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 based progressive like JT (Second Thought) and Michael Hudson…
Literally who?
Someone well worth reading. He grew up in a Trotskyist household. Became a banker/economist. His mentor agreed to mentor him if he read Marx, Theories of Surplus Value and everything cited in it. Hence Hudson’s ability to see and explain how bourgeois economics works and why and where it fails/will fail. He wrote a report that made him semi famous and apparently wealthy; later published as a book now in it’s third edition, Superimperialism.
Just don’t expect a Leninist conclusion of ‘that’s why we need a revolution and here’s how to do it’. He frequently kinda implies that all the bad things will simply disappear due to the weight of capitalist contradictions.
Have to admit, he’s hard going even for me, who’s read a reasonable amount of political economy. It’s the same with his video/audio recordings and writing, tbh. I struggle to follow what he’s saying because of the structure. He kind of starts too far into the argument IMO but you can piece things together by the end.
He is certainly lacking an understanding of capitalism as a whole system, suggesting reforms to make it run smoother rather than seeing it as a fundamentally flawed and contradictory system.
Maybe I’ve not read enough of his work, but I haven’t interpreted MH as saying that.
He’s always going off about how the US was stupid to have neoliberalism and high debt (the result of the natural evolution of capitalism) and instead they should’ve stayed Keynesian industrial capitalist similar to Germany or China.
I responded to this in my other comment but in addition I agree that neoliberalism was a poor choice. I don’t think you can read much into this kind of thing unless you (a) ask for clarification and more detail and/or (b) know who he thinks is the intended audience. I don’t think there’s much inherently wrong with pointing out the US’s missteps. The difference may be in how the message is delivered.
It highly implies it’s best to reform the system into a better “industrial capitalism.” I think a Hudson supporter told me that he thinks a “purer” contradiction between the working and capitalist class could bring about socialism better, which is weird because it never has, that would take too long, and it’s a reactionary position wanting to return from a higher phase of capitalism to a lower one just like liberals (caring about small businesses).
This all just sounds vaguely Trotskyist to me.
It is, because Kaukyism, the core of this idea is anti-lenin and revisionist against the USSR.
Its a strain of ‘othrodox marxism’ which basically treats Marx like the bible. It also funnyily enough, while trying to claim no bias ends up inserting the authors own (wrong in my opinion) takes on it.
It is a strain of social democracy, not communism.
Kauskyism!
Kind of a weird deviation honestly… I’ve tried to grasp it but the idea that middle managers are the ultimate bad guys seems to be missing the mark.
Better you don’t know