did not expect to see a Pinely comment talking about Hasan, your videos had given me the feeling that you're left leaning but it's good to have it confirmed!
My problem with “rich leftists” is when they are business owners or hire staff and don’t pay/treat those workers well. So they don’t have the excuse of “well I can’t afford to pay people more”. Practice what you preach and all that.
Exactly I hate how the "exploitation of labor" is Hasan's biggest talking point and the guy has literally made millions from eating food while other people's UA-cam videos are playing. This shit seemed like such a soft video from Joel, the guy always calls people out on their bullshit but basically pulled the advanced version of "socialism is when no money" on this one. Feels like he didn't wanna get the Hasan dickriders mad
@@youngandyx Hasan made millions from reacting to videos? Are you listening to yourself? He makes his money from twitch subs. He doesnt even post his reaction on youtube. The people whose videos he reacts to where he leaves his desk dont care about him reacting. For those who do, he provides enough commentary for it to be transformative, famiously taking hour to watch a 10 minute video
It was something I had to realize after a while that being on the "right team" doesn't guarantee someone is a good person. Most leftists I know are great, but not all of them for sure.
@@chronictimewasterdisease In my personal experience, they are rare. But there is this attitude with them of "We're the good guys so we're never wrong." Self criticism is extremely important and they didn't practice it.
A good 60% of my depression comes from realizing how many shitty people appear virtuous only due to habituation and how many otherwise good people appear shitty for the same reason and how difficult it can be to tell them apart and the expectation that we all go along with it. "Fart-smelling discourse" indeed.
Plenty of people just stumble onto the “right team” without having any real principles or thinking about it. Those are the types who are super vulnerable to fascist propaganda
exactly. there is a circle of leftists on the internet that are like, completely awful people. and I don't see them being criticized all that much because "well they're on OUR side" which scares me
This is why I love "I'm a better anarchist then you." Great satirical song. So much of leftist spaces is their own version of purity culture and gatekeeping. But yeah, just because you know what the right thing to do is doesn't mean you do that thing. It is entirely possible to understand "conspicuous consumption bad" and still do it. Most people who smoke already knew the risks and did it anyway. Idk why people think having that knowledge makes you immune to doing bad things. (edit typo)
Ideologies can be virtuous. People can be virtuous based on acting on a virtuous ideology. But simply believing in virtuous values is no guarantee of good actions, (or the utility of so-called virtuous acts). In the end everyone is a dead hypocrite. We’re all equal given enough time. One might as well use their wealth to finance social gatherings and manufacture friends.
@@bluegamer6474 1. There is no ethical way to participate in capitalism. 2. You can either participate in capitalism or live as a vagabond recluse. 3. Capitalism makes all of us hypocrites.
With the recent rise in philanthropic mega-giving i wouldnt say that giving is a /universally/ good thing either, since the elite will use donations to push their own agendas, increase dependencies with local decision-makers and they receive tax benefits for it, too. So one could say that a lot of philanthropy is rich people leveraging their power and a not inconsiderable amount of public funds to realize what /they/ personally define as a common good. Not to say that I don't agree with the observations Little Joel is making here or that giving is bad per se, just wanted to point out that being a philanthropist makes you as much of a good person as being a leftist or socialist does
Kind of like how public education is pushed both by social reformers who think it is a social and moral good to educate everyone, and also by industrialists who realized they could start training people to be accountants from age 7 using the government’s money
@@DanteRatto I’m sorry but i’m tired of seeing fucking humans tell me, a proud Loompa, what words I’m allowed to describe myself with. If you actually LISTENED to Loompa voices, you would realize that we reclaimed the term decades ago.
Hasan is still an ally though. I wouldn't want to make life harder for an ally rich or not. There aren't many rich people I'd call allies though because 99% of them just aren't.
If we thought that individual donations and philanthropy and the like could ever possibly be the solution to the issues in the world, then we wouldn't be leftists. We'd probably be right-libertarians, actually. It's not a matter of individuals, it's a matter of systemic incentives. Sure, if you have the means, philanthropy is a great thing, and I'm sure Hasan, as an example, gives plenty of money to leftist causes, but it's not going to solve the problems with how supply chains are managed, or how capital influences policy, or worker exploitation, or any of those sorts of issues.
Philanthropy can't replace or eliminate the need for systemic change but it can help, so why shouldn't wealthy socialists strive to give away as much as they can to lift others up and spread left wing ideas? Obviously it's up to any individual to decide how much money they keep to themselves, and what they spend it on, but if the answer is that they're spending hundreds of thousands and millions on quite luxurious assets, can we not question that decision as perhaps a bit hypocritical and not as supportive of the cause as they could be?
@@JonathanRuchlis I mean if you think about it being socialist and rich sounds like way better advertising for the position than having to give away a large portion of your money. You can say the empathetic people to the cause by giving away your wealth but what about the selfish people who desire wealth?
@@JonathanRuchlis I mean, you can definitely question it! But it doesn't make someone "not a real socialist." If someone donates time and money to a cause, whether we feel they have "donated enough" is a really nebulous target and not worth getting into very serious discourse over.. esp when the real point is that we're all advocating for the same changes. If they're a true socialist they're literally advocating for more of their money to be taken for good causes.
@@ea5145 Fair enough. I agree it doesn't mean they're not a genuine advocate for change, and that getting caught up in discussing who's doing enough probably isn't the most productive conversation ever, BUT being a critic of wealth inequity and then driving around in a car that costs as much as what someone else makes in a decade or more does feel hypocritical to me. It seemed to me like lil Joel was dismissing this read, and making some point about charity which didn't really make any sense to me. But if the argument is just that the infighting is counter productive, and/or it's just not worth discussing, I could maybe see that. Depends on the forum and intent I suppose. Didn't really seem like what Joel was getting at to me tho
@@Gretcie Interesting thought. I guess I don't think most people become socialists or leftists because they think it's gonna make them rich, but maybe I'm mistaken. Does seeing rich socialists make you more interested in that ideology?
I have met some horrible people who called themselves socialists. My ex-girlfriend was in a band with a guy who staunchly supported left-wing politicians, but who was extremely sexist. I know this other dude who is also very leftist but has said some really racist stuff as well. Sometimes, specially here in Latin America, people will identify as left-wing mostly for anti-American sentiment. They are "leftists" but from a position of hate, not a position of empathy.
The Road to Wigan Pier. Now, Peterson says that's why he rejected socialism, 'cos they icky but actually George Orwell called Jordan Peterson an absolute idiot: "To recoil from Socialism because so many socialists are inferior people is as absurd as refusing to travel by train because you dislike the ticket-collector’s face."
Well I'll second you on the sexism. Woooooo lord. Some of them just want more money. It doesn't make them better people or less misogynistic. Labor 2022 election night celebration speech: when it came to record achievements for women, the cheers from the men virtually completely stopped. The camera panned to the crowd. I saw men with their arms crossed and stony faced. Identity ew. Womz ew.
It's supposed to be about the relationship to property. Having personal belongings isn't the same as being a landlord or owning a business where your profit comes from exploiting other people. Having a nice car is not in conflict with thinking that people should own their labor and their homes
Personally I just dislike it when someone demonstrates extravagant and over the top consumerism like he does. Doesn’t make him a “fake leftist” or whatever lol but it’s still tacky and puts a bad taste in my mouth.
@@PBDNR yeah exactly. I wasn’t arguing in favour of the stupid people who say that socialists can’t be rich and can’t show of their wealth. I was just explaining why I still don’t like it when they do. Not because of any supposed hypocrisy, but just because I don’t like it when anyone does it
@@otto_jk Do you like it when rich vapid youtubers make videos about all the cars they have and mansion tours etc? If so then I do not understand you. If not then we actually agree, you probably just don’t like that I’m applying that same standard to your internet babysitter. And I say this as someone who does (mostly) like Hasan too
little joel dodged his channel being infinitely covered in oompa loompa comments by the sheer force of randomness in the universe, and yet, tempting fate and the sense of humor of a few dedicated individuals, little joel made a second oompa loompa video, condemning him to oompa loompa comments for months
I hate it when leftist discourse fixates on which people are wealthy, as opposed to the systems that produce wealth. Sure, people who make money as entertainers often do so working for exploitative companies, and there is an appropriate time to criticize that, but treating wealth as the primary vector of virtue, rather than relationship to labor and the means of production, is not really helpful for a leftist project. Socialism is when laborers have power over their own lives and are able to reap the full value of their work; socialism isn't simply rich people giving some money to charity
Is charity really all people talk about when discussing this? I think it's worthwhile to keep the material interests of anyone talking about socialism in mind. Let's say Hasan or anyone else in that position was a paragon of charity, they gave away everything, save the basic necessities of life. Do we no longer care about how they interact with larger systems to get that money in the first place or their material interests related to that at all, it's not even worth considering when you hear them speak? Sure there's a thought terminating cliche there of "no socialism in streamer's big house" that you should immediately discredit the perspective of anyone with money, but this video reads like an attempt at the opposite. Like it's saying "there's nothing to think about the millionaire's relationship to socialism, this whole discussion is ridiculous, that's equating leftism with good morals saying being a leftist requires being charitable" I just don't think it's that simple, there's more to it than what you talked about, and it's worth thinking about
This reading has no connection to the video. He never says anything even remotely to the effect that it's ridiculous to think about the relationship between someone's wealth/social position and their political views, only that the two aren't the same, and one doesn't automatically follow from the other. It's a simple point that you're reading way too much into.
Charity is where the discussion tends to go because no one participating in the discourse (other than Hasan, I guess) knows his finances. That's really the only other way one could reasonably interpret the "millionaire's relationship to socialism", and it can be broadly broken up into two categories: the way in which he accumulates wealth and any prior family privilege or wealth he has access to. Clearly, Hasan is not an owner of means of production any more than a laborer owns anything more than the work they provide, so unless this is untrue by an omissive lie, that only really leaves family privilege and/or wealth and the source of that. I'm not a Hasan fan or historian, so he might very well have that, but then how does that compromise his relationship to socialism? Can the children of capitalists fail to be socialist, even if they've greatly benefited from the privilege of their capitalist parents? Joel's point is simply that material conditions do not __a priori__ have anything to do with one's politics and that neither have anything to do with how good of a person you are. Much of the ways in which people acquire wealth are exploitative to be sure, so some scrutiny is required, but at least on Twitter, this very much gets boiled down to "you must be THIS POOR (or ideologically pure) to be seen as a good person" and there's no value to be had in such debates outside of the aforementioned vanity culture clubs that Joel describes.
Socialists can definitely be rich, But them acting like the spoiled capitalist rich kids showing off their toys and privellge that they continually criticize themselves Is demoralizing and it ruins credibility Hassan can have money, but that video of him swag dancing beside his new 90k-100k dollar sportscar Makes people not take him seriously. Furthermore When he is confronted on these things his exaggerated straw-men and dishonest responses like "gee you think I need to bike around LA" etc Shows how little he is personally invested in the cause outside an ascetic.
I definitely feel like there's a false dichotomy going on in this video and these comments. There's a huge space between "every luxury of the worker seems to be reprehensible" and "showing off my new porsche."
