For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
https://x.com/socialistadri/status/2051361245664555385
HASAN CHATTER: “but people like Platner are the same people who killed almost 200 little girls in an Iranian school”
HASAN PIKER: “I don’t care”
It is correct to say it's futile to seek state or federal office as a leftist third party. It's simply not in the cards and electing a handful of commies to the house of representatives isn't going to do anything. I truly do believe it's a waste of time and resources.
Any leftist organization in the United States should only seek federal political office as propaganda or disruption, not to realistically gain votes. Local politics though are another game and it's very valid for leftists to run for city council, school board, that kind of thing. That stuff is actually important and within reach. I'd expect any leftist organization with sufficient infrastructure and membership to at least engage with local electoral politics. Like at least go to city council meetings or whatever your city might have. At least try things like that if you have the people and time available.
But also leftist orgs in the US are usually so thin and stretched that they already have their hands full just doing basic day to day admin type things. It's hard out there and there simply aren't a lot of us. There are way, way more of us than 15 years ago but leftism in the US is still more of an ambient subconscious anger than any sort of militant force to be wielded.
At this point I see Hasan’s entryism as partial naivety and partial survival tactics. He’s smart but he’s still just a (privileged) guy whose family is from Turkey. I don’t blame anyone for being slow to come around to the idea of a third party because I think we’ve only recently started living in a time where such a thing was possible. I don’t know if it’s a conscientious thing either but I think if he was openly building a third party this time he would have been assassinated years ago.
I've seen hasan irl and he's not even that handsome
At first when I read the tweet, I thought the OP was criticizing Hasan. The tweeter who posted this clip believes that there shouldn't be a third party in the US, also the tweeter is Canadian. That tweeter is a huge Hasan fan and many of the tweets are thirsting for Hasan. In the 10 minute video, Hasan says that he's not against a communist party forming in the United States. Then he says that his involvement with Democrat Party shit is because he thinks it will increase people's political awareness.
The second clip he says "Yeah i don't care man" in a dismissive tone, meaning that he doesn't care what the chatter thinks. The chatter presents a hypothetical that Platner would have killed 200 girls and Hasan dismisses the hypothetical. The clipper is trying to make it seem like Hasan supports killing girls but Hasan is saying that he doesn't care to entertain the hypothetical. Hasan obviously doesn't like that the US bombed an Iranian school, killing 160 girls. He says that all the time.
You can tell that the first tweeter is a fan because the clip is 10 minutes long. Haters aren't going to watch a 10 minute clip. You can tell that the second tweeter is a hater because they posted a 7 second clip. The 7 second clip is short so that you don't get any sense of context. It is meant to deceive the viewer.
Graham Platner is a war criminal. It's kind of funny how much Establishment Democrats are talking about Hasan. It doesn't really matter what Hasan thinks. He can't stop you from organizing into a new party.
You should organize a communist party.
He can't stop you from organizing into a new party.
He can't, like, physically prevent you, no, but if the people you would organise into that party are Hasan viewers, they won't join because he is literally here saying not to. Because he is a liberal.
he also tells people to join PSL, i don't think you have a good handle on what his average is. if you're only seeing his most entryist efforts, you're going to get the view being offered to people with little to no political consciousness.
I know like 5ish Hasan fans IRL, and frankly they don't seem to have a cultist dedication to doing exactly what he says unlike a lot of other streamer fans. I doubt if they really wanted to join a new party, Hasan advising against it would deter them.
if they really want to organize with communists, they probably won't like hasan very long. the problem is the ones who are comfortable remaining socdems. the ones who don't have a problem with imperialism so long as they get their cut of the money graham hitner tortured and murdered for. hasan's thing is keeping those people comfortable. not to mention the male chauvinists. whether he turns potential comrades into baby leftists as a byproduct of that, i can't say. either way, just on a personal level, i really don't like hasan piker.
I don't like him either. But I think we should remember he does a lot of apolitical content like just gaming streams and stuff. I think a lot of his fans mostly like him for the entertainment value and less cuz they totally agree with all his political takes. And at his worst I still think he's better than the majority of people of that ilk (IE guys who are mostly just streamers but also do political hot takes). I'd take Hasan on his worst day over fucking Destiny or Asmongold on their best.
