes and no. Yes in the sense that we can get a good idea of what does work as success/failure isn’t a binary, no in the sense that, ultimately, the overall strategy ended up not being viable. We can learn from this, taking what works and leaving behind what didn’t.

The AES states of today have learned from what happened to the USSR and other former Socialist countries and have adapted, such as China’s Socialist Market Economy and stance towards international investment, not closing off but not ceding power.