@@ATRDhosmhea People value people who they thin and or see live by their values in a world where words a re cheap and virtue signaling is te nay of the game it is that special extra good faith and credibility that makes people believe you are authentic Hassan destroys that element for those who aren’t the ride or die dick jumpers in hi audience. The fact that he criticizes rich peoples wealth, spending and lifestyles on stream then will do the same kind of prancing grand-boating i just saw him criticize a Walton heir and or Hilton brat for doing does make m second guess a lot of what he says and does. Furthermore while he may support the socialist cause and the workers rights and tc verbally he does not use his money or influence to get any real aid and or better outcome to the cause to help bolster it he may give some money, but he doesn't do door to door, organization, calls and etc like Dylan burns and Vaush will do to get democrats and progressives registered and or help promote candidates and their platforms etc. additional things that can help tip the balance in our favor and or show that he is serious about this outside an ideological larp that he could drop when it’s no longer convenient and live comfortably out of the way And yes i think that does matter to people, and i think it’s right for them to question his integrity and commitment when he behaves poorly and lavishly without showing any direct or impactful evidence to the opposite in support for the causes he says he champions Again plenty of grifters on the left who are out to benefit themselves first and foremost and we are right to question and or ask them to prove their commitment if we’re going to give them our trust, support and money,
This was pretty hard to watch Joel since most of your videos are usually well argued. First, no your main argument contains a false premise. I don’t think anyone necessarily thinks that Leftism (very broadly and basically defined)= being morally good. The argument against Hasan and rich socialists is that they’re violating the ideology itself. I doubt Hasan pays an overwhelming portion of his wealth to the state. Incidentally, they’re also violating the spirit of the ideology. Though Leftism is mainly about redistributing wealth through the state, it can also be about redistributing it through personal channels. Yes, charity is not antithetical to Leftism. Third, I even reject the argument about the non-equation between being morally good and politics. Yes, technically you’re right. Morals and politics do not need to be informed by one another. However, come on. Why do we do what we do? Why do we organize ourselves in particular ways, if not to satisfy moral questions? It’s integral to the human experience. Ergo, what we choose as our politics is largely, if not ultimately decided by our moral convictions.
Interesting take. Honestly never even occurred to me the connection I have in my mind between being morally good and leftist. Like, I feel that there is a bit of a connection - the rhetoric around leftist discourse appears to me to be very ethics focused. I am attracted to leftism because of my morals, as opposed to my brother, who is attracted to right winged stuff because he dislikes “wokeism”. I cannot help but feel that just about every right winged belief that I am aware of falls very neatly into the ignorant and discompassionate bucket.
I think interestingly, right wing people also have a connection in their mind between right wing politics and ethics. If you ever talk to someone about why they are against “wokeism” or “SJW”s its often because they think of those things as evil. I think a huge part of the division in modern politics is due to the association of political beliefs with morality. On both sides you have people who refuse to talk to people with different political opinions, who cut off family and friends because of which candidate they supported, etc. As a society we have to work on separating morality from politics at least at the individual level. Thats of course not entirely possible, a lot harder than it sounds, and not completely a good thing, but it would probably help to heal the rift. When people who hold a different political opinion are treated as bad people (even if the policies they support objectively harm people) it dehumanizes them.
I think making socialism attractive to people by appealing to their selfishness should be the next phase of the ideology. We just need a big bunch of rich socialists going around and buying frivolous crap. People love a get rich quick scheme and for the vast majority of people, socialism would be the actual fastest path to better material conditions.
@@gotmilkbutt don't get me wrong... conservative and GOP type views are fucking, incredibly evil. absolutely atrocious shit, but the crazy MAGA type of people who go to rallies and spam shit about queer people being groomers aren't the majority of people who support the GOP. the average voter is complicit, and should be held responsible for that, make no mistake. but i think people generally are good and want to do good, and while it isn't easy and you are by no means obligated to sacrifice your mental health (or your physical safety god forbid) to do so, it is good to try to help them understand. ugh. things really do suck, huh? i know it's not simple. especially as being a woman or queer, or being a PoC generally gets more dangerous as the fascism creeps into people's heads. i don't want to say we should just abandon those who have been inducted into these hateful ideologies. they're our fellow people, and most of them have good intentions. but the road to hell is paved with em as they say. i don't know the solution of course. i don't know if anyone does. sorry, this kinda just turned into me ruminating about the state of the us, haha. here's to hoping we can make things better, right?
Eat the rich comes from a poem about how when the poor starve the only thing they will have to eat is the rich thus building a society without economic class.
Unfortunately its has more to do with the fact that most people fundamentally dont understand the basic definition of socialism/communism and think it genuinely has to do with sharing your own personal property/money and not sharing CAPITAL.
Hello from the other side! I don't know much about Piker so I don't have an opinion on him. I judge rich socialists in general because they should be contributing more to leftist organising. Especially to political party creation and upkeep. Heck, you could even fund a worker coop. In a socialist society you can benefit from the fruits of your labour, but right now we are facing ecological devastation, fascism and a bunch more y'all are familiar with. Money helps a lot in the fight. Before anyone accuses me (someone always does) of asking every socialist to be poor before I validate their authenticity or whatever, that is reductio ad absurdum
I understand your opinion, but I don’t think that everyone’s job within a revolution is to organize. Some are more inclined to educate, like Hasan, or many other people. While leftism is growing, we still need more people to actually understand the principles that we advocate for. Organizing is great, but it isn’t the only form of activism.
@@joey.d.chills I agree on everyone's job being different. This does not follow with the conversation of "Can a socialist be too rich?" though. I am not asking rich socialists to change what they do. You don't have to stop being an educator to fund political movements. I am not asking rich socialists to spend their time with us and come hold sings at protests, I am asking them to fund leftist political parties so we can pay for transportation to the protests, political party office rents, lawyers for people who get arrested by the police, halls for political party events we use to get people interested etc.
@@SapkaliAkif I agree. Though Hasan and others do fund mutual aid programs and the like. I would also be skeptical of a rich socialist that doesn’t use their wealth to support others.
@@SapkaliAkifI feel like you both missed the point. Just because someone claims they're a leftist doesn't mean they perfectly represent those beliefs with total moral convictions. People who are flawed and even bad can still claim to be leftist is what I got fro the video. There is no secret moral police that determines whether or not you can call yourself a leftist.
Nah, it's noy about virtue. It's about consumerism and participation in capitalism in any way. Obviously, you can't live without particapating at all, but i would say buying luxury is participating pretty vell. And no, from my perspective this is not an outdated topic. It was actual back then, and still actual now. I do not have strong oppinon myself btw :D
This is such a wild take. If you believe that rich people hoarding wealth and spending ungodly sums on things of only marginal utility while others starve is a bad thing, then if you do that thing you are a hypocrite. It's not any more complicated then that.
Well imo I think you're ignoring the rest of the argument that points out how he runs his own personal business. Maybe people have an issue with possible exploitive capitalist behavior from socialist? Not to imply Hasan does that, but i do remember that being part of the argument.
I think there's a very real conversation to be had about the exploitation that can happen in parasocial relationships, particularly on Twitch with bits and giftsubs (or YT with superchats). I've seen people spend WAY too much money to get a moment of attention from their favorite streamer. But as a whole, I do think you can be an independent content creator who is wealthy without that wealth being exploitative. You just have to be wildly populat. 🤷
I've seen creators who are actively discouraging people from subbing or spending money and constantly telling folks to put their own interest first get showered with subs and gift subs. Is it possible to be exploited without someone actively exploiting you? Because I feel that happens a LOT with content creators.
Ok I gotta disagree with the exploitation of parasocial relationships just on twitch and UA-cam chats. Unless they’re actively being preyed on like a love scam, they really aren’t victims of the streamer. It might symbolize how lonely they are that they’d pay for someone to acknowledge & respond to their comment, but that’s on their end
@@swegatron2859, I think individual streamers can lean into the exploitative aspects of the platform. I don't think it's _all_ on the streamer, but they can definitely play a part in encouraging it.
I think a bigger thing too is people act like if you criticize capitalism, you must be a poor forever who can never partake in commerce or consumption and enjoy things.
Insert that Russell brand quote here “When I was poor and I criticized capitalism, I was called jealous. When I became rich and criticized capitalism, I was called a hypocrite. I’m think that they just don’t want me to criticize capitalism.”
Idk about everyone else but I mostly have critique when it comes to hasan and the whole luxury car/ luxury T-shirt thing . I honestly don’t care about the house thing la housing is very expensive but the itching things were clearly just for flexing and very unnecessary like why do you need a Porsche ?
@@yassine8935 i agree with ur critique. certain luxury items are absolutely about flexing wealth(power/status) and that is hypocrisy coming from someone who claims to criticize and denounce capitalism. (idk this hasan person i just mean in general). we can acknowledge we all have to play the game while also calling out hypocrisy/endorsement of the game when it arises.
@@yassine8935 I dunno, without knowing Hasan's internal motivations I can't really speak to him but if I had that kind of money I'd consider buying a really nice car too. Nice cars are fun, and the material resource consumption from building a nice car isn't realistically much more than from a cheap car (fuel is a different story). It doesn't have to be about flexing. I do think it's odd that you both draw a line between a nice car and a nice house though, it's not like Hasan is living in a 2 bed apartment with a courtyard, his house is every bit as luxe as his car.
Isn’t there some degree where it gets excessive though? There’s a huge spectrum between being an ascetic who never spends any money on themselves beyond bare needs on nice things that aren’t the cheapest option and someone who funnels thousands if not millions into like a fancy object they just want to really own. I feel like there is some point where it starts to feel less morally justified considering how much that money could be spent helping others. Someone using an Uber or taxi for convenience when they could use public transportation is doing a little more harm to the environment than they need to but someone taking a private jet somewhere is doing way way more. Idk I feel like proportion and scale of a thing justifies different responses.
To be honest I think there is a discussion to be had, just a bit more nuanced than that. There are people who argue that leftists with money aren't true leftists, and this is a bullshit argument ofc. These same people, when they see a poor leftist, they accuse them of being lazy and wanting to get paid by the state without working. There can't be a true leftist because poor aren't leftists and rich aren't leftists. This is obviously idiotic. However, I'd say there is an argument against, for example, Hasan buying a luxury car. Cars aren't just bought for their use, they're also in our current society an item of ostentation. People buy expensive cars (at least some people) because they think they're more likeable/desirable with a certain brand of car, just the same as a rolex. For sure, a rolex watch will work better than a 10€ cheapo watch, but the point is that a person who defines themselves as socialist should (in my opinion) against brand-ostentation. This argument can be made especially for items that have a small difference in their quality of use varying on price. The example of the Rolex watch is a good one, designer's clothes are another one. It doesn't apply so much to items that are bought for their use. For example, nobody with a brain would criticise Hasan for buying an expensive computer to play games, because expensive computers play games objectively better. With cars, Hasan lives in a country where the speed limits are the same for all cars, so you won't get places faster for spending more money on an expensive car. Therefore, I think it's valid to criticise hardcore leftists, for buying objects with ostentation in mind.
While it's a very valid point, I don't know if the fact that these purchases are ostentatious discredits him as a socialist. Perhaps you could argue that buying such luxuries fuels capitalism, but "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" and there's nothing in core socialist philosophy that dictates what one should do with the fruits of one's labour, as far as I'm aware.
@@davidmurray3542 it's more in general because you'd expect a 21st century socialist to be eco-conscious and against consumerism, and those brands are just symbols of pure consumerism. Ostentation in general is.