But I think we should remember he does a lot of apolitical content like just gaming streams and stuff. I think a lot of his fans mostly like him for the entertainment value and less cuz they totally agree with all his political takes.
there is truth to the notion that at least some significant proportion of his fans are there more for the bloodsport and general news coverage than are there for his specific political ideology. there is not truth to the notion that he spends much time doing apolitical content, it's significantly less than 1% of his overall output in the last three years. also the concurrent viewership drops by half the second he does something that's not news/politics. it's considered a meme within his community the extent to which he says he'll do apolitical content and then doesn't.
for what it's worth, i have no qualm with your take or feelings, i just think you should have up-to-date anthropological data.
He is pretty buff
Just looking at this thread and wow. Who knew all the dnc needed was a dude with a nazi tattoo and multiple tours in the middle east (literally for the love of the game) talking about free healthcare to get the leftists on their side.
Lately, week after week of chapo has been just ‘you have to hand it to Tucker’, ‘you have to hand it Graham Plattner’, hey look I’m Felix and I describe myself as racist in a half-joking manner.
You can have your (((real))) working class and free healthcare, I’ll be here not voting for the democrats because they turned the racism dial up. So the criticism of libs only hinged on how embarrassing anti-bigotry is, even when it’s only lip service. Guess I am pretty lib after all 
.
And it’s always the self described Marxists, always adhering to some ridiculous orthodoxy to browbeat minorities. Man, from now on, if you don’t label yourself not a Marxist-Leninist or Maoist, I don’t give a fuck about what you have to say about class consciousness or anti-imperialism because you’re probably some fucking tool.
i'm hasan piker and we MUST vote for democrats it says so in this guy's book
I'm growing more and more tired of hearing about this man every day.
Just think about it platner wins and immediately confirms everyone's fears. Or just pulls a sinema
Or just pulls a sinema
or pulls a fetterman
Isn't the person running against Platner also a massive piece of shit?
Kinda seems Maine is kinda fucked either way.
Yeah it is either him, Susan Collins (who still things trump learned his lesson after the 1st impeachment), and before dropping out an ancient governor.
It's just disheartening to see how many are willing to over look the issues with platner to possibly get a chance at Healthcare.
who still things trump learned his lesson after the 1st impeachment
Her mouth said what?
https://mainebeacon.com/rep-schiff-collins-may-regret-saying-trump-learned-his-lesson/
“I believe that the president has learned from this case,” Collins told CBS News. “The president has been impeached. That’s a pretty big lesson.”
Lol. Thanks, I'm aware though. It's a mashup of two slang expressions: "That's what your/his/her/their mouth says," and "what?!”
That’s all American elections
Mostly.
There are still a handful of progressive candidates out there who kinda suck for various reasons but I'd still probably vote for them over a fucking CHUD. Like I'll happily nail my 95 theses on Zohran Mamdani's door outlining what a Lib he is, but if I lived in NYC I'd probably have voted for him over fucking Cuomo.
Platner got so much sus shit in his background IDK what I'd do if I lived in Maine. I'd probably get some chowder and then go for a nice hike, or maybe go kayaking. Ahhh, to live in the green hills of New England...
Sorry what were we talking about?
Heaven forbid!
I'm sorry but I've never liked Hasen but I don't like debate me bro culture. Its just parasocial all the way down. I also think it makes people think they are part of something that doesn't actually have any material gain.
Then you have the fact that if you try to criticize him in anyway. cause he's a human and does have shit takes in his years of debate me bro work. You are going to be dogpiled by said parasocial addicted people who are upset that you dared said anything bad about their poor streamer.
I honestly hate that liberals have made defending the dude a issue at all.
I really wish we wouldnt put single people on diamond made pedestals
Am I wrong that the yanks are so cooked that Hasan is still undeniably a good presence in their politics? The guy has gotten fairly close to normalizing the idea of "America deserved 9/11 for its imperialism," if not just getting it broadcast wide and loud.
I'm a cynic when it comes to American politics, and that informs my view of Hasan in terms of weighing up his good vs his bad. From where I'm standing, he's spreading the good tankie word, which is undeniably good. His bad is that his reformist politics will get yanks nowhere. I think it's a fair trade off.
t. guy who doesn't watch streamers, all of my hasan knowledge is osmosis
Am I wrong that the yanks are so cooked that Hasan is still undeniably a good presence in their politics?
