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)

  • axont [she/her, comrade/them]English
    17•1 month ago

    I think by Christian nonsense he means what we’d call glorifying poverty. He might be saying being impoverished doesn’t offer any sort of specific insight.

    • 小莱卡
      12•1 month ago

      Yea its about the poverty cult path some leftists take.

        • QueerCommie
          6•1 month ago

          Look at the image he literally referenced above.

          • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]English
            5•1 month ago

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

            • QueerCommie
              7•30 days ago

              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.

              • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]English
                9•30 days ago

                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.