@@davidmurray3542 This is the problem with using "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" as an *excuse* rather than an *explanation.* The point of the statement "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" is that engaging with the economic system you're in is *necessary.* Spending money on, effectively, status symbols and glitz is not necessary. You're using that phrase as a get-out-of-jail-free card rather than a recognition of the reality in which we find ourselves. Yes, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism... but there are *less unethical* forms of consumption. This should be "we do the best we can with the hand we're dealt," not "everything sucks so I can do whatever I want, nyah nyah."
I'm going to make an obnoxious argument _sort of_ in favor of the Porsche, but I promise try and make it quick. If you do a lot of driving, or you enjoy driving, you don't just pick cars based on their 'go fast' specifications. Luxury cars not only are usually more powerful, they also are usually engineered for better handling, which under reasonable circumstances (not speeding around like a giant asshole because beep beep go fast) makes them overall safer and potentially more fun to drive. Also worth considering: should the money be spent, or should it be hoarded and never flow back into the economy it came from?
@@Kaidona Yeah, you're right that expensive cars aren't exclusively ostentation items, but they're more "enjoyable to drive" for some people. To the safety I can't attest until I see the statistics of car accidents based on type of car driven, but I suspect I'd find proportionally more people crashing their Porsche than their Opel Corsa. To this, my answer is that driving as an enjoyable activity is also something worth a little bit of criticism. The objective should be to make the world with as few cars as possible, through public transportation, walkable/cyclable cities, etc. I tend not to blame individuals who drive for enjoyment, since to each their own, but we should collectively be aware of the harm cars do both locally in terms of pollution and accidents, and globally in terms of CO2 emissions. Anyway, your point is 100% valid, it just doesn't in my opinion outweigh the ostentation part when it comes to cars. But I see why say this and I have to agree partially.
In my opinion its not about how much wealth they have, it's about how they use it to constantly consume and give in to manufactured necessities (Like the necessity for a good car, the latest phone, expensive clothes). Also I'd argue that when one says capitalism is oppressive and socialism is the best choice for an egalitarian society, you are implying socialism IS morally superior.
He's not talking about morality on the ideological scale though, he's talking about morality on the PERSONAL scale. Like, yes, I think most socialists would feel their ideology is morally superior, but that doesn't mean BEING A SOCIALIST makes you more morally superior than anyone else, and it certainly doesn't cancel out any hypothetical personal faults you might have. Saying otherwise just turns what should be intellectually stimulating discourse into holier-than-thou culture club vanity, which is not what leftism is supposed to be about. Conspicious consumption, by the way, doesn't really have much to do with leftism either, unless you feel leftism is inherently anti-consumerist, which I think is debatable. You are free to dislike opulent displays, of course, but I don't think doing so makes anyone a better leftist automatically.
@@SamOliver4 Yeah it's fair to separate ideological from personal morality, my bad. But still, the accusations are always of hypocresy, not of pure evil, meaning their actions conflict with their ideology. In that case I'd like to know about why you think anti consumerism isn't inherently part of leftist ideology, i always assumed it was but it's not like i read theory in my free time lol
@@l.pietrobon3925 I think it depends on what one feels the real problem with consumerism is. Many anti-consumerist arguments do skew left-wing, but the religious right has taken issue with consumerism in that it might allow someone to value material possessions over the "gifts of God", so to speak. There are libertarian arguments against consumerism too, like the idea that one might consume to enable a lack of personal responsibility, or that unmoderated consumerism might result in corruption and consolidation of power. I don't really agree with most of these arguments by the way (except maybe the last one?), but I've certainly seen them. At the very least, being against conspicuous consumption isn't a particularly leftist take, as that's really more a moral judgment than anything else. People have attained arguably excessive wealth in socialist countries too, it's just that, at least in theory, the bottom line for the working class is more comfortable than it would be under capitalism.
@@MrTerapak I guess it’s morality depends on if you view benefiting people as a good thing. This isn’t mutually exclusive to leftism, I’m certain there are many conservatives who view benefiting people as a positive too.
Class isn’t about how much money you have, it’s about how you survive. Hasan doesn’t seem to exploit his partners in work, the amount of money people give to his streams/sponsor him isn’t contradictory to leftist values. He’s abit of a shmuck personality wise, but his livelihood is fine. Besides the whole uncredited use of UA-cam vids, but I dunno if he kept at it after the jay exci drama. The evil that Marx pointed at wasn’t the bad behaviours and attitudes people have when capitalist, it’s about the misery that capitalist structure forces people to propagate and take part in. Pointing at individuals and saying “bad” isn’t bothering any companies from keeping on slavery out of sight out of mind. Because they REALLY need the line to go up, they HAVE to get the line to go up or they all get fired. That position is evil, but it is also pathetic. Whether they succeed or fail that’s just a godawful way to be. Breaking the obsession with infinite growth is what we gotta do not say “boo this guy uses money 😡”
There was also a minor scandal a while ago about Hasan not paying an editor who did some work for him, but honestly that seemed down to poor communication more than anything else. Personally I think he's kind of a fuck, but he's a leftist fuck at least.
@@missshai2005 Hasan used Jay Exci’s vids on stream without credit or commentary, Jay called that a dick move, Hasan made a react stream, exci made a react react stream, and exci made an hour long vid explaining the critique wasn’t aimed at Hasan not reacting enough but against Hasan using work made by other people without permission or credit in his habit of taking random links from chat and putting them on in a cropped image that doesn’t show the channel name or the video’s title while he goes to eat or something during his hours long streams. Jay didn’t ask for payment or anything, mostly pointed out that producing labor is used without the minimum courtesy of crediting. Hasan didn’t seem to understand the criticism and reacted as if exci was complaining that Hasans reactions aren’t transformative enough to rebrand other videos as “react streams”. Made me think about the labor of content making, interesting vid
There's two sides of this, though. It's perfectly fine to criticize people for being bad people, but that shouldn't be linked to them being on 'your' side as some sort of magnification of how bad they are. Rich people are, generally speaking, bad. It's okay, even cool and good, to criticize them. It's okay, even cool and good, to point out how someone's stated beliefs contradict their behavior. It just becomes really toxic if you imply that identifying as a socialist is a virtue in and of itself.
i do not care that Hasan has money but I don’t really understand where the charity critique came from. I’ve never known socialists to be passionate about the rich giving to charity, we’re just critical of relationships to capital.
If they say “you should not be rich“ while being rich, yes. If they say “we should strengthen labor laws“ while being rich, there’s no hypocrisy there. I have no idea what Hasan‘s politics are, so it’s absolutely possible that he is a hypocrite. But the idea that someone’s criticism of capitalism becomes invalid just because they are able to thrive under capitalism makes no sense.
But when the ideology is to distribute wealth this or that way, saying excessive profit is the fruit of oppression (and thus inherently bad) while saying it doesn't have to be that way, greed isn't inherent and we can all just work together AND THEN to fall into the oldest capitalism trick of consumption... Well it's a kind of failure. It's essentially saying "Well this ineaquality of wealth is kinda sweet, ngl... Check out my cool new stuff". And I don't think that in order to walk the walk you have to give away your money. But how do you think socialism is going to win, if all the socialists spend their money on toys.
He’s saying, “if every self-described socialist gets rich and does nothing but spend their money on toys for themselves, how can that build socialism?” Hasan doesn’t NEED a Porsche. Bernie Sanders does not NEED three houses. That’s excess wealth that could be used to help fund co-ops or community gardens, or stock fridges for the homeless. Heck, there’s a huge unhoused problem in California. Why not buy a plot of land for these people to set up a tent city or something? There are so many things rich “socialists” could do to help build socialism, and nowhere on that list is “buy million dollar houses and fancy cars for myself.”
I get people being mad at the idea of a rich socialist especially when I'm homeless and don't have a steady revenue. We see someone saying the right things get financial benefits from it and I don't think that there is no argument that there is some disconnect between being rich and a socialist because a big part of the ideology in those leftist circles is about giving back to your community and lifting others, so I do wish that people like Hasan did more, but in his case I also believe that he is more of an entertainer than a socialist and that's ok too, I just choose to avoid him unless I think he has something important to say. Who knows what he'll do in the future, he might start using his fortune to do more on the ground stuff but I'm also not counting on it, I don't really care that much over it
Giving back to your community isn't socialism it's charity. Everyone is already giving back money (or atleast is supposed to) by taxation it's the fault of large societal structures that this is used to support corporations and the military instead of it being used to help the unprivileged. Even if Hassan would give all of his money away, it would be highly likely that you would still be homeless.
@@otto_jk I guess I should clarify that I believe in creating structures outside of the existing ones because I don't believe we can salvage the structures that were created to maintain unequal power distribution. I know that it's a relatively small part of the socialist left who agree with this statement, but I do think that there is much better ways to deal with money as a socialist even if you believe that taxes do any good. Funding people who help those that the government fails to help is not charity to me but human decency and I dislike the concept of charity as it has been defined by capitalist systems. It's a leftover from the church dominated societies of the past that controlled services through the system of charity. Charity does help sometimes but I believe it is a wrong because it takes power away from those who need the services by having the process controlled by those with means. What I meant and probably didn't describe properly is that I would want Hasan and people like him to fund projects that do help those that the government doesn't, because I don't believe that his taxes are going to help those people while the same prople stay in power and control the distribution of resources. Also yeah his taxes wouldn't help me get out of homelessness even if I did live in the US, but if he did fund groups that build structures to help those in need, his money could directly have an impact on my life because unlike taxes, money used to create power structures tend to spread beyond borders because borders only matters to those who seek to enforce it. I hope this makes more sense and explains better my position. I have nothing against him, to be honest Hasan has been part of my movement to leftist politics but I've also developed ideas, values and beliefs that differs to his which is why I don't interact with his content directly. I was just basically sending into the world a wish for what I'd like him to do but he's a big boy who can make the decisions he wants, so can we all.