I think the same way, and I expected the likes of Hasan not to lecture about Graham Plattner and Tucker Carlson. Fuck me I guess.
i'm on the opposite end of the consumption spectrum here and you've pretty much got it bang on. i think his "reformist politics" are overstated. his role is raising consciousness and informing, not getting candidates elected. he's supported candidates who are exclusively opposed by and funded against by the democratic party. they're aren't socialist, but in his broader commentary and established political project, the point isn't to try and magically socialize the democratic party: the goal is to try and help elect people that want to end the genocide, and that they tend to be great mouthpieces for the failed neoliberalist democratic party is all the better.
It is also a very good thing if the people he boosts get crushed by the establishment (either before or after getting elected).
The idea that voting harder will resolve issues needs to be destroyed in the minds of american liberals (and this is partially underway). If there is a better way of propagandizing it than just outright demonstrating it, then I guess I wish someone would inform me about that. Explaining theory doesn't work at scale.
It is also important to keep in mind that Hasan is a figurehead propagandist for the US American Left. His audience is growing with the mainstream coverage, and these people are varely-deconstructed liberals. He would not have his platform (which is valuable to our movement) if he didnt channel his call to action toward things that are easily digestible. "Vote against Zionist/AIPAC candidates -> get involved with their campaigns -> organize outside of the electoral system (start a union, join DSA/PSL)" is a straightforward way to activate his large audience. Over the course of several years it will generate thousands of left-wing leaders who will be equipped (from their experience and education) for more advanced tactics.
It is a shame that this is the most prominent left figure available, but PSL are not yet up to the task. At the same time, Hasan's prominence could lead to that (or something that is equivalently effect).
100%. i agree with your analysis entirely.
It is a shame that this is the most prominent left figure available, but PSL are not yet up to the task. At the same time, Hasan's prominence could lead to that (or something that is equivalently effect).
to that point, i've always appreciated his willingness to work with bt news and code pink, two of the media organizations that are often considered PSL-affiliated.
I'm kind of done listening to people tell me what Hasan said because they're always just making shit up.
That being said, anyone actually watch the 10 min clip and hear what he actually said? I mean literally someone tell me because I also cannot be bothered to listen to it.
i've not watched this clip but i have heard him talk about it before and his most reasonable point is that ballot access is a huge hurdle. I disagree that entryism follows instead of not engaging in electoral politics but I do think his position requires him to endorse entryism.
i mean
there is literally no point to trying to organize a third party in american politics? the whole electorial system is fucked, trying to make the genocide party "good" is just as reasonable as trying to make a third party that is "good" and has any chance of getting traction anywhere (which is to say, not particularly reasonable)
idk maybe i dont know enough about american politics but i had no idea people were advocating for a third party
The entire American political system is designed to be as divorced and decoupled from the actual opinions of the people that might participate in it as possible. It’s very unfair to expect good things to come out of it, and we among the left should know that best of all. We don’t even have a large enough body of representatives for the population, there’s a counter democratic institution called the Senate that’s there just to make it more oligarchical, it’s just a hallway of shit and mirrors.
Hope for the best as always but expect, please expect, the worst
A worker's party is pointless without a labor movement (unions) that support it. No party in the US has demonstrated any success at either attracting existing unions to them or cultivating new unions aligned with them.
You can have a labor movement without a union. In the U.S., any meaningful labor movement will be non-unionized. In the U.S. unions are used to hold onto the scraps you have, not to bargain for more.
I mean unions in the sense of actual organizations of workers in common trades or industries, not state sanctioned bargaining units created by the NLRA.
Oh those don't exist in the U.S. that is genuinely the first step.
I am reminded of Bukharin's take on industrial democracy and Comrade Lenin's repudiation of it. From "Disagreements on Principle" section of "Once Again on The Trade Unions, the Current Situation and the Mistakes of Trotsky and Buhkarin".
"Take this famous “industrial democracy”, which Comrade Bukharin hastened to insert in the Central Committee’s resolution of December 7. It would, of course, be ridiculous to quibble about this ill-conceived brainchild (“tricky flourishes”), if it merely occurred in an article or speech. But, after all, it was Trotsky and Bukharin who put themselves into the ridiculous position by insisting in their theses on this very term, which is the one feature that distinguishes their “platforms” from Rudzutak’s theses adopted by the trade unions.
