I was the last one to incite a debate about Hasan on this site, and this was the comment that reframed my thinking positively.
this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2026
117 points (100.0% liked)
The best of Hexbear!
368 readers
217 users here now
A place to point people to see what we're all about, the defining moments, the self-mythololoy, the best bits, the banned posters who have made us what we are today
Rules:
-
Content submitted must be at least two weeks old.
-
Include links and/or screenshots of content as appropriate. Include any narrative necessary for context as appropriate.
-
Ping a mod if you put a lot of work into an effort post so it can be pinned and featured.
-
Posting old struggle sessions is fine, but absolutely no relitigating them in the comments.
founded 2 years ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
He literally lies about Lenin to convince people to vote for democrats. That is not a pipeline to the left. That is diverting people who were heading left towards his friends in the democratic party. The fact he screams at anyone who tries to point out that he is misrepresenting Lenin makes it clear this is a deliberate strategy, I imagine this is because if he wasn't serving the democrats he would lose access to them.
He is an active, deliberate impediment to the left.
If that's all they will do (vote democrat), it's still better than them being chuds. If they, however, use the fact that he namedrops Lenin to go further, that's also a good thing. Also, I don't think his readings are "lies" they're just readings! It's like saying you are Martin Luther and have the correct interpretation of scripture. Lenin's works are a text, and while there's doctrinaire readings, perhaps he's flexing the truth to get people to approach the works.
I don't buy that they were "heading left" necessarily either - what's that even mean? Is it abstaining because accelerationism is the best principle? Unless "heading left" is joining a union, building the organization, and creating strike power, I literally don't know what you're talking about here (and that's not mutually exclusive with voting for democrats).
is obviously a very minor thing, and he's doing work to platform progressive candidates, but if "heading left" is just voting for the most communist candidate - most people who he gets in would have never done that anyway! Meanwhile, when he emphasizes unions, organizing, and building actual power, he's actually moving people left.
If you read Lenin telling people it can be productive to vote for a proletarian political party even in a bourgeois system and use that to tell people they should vote for the democrats then you are a fucking liar, full stop. That is explicitly the opposite of what the passage says. This is what makes it clear that while he could fill the role you're talking about, he is choosing not to. He is funneling people into being democrat voters and explicitly directing them away from the left. Like, he literally shouts down anyone who tries to suggest actual left wing ideas on favour of, once again, misrepresenting Lenin in order to convince people to vote democrat. That is not useful or productive unless the end goal you want is barbarism. Personally I am hoping for socialism.
Has Hasan ever supported "vote blue no matter who"? Generally he has supported DSA-aligned candidates like Zohran who in some capacity are trying to push democrats towards a proletarian party. It's also about pushing the entire left in America so the bare minimum is no genocide, anti-war, pro M4A. And he's uncompromising on these things! It's not like he's supporting freaks who support "medicare for all who want it."
I'm listening to him now, and he's literally arguing "more than half of the Democrats in the caucus are also on board with this initiative [to attack Iran]". How is this supporting "Democrats" in the abstract? Specific candidates with left policies within the party are worth supporting, but that's the extent of his support! He didn't even support Kamala as some sort of squishy harm reduction shit because he's uncompromising on the things that matter!
Supporting Zohran "homeless sweeps and bending the knee to Israel are good" Mamdani is effectively what I am talking about.
I hope you mean democratic voters because entryism is a dead end.
I didn't say he was blue no matter who, but pushing people to vote for "some democrats" is still channeling people away from the left. The other half of democrats who didn't "support attacking Iran" are still a part of the democrats, who funded genocide in Israel and promised to fund them even more. They will still go along with the war in Iran. They're still the problem. They are still a bourgeois party supporting the white supremacist, genocidal project that is the United states.
No the fuck they are not, because they are all literally on board with genocide. That's what joining the democratic party IS. These are people who are explicitly choosing to align themself with an organisation that has the explicit, stated goal of supporting and funding the genocide in Gaza, among many other unforgivable crimes.
Are you an accelerationist? If so that's fine but I really don't see what the "left" is at a statewide or national level in America. Should we all vote PSL even when they're polling at 1%? I'm not going to say that there's not a time and place to do this (there is), but if you're an electoralist or interested in something other than accelerationism then sometimes voting for a dem (who as a candidate refuses to support genocide or war and supports m4a) can ever so slightly remove the boot of fascism from ppl to help with organizing.
I think it's interesting you ignore the real material gains of zohran. Would a mayor that didn't bother to get their constituent freed from gestapo custody be better for "the left"? Seriously interested in what you think about this.