Partial agree, partial disagree. Everyone believes in charity but not everyone believes there should be no ultra-wealthy class. Isn't it more hypocritical for someone who believes the ultra wealthy class shouldn't exist to happily become a part of it and show off their riches on the gram? Not that it should fall on individuals to redistribute their own wealth but some attempt to do so/attempts to avoid extravagance and status symbols can indicate commitment to the cause. Not necessarily speaking about Hasan because idk his sitch other than those pictures you showed, but ultimately I respect successful leftists who choose to live somewhat humbly and give generously, but I also certainly don't automatically despise anyone who doesn't achieve this perfectly, I know I don't/wouldn't
Joel says charity a lot in this video, but socialism is not charity, charity is when rich inviduals and corporations control the wealth and decide how to use it 'charitably' and that makes charity like dictatorship, while democratic socialism would give the voters much more say in how the wealth is used
I think its a bit obtuse to look at this issue and say people think leftism is just about being a morally good person or that the politics of leftism are morally good. Hasan is basically the largest left leaning content creator but most of his actions go directly against what he preaches. He's a media figure that plays his part and makes no qualms about how much he loves hedonism. While he gets permission from some creators there are multiple instances of him using content that isn't his that he "reacts" to for profit, which is literally a form of exploiting someone else's labor for profit lmao. Additionally, charity isn't goin g to solve shit and you focusing so much on the charity aspect of hasan is clear indicator you're out of your depth. Systemic change is what actually helps, not charity, and all Hasan has done is profit off of divisiveness and toss small sums of other peoples cash around. Hasan takes the L on this one and he deserves it lol
'the point is not to pretend that Hasan is not subject to class forces' that's the entire reason for criticizing his place within the online left. I'm ambivalent about it but I think there's definitely truth to the idea that there have been rich, bourgeois and petit-bourgeois leftists rocketed to importance within movements historically due to being able to buy a platform that have been opportunistic and revisionist. I think people should be very skeptical, like particularly skeptical of rich people who claim to be leaders or influencers in the left; class interest shapes all of our politics!! But as you say, first and foremost it's fun to be a bitch to rich people. It makes them uncomfortable and it clearly bothers them which is really funny to watch when they tweet about it from their mansions
"hypocritical" is an accurate way to describe someone who extols beliefs which entail a morality which that person does not uphold. You're right that most people are hypocrites in that way. I just think we should have higher standards for people. Socialists are a prime target because they are seen as using that moral talk to aggressively induce other's to change their behavior. And while most conservatives probably also recognize charity as a good with their moral talk, conservatives by their nature are about not changing your behavior. Conservative morality generally doesn't demand that people make sacrifices for the good (at least, ones which are not normalized as the status quo). Plus certain breeds of conservatism see wealth inequality as just and good. So I think there is a substantive difference in terms of the implied force of the moral language, in terms of the dire need for change from the status quo, between leftist and conservative ideologies. And if we ourselves are serious about changing the world for the better, we should be serious about trying to get people with excess money to use that money for good, and to be a good example for the rest of us. If you're a member of the lefitst ingroup, I'd imagine that rich leftists are the lowest hanging fruit for that.
"we should be serious about trying to get people with excess money to use that money for good, and to be a good example for the rest of us" If that's what leftism is then socialists should want no part of leftism. Imagine folks in the middle ages trying to discern who are the "good" and "bad" nobles; it's a waste of time. Or how about the "nice" slaveowners? We're not asking the capitalists to be more moral, we're trying to crush them as a class.
@M R I meant there that ideally they would no longer be rich after giving away their money. For the analogy its kind of like a noble who gives their land back to the peasants is no longer a noble. Its a little more complicated because most rich leftists are not classic capitalists (like Hasan is a streamer). I still view extreme wealth inequality as problematic even if it doesn't map cleanly onto an exploitation framework. To be clear I don't come at it from the same socialist perspective as you -- for me the wealth inequality is the main problem. Presumably both of us want all capitalists to give away all their wealth, give their shares back to the workers, etc. Of course that won't happen voluntarily. I would just think that pressing the issue on the moral outrage of inequality is a part of the political push. And I don't think we should trivialize that the money can do good as well (and in a way which helps the movement).
Being bourgeois is not a matter of how much money you have/make. It's defined by your position in the work relations of a capitalist society. If you have a million dollars but your income still relies on how much your work for a company (in this case, Google/Amazon) you're still part of the working class. Owning private property and making money through the capital generated by your employees is what makes you bourgeois
This raises some interesting questions, though. If a university professor (let's say a professor of business) has a salary of $150,000 a year, while a small-business owner (e.g. shopkeeper) has an income of $50,000, does that make the business owner more "bourgeois" if they happen to employ laborers, whereas the professor doesn't officially employ anyone? Is the lady who owns your local flower shop more bourgeois than a lawyer making six figures from a major law firm? Maybe the answer is yes to all the above, but I can't help but feel that people like Marx had a more nuanced view of the matter, as opposed to being simply determined by one's source of income.
@@richardbaldwin4895 Yes, Marx investigated the proletariat: “the mass of propertyless workers - the utterly precarious position of labour - power on a mass scale cut off from capital or from even a limited satisfaction and, therefore, no longer merely temporarily deprived of work itself as a secure source of life” - The German Ideology Of course you don’t have to be a worker to be a communist, but this whole “millionaires can be working class too” take is crazy; it completely misses the point of why communism is concerned with the workers in the first place. The workers have NOTHING to lose but their chains.
@@richardbaldwin4895 why does it need to be any more complicated than that, though? The alternative would be some theoretical threshold of labour exploitation at which Marx would say "ah, fair enough - that's cool I guess". There are plenty of other reasons to think lawyer money is bad (for one, that they're almost always employed in service of capital), but in terms of class identity it's pretty clear cut.
@@richardbaldwin4895 Marx describes those people as "petit bourgeois", since they do own private property but still rely on larger businesses in a chain of commerce to exist. Most of the petit bourgeoisie still needs to work in their own businesses in order for them to exist. A shopkeeper might technically be a CEO like Musk or Bezos, but he's always 2 months away from bankrupcy whereas the dominant class has the game rigged for them to always tip the odds in their favor. Petit bourgeoisie has no say on the systematic configuration of capitalism, they don't have a stranglehold on politics like the actual bourgeoisie does. So long story short, small business owners are just a type of proletariat that gets to eat the leftovers of the banquet
@@Reionder The petit bourgeoisie is not "just a type of proletariat" lmao. If anything, it's "just a type" of bourgeoisie. I don't know shit about Hasan, but he is at minimum a "little owner." I imagine he could quit his job and live off of profits from stocks just fine. Let's not pretend he's some desperate prole.
Fun fact - in Polish leftist communities, "leftist" is used as a synonym for "good", "based" etc. I'm not even kidding, this really is the meaning it usually has, sometimes even in situations that have nothing to do with ideology. We also use the word "unleftist" to describe people doing bad things, like tax evasion, driving an SUV, sexism, being an asshole and stuff like that. Of course, this was originally (and still is to a large extent) ironic. It definitely is often said in a jokey way. But not always. Nowadays, it really has become a straight-up synonym for "good". I think it's really interesting, and you are definitely onto something in this video. Many leftists view "leftism" as being one and the same as "doing the right thing", "being empathetic", "trying to make the world a better place" etc. And, I mean, obviously people think that their own ideology is good, that's how ideology works. But with some right wingers' ideology being just straight up "wanting to make people they don't like suffer", I can see how some leftists can come to share this perception. Cause obviously, leftism is not the same as "goodness" and rightism not the same as "badness", but there is definitely some correlation, at least in people's perception.
I'm not sure if it's about getting a "leftist." I wouldn't say he's not a real "leftist" what I would say is that he's not a revolutionary, that much is obvious and he's a capitalist. I say that because he has the capital to be a business owner. To be sure, I agree that you don't have to be a revolutionary to be a "leftist" but you can be a capitalist and a revolutionary as Engels was and Hasan is certainly not.
Not buying this one. The reason why I (and lots of people) take issue with someone like Hasan buying and living in an expensive mansion far above what the average person could achieve is because it makes critique of 'capitalism bad' seem extraordinarily hollow, when he himself is happily benefiting from capitalist society. Hasan living in a mansion is an issue of the "real world" - he's directly participating in the allocation of wealth towards wealthy, ostentatious ventures. Being less smug than someone like Andrew Tate bragging about supercars doesn't mean he's not materialistically fueling a culture of excess. I also don't think a straight line between charity = being a good person logically follows. Is charity good? Sure. But the reason why people criticze Hasan and those like him is because he's a limousine liberal who is specifically preaching the value of charity, while living a largely uncharitable and excessive lifestyle that would not be allowed in the very society for which he claims to advocate. TL;DR - it's about hypocrisy, you can't take someone who claims to be a socialist seriously when they are quietly benefiting from capitalism
The better argument against "the rich socialist" is that each person takes of their need and each person gives of their ability. What I have to offer is time and certain skills, so I put that towards organizing labor and working on political issue campaigns that move us towards socialism. If what you have is money, it makes sense that you would put money in excess of what you need towards promoting socialism. Otherwise, if a socialist is determined by your beliefs and not actions, then how can you possibly argue Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk are not secretly socialists? They have to live in a society, they aren't obligated to give of their excess to change society, but in their hearts Marx is their BFF and Bernie isn't radical enough.
The way I’ve always seen it, Hasan made his money via small-scale donations and subscriptions, some of which Amazon siphoned off because they own the platform he streams on. He is (or at least, was) a WORKER. He does not own his own means. He happens to be paid pretty well, but that’s not what defines someone as a capitalist.
No, what you describe is a sole proprietor / small business owner who has specific recurring expenses, not a worker. If you own a small corner shop you aren't the employee of the wholesaler who ships your wares, if you own a restaurant but currently only sell takeout you aren't a DoorDash worker. Amazon only owns a single mean of the Twitch streamer's production, the platform. Hasan still has a merch store and the podcast he co-hosts has a Patreon. He presumably uses his own gear and I assume he has means to reach his audience outside of Twitch in case the site or his account goes down.
@@rustkitty Yeah I don't claim to justify his current business ventures, but when he started he was a worker. His new ventures do make him in some respects a capitalist
Socialism should absolutely be the construction of a new people, as any fundamental change to mode of production would necessarily require a fundamentally different people to comprise it. I agree with some of this video but fundamentally there is a huge contradiction in building an entire public persona on being a socialist and then purchasing extravagant luxuries for yourself and while people are incorrect to frame it around "not a real leftist", they're absolutely correct to point out that contradiction.
@@otto_jk before we can achieve communism and give the workers the means of the production the vanguard must first gradually mould people into ethical superhumans, defined vaguely enough so that it’s a carrot on a stick forever out of reach
“I’m a communist but I’m to much of a pussy to admit it so instead, because I am to weak to actually take the form of a true narcissist, I will take on the form of a covert narcissist to manipulate useful idiots to do what I see as moral and just.” It’s insufferable every time. Nothing but senseless platitudes with no merit. You cannot change “fundamental” aspects of man to fit your ideal, it does not work that way.
not to make this about me, but this a point i struggle with internally almost daily. i 'inherited' socialist values from my parents who are marxist academics. i was raised as an only child in an enormous house, which i have learned to appreciate for its historic qualities, but has made me highly uncomfortable ever since it was in the paper as 'the rich side of town'. like all this space for two people? in a housing crisis? i have found that to apologize for your wealth, while custom in some cultures, mostly tends to irritate people, almost more than if youre boasting it. so i am trying to switch my negative spiral to humility and gratitude. i always have to remind myself: 'i would want someone else to enjoy this, so i need to allow myself to enjoy it too.' what good is privelege if youre just going to sit and mope? like hasan, i dont shy away from what i have been given in this life, but i try to the best i can do with it to make society more equitable.
If you stay true to your ideals, you would share your home with friends & comrades who need a place to stay (as you said it’s enormous so put the space to good use) I don’t like Joel’s framing of this argument leftists don’t beg for “charity” from each other or the rich, they want solidarity, community care, praxis. To give away clothes, to do food distro, is not to look down on someone and give them pity, it is to look each other in the eye and share in kindness and solidarity. THATS what Hassan lacks. He talks abt socialism, it scores him fans online, it makes him money, and out in the world, he does not act. He betrays his ideals not by lack of philanthropy, but by never putting his very public words into action, into praxis.
What you should be doing is leveraging your privilege to do the risky work that needs to be done. If something happens you can take the heat while many comrades can’t. You also can engage more in mutual aid to benefit your community. I don’t think you need to feel bad, you should see it as a tool that can be used against the state instead of for it.
Little Joel i love u but this makes zero sense. People don’t call rich socialists hypocritical because charity is good and socialists are supposed to be good. they call it hypocritical because socialism is about redistributing wealth and a rich socialist isn’t redistributing their own wealth.