The term is theoretically wrong. In the final analysis, every kind of democracy, as political superstructure in general (which must exist until classes have been abolished and a classless society established), serves production and is ultimately determined by the relations of production in a given society. It is, therefore, meaningless to single out “industrial democracy”, for this leads to confusion, and the result is a dummy. That is the first point.
The second is that if you look at Bukharin’s own explanation given in the resolution of the C.C. Plenary Meeting on December 7, which he drafted, you will find that he says: “Accordingly, the methods of workers’ democracy must be those of industrial democracy, which means. . . .” Note the “which means”! The fact is that Bukharin opens his appeal to the masses with such an outlandish term that he must give a gloss on it. This, I think, is undemocratic from the democratic standpoint. You must write for the masses without using terms that require a glossary. This is bad from the “production” standpoint because time is wasted in explaining unnecessary terms. “Which means,” he says, “that nomination and seconding of candidates, elections, etc., must proceed with an eye not only to their political staunchness, but also business efficiency, administrative experience, leadership, and proved concern for the working people’s material and spiritual interests.”
The reasoning there is obviously artificial and incorrect. For one thing, democracy is more than “nomination and seconding of candidates, elections, etc.” Then, again, not all elections should be held with an eye to political staunchness and business efficiency. Comrade Trotsky notwithstanding, an organisation of many millions must have a certain percentage of canvassers and bureaucrats (we shall not be able to make do without good bureaucrats for many years to come). But we do not speak of “canvassing” or “bureaucratic” democracy.
The third point is that it is wrong to consider only the elected, the organisers, the administrators, etc. After all, they constitute a minority of outstanding men. It is the mass, the rank and file that we must consider. Rudzutak has it in simpler, more intelligible and theoretically more correct terms (thesis 6):
“. . . it must be brought home to each participant in production that his production tasks are appropriate and important; that each must not only take a hand in fulfilling his assignments, but also play an intelligent part in correcting any technical and organisational defects in the sphere of production.
The fourth point is that “industrial democracy” is a term that lends itself to misinterpretation. It may be read as a repudiation of dictatorship and individual authority. It may be read as a suspension of ordinary democracy or a pretext for evading it. Both readings are harmful, and cannot be avoided without long special commentaries."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jan/25.htm
While certainly social conditions have changed, I fail to see see how unions in their present form, even the IWW (I'm a wobbly) can effectively reach or even be functionally apart of the same system as a proletarian vanguard other than being ultimately subsumed into a committee or labor board under a worker's party guiding economic direction. Most unions, while beneficial to most workers, retain reactionary ideals and sabotage their own interests because of their lack of theoretical doctrine or understanding of class politics. AFL is a good example of this.
"..and cannot be avoided without long special commentaries" is of particular humor to me, he knew how brutal this topic is with other leftists.
PSL has tried it but the fact that you, and many other people I've met, don't know about that is proof it's not working super well. It's a great recruitment tactic, it gives them an excuse to go out and talk to people and knock on doors and say their thoughts in debates, but I don't see them being successful anytime without some major changes in American politics.
It probably doesn't help that if you know about PSL then you are more acutely aware of how the electoral system works and how much of an impossibly long-shot it is to create a third party in the United States.
Bingo. States can just shoot down these parties, cali has done so I believe or make ridiculous voter thresholds and fundraising/advertisement restrictions that can vary differently from county to county even, like New Jersey for example. People misunderstand how much people it takes to do the books for these kind of projects.
On top of all that, ANTIFA is considered extremist material, so any party that actually gains popular support can just get hit with terrorism charges. Reform has no hope.
sorry should have clarified, i do know about psl i meant people on this site advocating for a third party
Maybe the enthusiasm has died down a bit but there have been discussions on which party to join and that kind of thing. There have been some electoral successes on a local level like kshama sawant in Seattle and Green party representation on Oakland City council. This country is cursed though
The phrase that (to me) gives the best explanation of entryism:
"Which is more likely? That one person will change the minds of an entire institution with hundreds of people, or will an institution change the class interests of one person?"