Wealth redistribution doesn't really mean rich people giving away their money to others; it means that *systematically* no individual can privately control so much wealth that it becomes a problem. Someone having a few million in the bank isn't a problem. Billionaires are.
Given that we are subject to material forces, perhaps it does matter if people who are rich and indulge in bouts of conspicuous consumption are constantly being pushed to the front of leftist discourse. That doesn't mean they can't be leftists, but maybe a left in which such people are the most audible voices is not a very effective left and being pissed off in a political way about that might be a good thing.
I feel like this didn’t address the issue, or at least the meaning behind the title, which is about rich socialists being hypocritical, not all leftists being moral.
I tend to compartmentalise the political and the personal, to the extent that you can. I disagree that having good (read: leftist) politics, being a good public citizen, doesn't make you a good person. It's just that it is half of the equation. Being a good person, politically, and being a good person, personally, are both important. And neither is a substitute for the other. Having good politics doesn't balance out being a shitty person to other people; and doing good, personally (charitable giving, kindness, manners, etc.), doesn't excuse cruel politics. I don't know why you'd even suggest that your politics don't reflect on you, as a person, like that.
Hi, sorry, I have an unhealthy obsession with this discourse this week, and a question cane to mind: How is “eat the rich” employed online?(i’m not very online) Because it seems like it’s used more as an “all rich are bad” statement (I don’t necessarily disagree), and I’ve seen it used by Contrapoints and Khadij Mbowe (I definitely got her name spelling wrong, sorry) refer to “eat the rich” as an expression of envy. I think that’s really curious, because it seems the origin of the statement is: “When the people have nothing left to eat, they shall eat the rich” Which I find to be expressing something very different about the relationship between rich and poor than simply “envy”. That seems more like it’s describing resource and wealth extraction gone awry. Anyway, sorry to bug you, just had a thought. Have a nice day!
@@pleasedonotwatchmychannel I've observed it being used online primarily as a mere slogan, similar to how the Communist phrase "Workers of the world, unite!" was plastered all around shops and factories in the Warsaw pact. The majority of those owners, managers et cetera weren't politically active nor particularly sympathetic to communism, yet they would still have posters of communist slogans, portraits of communist leaders and the hammer and sickle within their businesses, because it was the norm and the obligation caused by the Soviet culture, and if they were not to show their alleged support for communism, they'd be shunned as a detractor or even an enemy and thus become alienated and arrested. I believe that this "eat the rich" slogan is quite similar and that most people who say it are doing so out of fear of going against the popular culture, not because they genuinely believe in it, though some do, for sure.
Ive always interpreted this discourse as more "being rich is immoral" than "being leftist makes people more moral". Like not substantively different from criticizing bezos or musk etc
I understand that take when in relation to billionaires but people like Hasan are nowhere even close to being near _that_ rich. I think some people struggle to imagine the differences in wealth being discussed though..
@@genericname8727 Yeah they're not *that* rich, but still rich enough to be worth criticizing. Like how we should be critical of moderate conservatism even though it's not as bad as fascism, yknow
I must be the most authentic socialist according to conservatives, as a poor person. It makes me the best. Somehow, struggling month to month makes me a better socialist than Hassan. being poor doesn’t make me a good person or a leftist.
I get what you're saying, but flexing wealth as a socialist is a bad look imo. i understand that we're all operating under the same exploitative system, but if you claim to have values, I would prefer if you would act upon those values. Set an example for others to aspire to.
I'm a leftist specifically because i don't think that relying on people being "morally good" is a smart plan. I want to see society and economy structured in such a way that people are less capable of harming others. If someone's idea of left wing political thought demands that all actors be "morally good" then i probably disagree with them about something.
Hypocrisy in general is a really useless counter argument. Like if I say "it's wrong to punch little kids in the face" and then I punch a little kid in the face that makes me a hypocrite and a shitty person, but pointing that out is not a counter-argument to "it's wrong to punch little kids in the face".
somewhat fair, but I also feel like leftist communities should make an attempt to elevate people who are good people. So if spending money on tons of luxury goods *does*, in fact, make you a bad person if you could otherwise donate the money, it seems relevant to call that out when it's being promoted by one of the biggest leftist creators online
DarkViperAU's series WHY REACT CONTENT HARMS EVERYONE is the best criticism of "hasan there is that is not just hasan is rich therefore bad socialist" (and streamers in general) Darkviper is someone who is open to leftist thought but is stuck on the presence of hasanabi. Hasan who is so keenly aware of the extraction of value from labor REFUSES to see how his react content is doing just that. Which sucks for viewers in totality because there is barely a cohesive online left as it is. Everyone is problematic to varying degrees but the discourse is always siphoning the life and reach of the left instead of reinvigorate it.
dark viper compared react content to sexual assault, that is incredibly stupid, and pretty much invalidates anything he could say afterward, plus the almost of the content hasan reacts to are: 1.) news broadcasts and other political pundits, and i dont think theyd give af if hasan was watching their shit 2.) tv shows 3.) friends of hasan who either dont care about or encourage hasan to react to said content because it gets in front of more eyeballs. dark viper doesnt speak for the people hasan reacts to, and if they didnt like hasan reacting to their content, they could very well voice that to hasan and he'd stop reacting to it. do you honestly think the leftists he reacts to like noah sampson, second thought, and other leftists he reacts to actually care if hasan watches their shit? no. hasan reacting to these channels could only help them grow, because some of his viewers will see that, go "i also like this other leftist cc, ill go sub to them too" and they might watch those vids on their own, but ultimately the point they make that content is not to make money, its to get the most amount of eyeballs watching and getting the message, and hasan showing his very large fanbase those vids is imparting that message to those viewers, and thats what ultimately matters, not the individual cc's growing their own personal brand listen to the cc's he actually reacts to, not some irrelevant nobody youtuber/streamer who nobody even knows. its the classic "is there someone you forgot to ask" meme where both hasan and the person he reacts to are fine with the reacts, but nobodies like viper are screeching in the background, like "nobody asked for your opinion, man"
@@dilawn_bv I hope you taking the time to comment is a sign of good faith. I encourage you to watch the series of videos because alot of what you have said has been addressed within them. I know I (and many within his community) didn't like Darkviper using SA as an analogy for react content, and he understood that. He does not include that analogy within his series. Darkviper wrote a rough draft of his video and put it on Twitter which is what recived the majoity of scrutiny. Rough drafts are not Final and may not be expressing your own argument very well. And Darkviper refined his argument which included removing his SA analogy but his series did not receivethe same amount of coverage as the rough draft. Darkvipers argument was about the consent of the creators being reacted too being disregarded and the harm that brings. I deeply encourage you to watch the series beacuse the comments you make don't express to me that you did, or that you didn't watch in good faith. It sucks that you want to completely disregard someone's argument from the initial impression that he directly compared SA to react content, which he did not. He was saying that consent cannot be asked for AFTER the fact of an action. You typed "..and if they didn't like hasan reacting to their content, they could very well voice that to hasan and he'd stop reacting to it". This proves everything that I stated. Hasan is reacting to content without the consent of the creators FIRST. Then AFTER the action has been done, can hasan actually claim he has the consent of the creators if he had gained what he wanted out of the reacted too video? No, he's already absorbed the audience that could have watched that video on their own which could have algorithmicly boosted the original creators video; but hasans react content serves as a replacement to that video within the algorithm that promotes videos to viewers. Please, honestly engage with darkvipers arguments, watch his series in good faith. I hope to receive a response from you because holding People including CCreators accountable to the harm they produce is THE life blood of the online left.
I mean, if you have wealth that you got from your own labor somehow, that’s one thing. If you own a business and it isn’t cooperatively owned and doesn’t have a union, or if you’re a landlord, and you claim to be a socialist, then you are absolutely a hypocrite. In fact, it would make you the literal definition of a capitalist.
I…think that’s a difficult standard to hold a lot of people to, depending on where you live. I’d judge it by how you treat people who are, for lack of a better term, under your authority. Are you charging high rent, even if it is comparable to the area? Uh, maybe rethink that. Are you keeping your workers wages competitive and fair while also giving them benefits (and typically ones that would go beyond most businesses)? Do you meet their needs when they advocate for better conditions and wages? Ok, good, that’s what we like to see. But you know…we live in a society, and a co-op might not do well in Memphis or something just cuz it’s a co-op. And conversely, a co-op in San Francisco could still be enabling abuse of some sort. What matters is how people are being treated and whether the owner works to their benefit, not necessarily if it follows leftist parameters in name. It’s the same thinking behind assuming anyone who’s socialist is a good person.
@@TheNwr1 Not everyone who is a socialist is a good person, but I’d say being a socialist is a requirement for being a good person. And not being a landlord or a capitalist are pretty clearly requirements to being a socialist. And it’s pretty easy to not be a landlord or a capitalist. Just sell your extra house, and give your employees equal ownership to you in your business. Or failing that just don’t own property to rent and don’t own a business that has employees.
Does being on the left automatically guarantee that one is a morally acceptable person? ... hmmm ... I guess not. Is social-ISM morally superior to capital-ISM? ... yes ... yes it definately is.
I just started stumbling onto this guy's videos, and I'm pleasantly surprised by what such fresh, genuine takes he has. They're also just conversational and straight to the point, no performance or signaling. Looking forward to more videos!
Personally I think rich people should only be allowed to be fascists tbh. I think that would a good thing, if we force all the most powerful people in the country to side with the far right
Wrong. He is obviously frodo, if you give him money you can see his inhumanly large hairy... Feet, on Patreon. There as he is frodo we should give him all the money that Hassan has.
Socialism is not about charity, it's about _social ownership and control of the social means of production_ so that everyone has a say in, and everyone benefits from, the conditions of our labor & our lives. Every artist, entertainer, "content creator", etc., is in a complex relationship to their MOP, since their immediate production is almost always entirely under their control (making them _petit-bourgeois_ pardon my French), but their ability to "monetize" it is entirely under the control of large corporate entities (making them Uber-proles, in modern parlance). And as in every field of art, entertainment, etc., some individuals will end up getting disproportionately rewarded for their "content", for whatever reason. That, in and of itself, does not change their relationship to the means. It _may,_ depending on what they do with the money - but the money doesn't do it on its own. In this case, the pics shown of Hasan flexing with his consumer purchases indicate that he is _not_ changing his relationship to the means, at least with _that_ money - he's simply buying stuff, which is what _proles_ do with our money. It may be "boogie" but it's not _bourgeois_ (again, pardon my French). Now, the idea that flexing with your consumer purchases is a cool and good thing to do always struck me as weird, but then, I never did understand _competitive eating_ as a sport. And the things he's posing with are absolutely not the kinds of things I would spend that kind of money on, but that's a matter of personal taste. An old commie I used to know, who retired comfortably after decades working a good-paying union job and enjoyed expensive cigars & whiskey & the like, responded to someone criticizing him of "high living" thusly, and it's become one of my favorite aphorisms: *Nothing's too good for the working class.*
yknow supporting socialism isn't a vow of poverty in which any wealth is like sand in your fingers. Just yknow pay your taxs and free health care type of stuff.
Honestly yea. We should be encouraging people with privilege to do the work that can be risky! That’s how we ensure that things get done and people who are already marginalized will have minimal harm in those cases. Also this whole thing just really comes off as the “they don’t know I’m pretending not to have rich parents” meme. The only thing I’m really against is the conspicuous consumption of some of the shit he buys. Otherwise I hate this shit. We should’ve be discouraging people from higher classes to help. Give us your money to fund the revolution
We also have to ensure that they understand their place in all this. Kind of like how with Engels trying to rail against anarchism (he has a lot of reason to want to keep up some parts of the status quo with his bougie status). We need accomplices and class traitors.
I think just buying expensive stuff and trying to get attention with it is seen as bad... and I think throwing in the political is just more wood to the fire. I don't think this theme is as deep as it seems.
Damn, I genuinely never realized that I actually do think I'm leftist as an extension of my goodness. Joel really cutting me down to size with this one
and i mean saying a socialist being rich is hypocritical is like... socialism doesn't mean "no rich people", it just means ownership over the means of production, and etc etc. Also yeah, you can want socialism for completely selfish reasons, like less homeless people to pass by on the street, better opportunities for you, better social safety nets if you can't work, better societal advances if we don't have a bunch of people unable to work towards their passions because they need to work 3 jobs just to have a studio apartment that probably should be condemned. And when people say it's just about being a good person it kind of obscures the fact that the policies are also FAR more effective and efficient than our current system too.
Rich socialists can exist but they absolutely need to be kept in check because their class positions will have an inevitable effect on their politics so long as they stay in that position. They should be assistants to socialist movements, not leaders, you feel me?
I think if you’re a free figurehead for an ideology, you should have to meet some minimum threshold for living your values otherwise it seems like it’s just an aesthetic.
The reason why people are saying Hasan is a hippocrite is simple: You get to win the argument without having to form your own opinion on the matter. Someone believes thing A and does B, and you point out that those two contradict each other, and boom, you „won“ the argument without having to bring up convincing arguments on why you disagree with belief A
What if you also believe thing A, but point out that that persons' actions contradict their beliefs? I just think we can recognize that someone is acting hypocritically, even if that doesn't make them 'not a leftist.'
unless marxism has “evolved” more than I was aware, this guy might not know what he’s talking about. That is to say “leftists” are definitely concerned with morality. they’re concerned with morality and economics.
My favorite thing is people acting as though money and the exchange of goods and services is somehow exclusive to capitalism. Even in a purely socialist society, in which the means of production are owned by the workers, some businesses are going to be more successful, meaning those particular workers would be earning more money. But the idea would be that in that company, no one is left behind and we would, presumably, have a myriad of social safety nets to ensure that those who work at a less successful business don’t wind up begging for scraps on the streets
he advocates paying higher taxes, and lives in california, if he hated paying taxes so much, he could live in florida or texas, he literally says "if you hate that im so fucking rich, tax me more, please"
If he hates being rich, why doesn’t he fund a community garden or co-op or something. Why wait for the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT to decide what to do with his money?
Hasan's silence over the Oompa Loompa crisis is defeaning
Okay, seeing _YOU_ here makes me like you even more than I already did!
did not expect to see a Pinely comment talking about Hasan, your videos had given me the feeling that you're left leaning but it's good to have it confirmed!
HELLO PINELY????
Big joel is possibly my favourite UA-camr :)
Hey, you BOTH are my favorite UA-camrs! Is this... A crossover episode?
Of course Little Joel would argue that socialists can be rich. Taking his size into consideration he is tremendously wealthy.
Little Joel, richest man in America (by volume)
I fear there might be a bigger Joel to take on that task
a true champagne socialist indeed
@@Mornal would now love to calculate the richest person by volume
What about the Oompa Loompas?
Hassan should donate six figures to the oompa loompa community.
What about the Oompa Loompa? Joel
Seconded.
I think that is, in essence, what Joel is trying to say here.
Can confirm, I am a leftist and a bad person
Double confirmed
*KICK HIM OUT OF THE VIRTUOUS CULTURE CLUB*
Triple confirmed
I was beginning to think I was alone around here. Us bad people need more representation in leftist spaces
Quintuple confirmed.
Please, call me Rich, mr. Socialist was my father's name
Rich Socialist, bachelor superspy
😂
Richy rich is that you?
My problem with “rich leftists” is when they are business owners or hire staff and don’t pay/treat those workers well. So they don’t have the excuse of “well I can’t afford to pay people more”.
Practice what you preach and all that.
100%, pay costs of operation, put some aside for business emergencies, and then split the rest equally between yourself and staff.
This. You cannot call yourself a socialist and live on profit from other people's work.
Exactly I hate how the "exploitation of labor" is Hasan's biggest talking point and the guy has literally made millions from eating food while other people's UA-cam videos are playing. This shit seemed like such a soft video from Joel, the guy always calls people out on their bullshit but basically pulled the advanced version of "socialism is when no money" on this one. Feels like he didn't wanna get the Hasan dickriders mad
@@youngandyx Hasan made millions from reacting to videos? Are you listening to yourself?
He makes his money from twitch subs. He doesnt even post his reaction on youtube.
The people whose videos he reacts to where he leaves his desk dont care about him reacting.
For those who do, he provides enough commentary for it to be transformative, famiously taking hour to watch a 10 minute video
@@goofsterngafster8411 running d for hasan in 2024 is crazy lol
It was something I had to realize after a while that being on the "right team" doesn't guarantee someone is a good person. Most leftists I know are great, but not all of them for sure.
i've never actually found a leftist that wasn't good person, only heard of them in the say you hear about the loch ness monster
@@chronictimewasterdisease In my personal experience, they are rare. But there is this attitude with them of "We're the good guys so we're never wrong." Self criticism is extremely important and they didn't practice it.
A good 60% of my depression comes from realizing how many shitty people appear virtuous only due to habituation and how many otherwise good people appear shitty for the same reason and how difficult it can be to tell them apart and the expectation that we all go along with it. "Fart-smelling discourse" indeed.
Plenty of people just stumble onto the “right team” without having any real principles or thinking about it. Those are the types who are super vulnerable to fascist propaganda
exactly. there is a circle of leftists on the internet that are like, completely awful people. and I don't see them being criticized all that much because "well they're on OUR side" which scares me
Calling what some people conceive of leftism "your little virtuous culture club" is such a fucking banger jesus. cutting right to the bone
This is why I love "I'm a better anarchist then you." Great satirical song. So much of leftist spaces is their own version of purity culture and gatekeeping.
But yeah, just because you know what the right thing to do is doesn't mean you do that thing. It is entirely possible to understand "conspicuous consumption bad" and still do it. Most people who smoke already knew the risks and did it anyway. Idk why people think having that knowledge makes you immune to doing bad things. (edit typo)
Did you really want to hurt me?
Ideologies can be virtuous. People can be virtuous based on acting on a virtuous ideology. But simply believing in virtuous values is no guarantee of good actions, (or the utility of so-called virtuous acts).
In the end everyone is a dead hypocrite. We’re all equal given enough time. One might as well use their wealth to finance social gatherings and manufacture friends.
@@bluegamer6474 1. There is no ethical way to participate in capitalism.
2. You can either participate in capitalism or live as a vagabond recluse.
3. Capitalism makes all of us hypocrites.
a little virtuous culture club is really all ideologies when you think about it.
With the recent rise in philanthropic mega-giving i wouldnt say that giving is a /universally/ good thing either, since the elite will use donations to push their own agendas, increase dependencies with local decision-makers and they receive tax benefits for it, too. So one could say that a lot of philanthropy is rich people leveraging their power and a not inconsiderable amount of public funds to realize what /they/ personally define as a common good. Not to say that I don't agree with the observations Little Joel is making here or that giving is bad per se, just wanted to point out that being a philanthropist makes you as much of a good person as being a leftist or socialist does
Kind of like how public education is pushed both by social reformers who think it is a social and moral good to educate everyone, and also by industrialists who realized they could start training people to be accountants from age 7 using the government’s money
Pay reparations to the Loompa community, Joel. You can’t run forever.
A real Leftist would donate to aid Oompa Loompas. Of course, hypocritical Joel would never do that, instead sitting on his money throne.
Loompa-Land back now!
Using their slave name? This ain't it chief.
@@DanteRatto We have to meet people where they are so that our demands have a chance of being heard and met.
(I feel like I need to take a shower.)
@@DanteRatto I’m sorry but i’m tired of seeing fucking humans tell me, a proud Loompa, what words I’m allowed to describe myself with. If you actually LISTENED to Loompa voices, you would realize that we reclaimed the term decades ago.
you make some good points, but I do still think you should take potshots at rich people at any available oppurtunity. they can handle it i reckon.
Hasan is still an ally though. I wouldn't want to make life harder for an ally rich or not. There aren't many rich people I'd call allies though because 99% of them just aren't.
Sure, but not for being bad socialists, just for being assholes.
Noooooo!!!! I plan on being rich and I am a sensitive little lad!!! Don't make fun of me pleaaase!!! I just want a big house c:
I bet they're wiping their tears away with dollar bill and crying their way to the bank.
Fart Smella discourse from a Smart Fella
Subprimal comment
One smart felllow, he felt smart.
If we thought that individual donations and philanthropy and the like could ever possibly be the solution to the issues in the world, then we wouldn't be leftists. We'd probably be right-libertarians, actually. It's not a matter of individuals, it's a matter of systemic incentives. Sure, if you have the means, philanthropy is a great thing, and I'm sure Hasan, as an example, gives plenty of money to leftist causes, but it's not going to solve the problems with how supply chains are managed, or how capital influences policy, or worker exploitation, or any of those sorts of issues.
Philanthropy can't replace or eliminate the need for systemic change but it can help, so why shouldn't wealthy socialists strive to give away as much as they can to lift others up and spread left wing ideas? Obviously it's up to any individual to decide how much money they keep to themselves, and what they spend it on, but if the answer is that they're spending hundreds of thousands and millions on quite luxurious assets, can we not question that decision as perhaps a bit hypocritical and not as supportive of the cause as they could be?
@@JonathanRuchlis I mean if you think about it being socialist and rich sounds like way better advertising for the position than having to give away a large portion of your money. You can say the empathetic people to the cause by giving away your wealth but what about the selfish people who desire wealth?
@@JonathanRuchlis I mean, you can definitely question it! But it doesn't make someone "not a real socialist." If someone donates time and money to a cause, whether we feel they have "donated enough" is a really nebulous target and not worth getting into very serious discourse over.. esp when the real point is that we're all advocating for the same changes. If they're a true socialist they're literally advocating for more of their money to be taken for good causes.
@@ea5145 Fair enough. I agree it doesn't mean they're not a genuine advocate for change, and that getting caught up in discussing who's doing enough probably isn't the most productive conversation ever, BUT being a critic of wealth inequity and then driving around in a car that costs as much as what someone else makes in a decade or more does feel hypocritical to me. It seemed to me like lil Joel was dismissing this read, and making some point about charity which didn't really make any sense to me. But if the argument is just that the infighting is counter productive, and/or it's just not worth discussing, I could maybe see that. Depends on the forum and intent I suppose. Didn't really seem like what Joel was getting at to me tho
@@Gretcie Interesting thought. I guess I don't think most people become socialists or leftists because they think it's gonna make them rich, but maybe I'm mistaken. Does seeing rich socialists make you more interested in that ideology?
I have met some horrible people who called themselves socialists. My ex-girlfriend was in a band with a guy who staunchly supported left-wing politicians, but who was extremely sexist. I know this other dude who is also very leftist but has said some really racist stuff as well. Sometimes, specially here in Latin America, people will identify as left-wing mostly for anti-American sentiment. They are "leftists" but from a position of hate, not a position of empathy.
^^^
That's the difference; what emotion fuels your politics.
Well it’s a virtue to hate America so I can’t blame them
The Road to Wigan Pier. Now, Peterson says that's why he rejected socialism, 'cos they icky but actually George Orwell called Jordan Peterson an absolute idiot: "To recoil from Socialism because so many socialists are inferior people is as absurd as refusing to travel by train because you dislike the ticket-collector’s face."
Well I'll second you on the sexism. Woooooo lord. Some of them just want more money. It doesn't make them better people or less misogynistic. Labor 2022 election night celebration speech: when it came to record achievements for women, the cheers from the men virtually completely stopped. The camera panned to the crowd. I saw men with their arms crossed and stony faced. Identity ew. Womz ew.
Whhhhhhhhhhhhhhy should Labor have quotas. What about meeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
It's supposed to be about the relationship to property. Having personal belongings isn't the same as being a landlord or owning a business where your profit comes from exploiting other people. Having a nice car is not in conflict with thinking that people should own their labor and their homes
This. If you profit from other people's work bc you're the owner, ther is no way you are honestly leftist.
that’s a big cat behind little joel
biggest cat for the littlest dude
My smallest cat could reliably fight that "dog" but they're both too cute for me to allow such a confrontation.
That is Joels hair
Personally I just dislike it when someone demonstrates extravagant and over the top consumerism like he does. Doesn’t make him a “fake leftist” or whatever lol but it’s still tacky and puts a bad taste in my mouth.
that is a different and imo valid point than the one agrued against in the video.
@@PBDNR yeah exactly. I wasn’t arguing in favour of the stupid people who say that socialists can’t be rich and can’t show of their wealth. I was just explaining why I still don’t like it when they do. Not because of any supposed hypocrisy, but just because I don’t like it when anyone does it
@@dandaropa it sounds like you need to get over your ressentiment
@@otto_jk Do you like it when rich vapid youtubers make videos about all the cars they have and mansion tours etc? If so then I do not understand you. If not then we actually agree, you probably just don’t like that I’m applying that same standard to your internet babysitter.
And I say this as someone who does (mostly) like Hasan too
That's just your taste and person aesthetic at that point lol
"Socialist cant be rich"
Engels: 💰💰 💸🤑
little joel dodged his channel being infinitely covered in oompa loompa comments by the sheer force of randomness in the universe, and yet, tempting fate and the sense of humor of a few dedicated individuals, little joel made a second oompa loompa video, condemning him to oompa loompa comments for months
Oompa loompa doopity dee
Joel needs to teach the controversy
Oompa loompa dappity doo,
we've sent our finest mercenaries after you
@@Me-wx1mt one too many syllables. spell failed!
@@tereziTZI damn! I couldn't think of a different term for mercenaries
@@Me-wx1mt hitmen
I hate it when leftist discourse fixates on which people are wealthy, as opposed to the systems that produce wealth. Sure, people who make money as entertainers often do so working for exploitative companies, and there is an appropriate time to criticize that, but treating wealth as the primary vector of virtue, rather than relationship to labor and the means of production, is not really helpful for a leftist project. Socialism is when laborers have power over their own lives and are able to reap the full value of their work; socialism isn't simply rich people giving some money to charity
Is charity really all people talk about when discussing this? I think it's worthwhile to keep the material interests of anyone talking about socialism in mind. Let's say Hasan or anyone else in that position was a paragon of charity, they gave away everything, save the basic necessities of life. Do we no longer care about how they interact with larger systems to get that money in the first place or their material interests related to that at all, it's not even worth considering when you hear them speak?
Sure there's a thought terminating cliche there of "no socialism in streamer's big house" that you should immediately discredit the perspective of anyone with money, but this video reads like an attempt at the opposite. Like it's saying "there's nothing to think about the millionaire's relationship to socialism, this whole discussion is ridiculous, that's equating leftism with good morals saying being a leftist requires being charitable"
I just don't think it's that simple, there's more to it than what you talked about, and it's worth thinking about
i really appreciate your comment, thank you
i was thinking more or less the same thing and then went to comments and it was already written out well, so thanks
This reading has no connection to the video. He never says anything even remotely to the effect that it's ridiculous to think about the relationship between someone's wealth/social position and their political views, only that the two aren't the same, and one doesn't automatically follow from the other. It's a simple point that you're reading way too much into.
Agreed
Charity is where the discussion tends to go because no one participating in the discourse (other than Hasan, I guess) knows his finances. That's really the only other way one could reasonably interpret the "millionaire's relationship to socialism", and it can be broadly broken up into two categories: the way in which he accumulates wealth and any prior family privilege or wealth he has access to.
Clearly, Hasan is not an owner of means of production any more than a laborer owns anything more than the work they provide, so unless this is untrue by an omissive lie, that only really leaves family privilege and/or wealth and the source of that. I'm not a Hasan fan or historian, so he might very well have that, but then how does that compromise his relationship to socialism? Can the children of capitalists fail to be socialist, even if they've greatly benefited from the privilege of their capitalist parents?
Joel's point is simply that material conditions do not __a priori__ have anything to do with one's politics and that neither have anything to do with how good of a person you are. Much of the ways in which people acquire wealth are exploitative to be sure, so some scrutiny is required, but at least on Twitter, this very much gets boiled down to "you must be THIS POOR (or ideologically pure) to be seen as a good person" and there's no value to be had in such debates outside of the aforementioned vanity culture clubs that Joel describes.
Socialists can definitely be rich,
But them acting like the spoiled capitalist rich kids showing off their toys and privellge that they continually criticize themselves
Is demoralizing and it ruins credibility
Hassan can have money, but that video of him swag dancing beside his new 90k-100k dollar sportscar
Makes people not take him seriously.
Furthermore When he is confronted on these things his exaggerated straw-men and dishonest responses like
"gee you think I need to bike around LA" etc
Shows how little he is personally invested in the cause outside an ascetic.
I definitely feel like there's a false dichotomy going on in this video and these comments. There's a huge space between "every luxury of the worker seems to be reprehensible" and "showing off my new porsche."
@@ATRDhosmhea People value people who they thin and or see live by their values
in a world where words a re cheap and virtue signaling is te nay of the game
it is that special extra good faith and credibility that makes people believe you are authentic
Hassan destroys that element for those who aren’t the ride or die dick jumpers in hi audience.
The fact that he criticizes rich peoples wealth, spending and lifestyles on stream then will do the same kind of prancing grand-boating i just saw him criticize a Walton heir and or Hilton brat for doing
does make m second guess a lot of what he says and does.
Furthermore while he may support the socialist cause and the workers rights and tc verbally
he does not use his money or influence to get any real aid and or better outcome to the cause to help bolster it
he may give some money, but he doesn't do door to door, organization, calls and etc like Dylan burns and Vaush will do to get democrats and progressives registered and or help promote candidates and their platforms
etc. additional things that can help tip the balance in our favor and or show that he is serious about this outside an ideological larp that he could drop when it’s no longer convenient and live comfortably out of the way
And yes i think that does matter to people, and i think it’s right for them to question his integrity and commitment when he behaves poorly and lavishly without showing any direct or impactful evidence to the opposite in support for the causes he says he champions
Again plenty of grifters on the left who are out to benefit themselves first and foremost
and we are right to question and or ask them to prove their commitment if we’re going to give them our trust, support and money,
Idk I'm just not really following him on social media and I personally don't really give a shit so I can't say it matters to me.
Yeah I don’t think you can argue that our system is fucked and then continue to buy into it by purchasing luxury goods
This was pretty hard to watch Joel since most of your videos are usually well argued. First, no your main argument contains a false premise. I don’t think anyone necessarily thinks that Leftism (very broadly and basically defined)= being morally good. The argument against Hasan and rich socialists is that they’re violating the ideology itself. I doubt Hasan pays an overwhelming portion of his wealth to the state. Incidentally, they’re also violating the spirit of the ideology. Though Leftism is mainly about redistributing wealth through the state, it can also be about redistributing it through personal channels. Yes, charity is not antithetical to Leftism. Third, I even reject the argument about the non-equation between being morally good and politics. Yes, technically you’re right. Morals and politics do not need to be informed by one another. However, come on. Why do we do what we do? Why do we organize ourselves in particular ways, if not to satisfy moral questions? It’s integral to the human experience. Ergo, what we choose as our politics is largely, if not ultimately decided by our moral convictions.
Interesting take. Honestly never even occurred to me the connection I have in my mind between being morally good and leftist.
Like, I feel that there is a bit of a connection - the rhetoric around leftist discourse appears to me to be very ethics focused. I am attracted to leftism because of my morals, as opposed to my brother, who is attracted to right winged stuff because he dislikes “wokeism”.
I cannot help but feel that just about every right winged belief that I am aware of falls very neatly into the ignorant and discompassionate bucket.
I think interestingly, right wing people also have a connection in their mind between right wing politics and ethics. If you ever talk to someone about why they are against “wokeism” or “SJW”s its often because they think of those things as evil. I think a huge part of the division in modern politics is due to the association of political beliefs with morality. On both sides you have people who refuse to talk to people with different political opinions, who cut off family and friends because of which candidate they supported, etc. As a society we have to work on separating morality from politics at least at the individual level. Thats of course not entirely possible, a lot harder than it sounds, and not completely a good thing, but it would probably help to heal the rift. When people who hold a different political opinion are treated as bad people (even if the policies they support objectively harm people) it dehumanizes them.
@@emmafountain2059 would hate to dehumanize the people taking away my rights
I think making socialism attractive to people by appealing to their selfishness should be the next phase of the ideology. We just need a big bunch of rich socialists going around and buying frivolous crap. People love a get rich quick scheme and for the vast majority of people, socialism would be the actual fastest path to better material conditions.
@@gotmilkbutt don't get me wrong... conservative and GOP type views are fucking, incredibly evil. absolutely atrocious shit, but the crazy MAGA type of people who go to rallies and spam shit about queer people being groomers aren't the majority of people who support the GOP. the average voter is complicit, and should be held responsible for that, make no mistake. but i think people generally are good and want to do good, and while it isn't easy and you are by no means obligated to sacrifice your mental health (or your physical safety god forbid) to do so, it is good to try to help them understand.
ugh. things really do suck, huh? i know it's not simple. especially as being a woman or queer, or being a PoC generally gets more dangerous as the fascism creeps into people's heads. i don't want to say we should just abandon those who have been inducted into these hateful ideologies. they're our fellow people, and most of them have good intentions. but the road to hell is paved with em as they say. i don't know the solution of course. i don't know if anyone does.
sorry, this kinda just turned into me ruminating about the state of the us, haha. here's to hoping we can make things better, right?
Politics is the strategical application of one's morals. So.... Of course leftism is about morals
Whatever happened to "eat the rich"?
It's dumbass slogan. How rich are we talking? What is rich to you?
@@paulpujeter6340 not my sentiment. Only saw it 1000 times from Twitter leftists
It died when hard leftists stopped being economic reductionists and became way more focused on social issues and internationalism.
@@legateelizabethspeak clearly
Eat the rich comes from a poem about how when the poor starve the only thing they will have to eat is the rich thus building a society without economic class.
Unfortunately its has more to do with the fact that most people fundamentally dont understand the basic definition of socialism/communism and think it genuinely has to do with sharing your own personal property/money and not sharing CAPITAL.
Hello from the other side!
I don't know much about Piker so I don't have an opinion on him. I judge rich socialists in general because they should be contributing more to leftist organising. Especially to political party creation and upkeep.
Heck, you could even fund a worker coop.
In a socialist society you can benefit from the fruits of your labour, but right now we are facing ecological devastation, fascism and a bunch more y'all are familiar with. Money helps a lot in the fight.
Before anyone accuses me (someone always does) of asking every socialist to be poor before I validate their authenticity or whatever, that is reductio ad absurdum
I understand your opinion, but I don’t think that everyone’s job within a revolution is to organize. Some are more inclined to educate, like Hasan, or many other people. While leftism is growing, we still need more people to actually understand the principles that we advocate for. Organizing is great, but it isn’t the only form of activism.
@@joey.d.chills I agree on everyone's job being different. This does not follow with the conversation of "Can a socialist be too rich?" though. I am not asking rich socialists to change what they do. You don't have to stop being an educator to fund political movements. I am not asking rich socialists to spend their time with us and come hold sings at protests, I am asking them to fund leftist political parties so we can pay for transportation to the protests, political party office rents, lawyers for people who get arrested by the police, halls for political party events we use to get people interested etc.
@@SapkaliAkif I agree. Though Hasan and others do fund mutual aid programs and the like. I would also be skeptical of a rich socialist that doesn’t use their wealth to support others.
@@SapkaliAkifI feel like you both missed the point. Just because someone claims they're a leftist doesn't mean they perfectly represent those beliefs with total moral convictions. People who are flawed and even bad can still claim to be leftist is what I got fro the video. There is no secret moral police that determines whether or not you can call yourself a leftist.
Nah, it's noy about virtue. It's about consumerism and participation in capitalism in any way. Obviously, you can't live without particapating at all, but i would say buying luxury is participating pretty vell. And no, from my perspective this is not an outdated topic. It was actual back then, and still actual now. I do not have strong oppinon myself btw :D
This is such a wild take. If you believe that rich people hoarding wealth and spending ungodly sums on things of only marginal utility while others starve is a bad thing, then if you do that thing you are a hypocrite. It's not any more complicated then that.
Well imo I think you're ignoring the rest of the argument that points out how he runs his own personal business. Maybe people have an issue with possible exploitive capitalist behavior from socialist?
Not to imply Hasan does that, but i do remember that being part of the argument.
the podcast is a coop and his merch has abysmal profit margins
I think there's a very real conversation to be had about the exploitation that can happen in parasocial relationships, particularly on Twitch with bits and giftsubs (or YT with superchats). I've seen people spend WAY too much money to get a moment of attention from their favorite streamer.
But as a whole, I do think you can be an independent content creator who is wealthy without that wealth being exploitative. You just have to be wildly populat. 🤷
I've seen creators who are actively discouraging people from subbing or spending money and constantly telling folks to put their own interest first get showered with subs and gift subs.
Is it possible to be exploited without someone actively exploiting you? Because I feel that happens a LOT with content creators.
@@mechanicalmonk2020, absolutely. Because it's not necessarily the creator who is exploiting you, it's the system that they work within.
Ok I gotta disagree with the exploitation of parasocial relationships just on twitch and UA-cam chats. Unless they’re actively being preyed on like a love scam, they really aren’t victims of the streamer. It might symbolize how lonely they are that they’d pay for someone to acknowledge & respond to their comment, but that’s on their end
@@swegatron2859, I think individual streamers can lean into the exploitative aspects of the platform. I don't think it's _all_ on the streamer, but they can definitely play a part in encouraging it.
Yes that's a key part of this, he takes from most likely poorer leftists and instead of furthering the cause (after being comfortable) he indulges.
Little Joel content gives me the biggest joy
Is Your aim for this channel to have halfbaked takes?
I think a bigger thing too is people act like if you criticize capitalism, you must be a poor forever who can never partake in commerce or consumption and enjoy things.
Insert that Russell brand quote here
“When I was poor and I criticized capitalism, I was called jealous. When I became rich and criticized capitalism, I was called a hypocrite. I’m think that they just don’t want me to criticize capitalism.”
Idk about everyone else but I mostly have critique when it comes to hasan and the whole luxury car/ luxury T-shirt thing . I honestly don’t care about the house thing la housing is very expensive but the itching things were clearly just for flexing and very unnecessary like why do you need a Porsche ?
@@yassine8935 i agree with ur critique. certain luxury items are absolutely about flexing wealth(power/status) and that is hypocrisy coming from someone who claims to criticize and denounce capitalism. (idk this hasan person i just mean in general).
we can acknowledge we all have to play the game while also calling out hypocrisy/endorsement of the game when it arises.
@@yassine8935 I dunno, without knowing Hasan's internal motivations I can't really speak to him but if I had that kind of money I'd consider buying a really nice car too. Nice cars are fun, and the material resource consumption from building a nice car isn't realistically much more than from a cheap car (fuel is a different story). It doesn't have to be about flexing.
I do think it's odd that you both draw a line between a nice car and a nice house though, it's not like Hasan is living in a 2 bed apartment with a courtyard, his house is every bit as luxe as his car.
Isn’t there some degree where it gets excessive though? There’s a huge spectrum between being an ascetic who never spends any money on themselves beyond bare needs on nice things that aren’t the cheapest option and someone who funnels thousands if not millions into like a fancy object they just want to really own. I feel like there is some point where it starts to feel less morally justified considering how much that money could be spent helping others. Someone using an Uber or taxi for convenience when they could use public transportation is doing a little more harm to the environment than they need to but someone taking a private jet somewhere is doing way way more. Idk I feel like proportion and scale of a thing justifies different responses.
can't believe that you would say these horrible things about Hasan!!
omg its ebrooitus!
my biggest problem with Hasan is how often he eats talks with his mouth full
Real
To be honest I think there is a discussion to be had, just a bit more nuanced than that. There are people who argue that leftists with money aren't true leftists, and this is a bullshit argument ofc. These same people, when they see a poor leftist, they accuse them of being lazy and wanting to get paid by the state without working. There can't be a true leftist because poor aren't leftists and rich aren't leftists. This is obviously idiotic.
However, I'd say there is an argument against, for example, Hasan buying a luxury car. Cars aren't just bought for their use, they're also in our current society an item of ostentation. People buy expensive cars (at least some people) because they think they're more likeable/desirable with a certain brand of car, just the same as a rolex. For sure, a rolex watch will work better than a 10€ cheapo watch, but the point is that a person who defines themselves as socialist should (in my opinion) against brand-ostentation.
This argument can be made especially for items that have a small difference in their quality of use varying on price. The example of the Rolex watch is a good one, designer's clothes are another one. It doesn't apply so much to items that are bought for their use. For example, nobody with a brain would criticise Hasan for buying an expensive computer to play games, because expensive computers play games objectively better. With cars, Hasan lives in a country where the speed limits are the same for all cars, so you won't get places faster for spending more money on an expensive car. Therefore, I think it's valid to criticise hardcore leftists, for buying objects with ostentation in mind.
While it's a very valid point, I don't know if the fact that these purchases are ostentatious discredits him as a socialist. Perhaps you could argue that buying such luxuries fuels capitalism, but "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" and there's nothing in core socialist philosophy that dictates what one should do with the fruits of one's labour, as far as I'm aware.
@@davidmurray3542 it's more in general because you'd expect a 21st century socialist to be eco-conscious and against consumerism, and those brands are just symbols of pure consumerism. Ostentation in general is.
@@davidmurray3542 This is the problem with using "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" as an *excuse* rather than an *explanation.* The point of the statement "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" is that engaging with the economic system you're in is *necessary.* Spending money on, effectively, status symbols and glitz is not necessary. You're using that phrase as a get-out-of-jail-free card rather than a recognition of the reality in which we find ourselves.
Yes, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism... but there are *less unethical* forms of consumption. This should be "we do the best we can with the hand we're dealt," not "everything sucks so I can do whatever I want, nyah nyah."
I'm going to make an obnoxious argument _sort of_ in favor of the Porsche, but I promise try and make it quick.
If you do a lot of driving, or you enjoy driving, you don't just pick cars based on their 'go fast' specifications. Luxury cars not only are usually more powerful, they also are usually engineered for better handling, which under reasonable circumstances (not speeding around like a giant asshole because beep beep go fast) makes them overall safer and potentially more fun to drive.
Also worth considering: should the money be spent, or should it be hoarded and never flow back into the economy it came from?
@@Kaidona Yeah, you're right that expensive cars aren't exclusively ostentation items, but they're more "enjoyable to drive" for some people. To the safety I can't attest until I see the statistics of car accidents based on type of car driven, but I suspect I'd find proportionally more people crashing their Porsche than their Opel Corsa.
To this, my answer is that driving as an enjoyable activity is also something worth a little bit of criticism. The objective should be to make the world with as few cars as possible, through public transportation, walkable/cyclable cities, etc. I tend not to blame individuals who drive for enjoyment, since to each their own, but we should collectively be aware of the harm cars do both locally in terms of pollution and accidents, and globally in terms of CO2 emissions.
Anyway, your point is 100% valid, it just doesn't in my opinion outweigh the ostentation part when it comes to cars. But I see why say this and I have to agree partially.
In my opinion its not about how much wealth they have, it's about how they use it to constantly consume and give in to manufactured necessities (Like the necessity for a good car, the latest phone, expensive clothes). Also I'd argue that when one says capitalism is oppressive and socialism is the best choice for an egalitarian society, you are implying socialism IS morally superior.
He's not talking about morality on the ideological scale though, he's talking about morality on the PERSONAL scale. Like, yes, I think most socialists would feel their ideology is morally superior, but that doesn't mean BEING A SOCIALIST makes you more morally superior than anyone else, and it certainly doesn't cancel out any hypothetical personal faults you might have. Saying otherwise just turns what should be intellectually stimulating discourse into holier-than-thou culture club vanity, which is not what leftism is supposed to be about.
Conspicious consumption, by the way, doesn't really have much to do with leftism either, unless you feel leftism is inherently anti-consumerist, which I think is debatable. You are free to dislike opulent displays, of course, but I don't think doing so makes anyone a better leftist automatically.
@@SamOliver4 Yeah it's fair to separate ideological from personal morality, my bad. But still, the accusations are always of hypocresy, not of pure evil, meaning their actions conflict with their ideology. In that case I'd like to know about why you think anti consumerism isn't inherently part of leftist ideology, i always assumed it was but it's not like i read theory in my free time lol
well you can argue morally, but you could also just have the opinion that it is beneficial for more people, that is not a moral argument
@@l.pietrobon3925 I think it depends on what one feels the real problem with consumerism is. Many anti-consumerist arguments do skew left-wing, but the religious right has taken issue with consumerism in that it might allow someone to value material possessions over the "gifts of God", so to speak. There are libertarian arguments against consumerism too, like the idea that one might consume to enable a lack of personal responsibility, or that unmoderated consumerism might result in corruption and consolidation of power.
I don't really agree with most of these arguments by the way (except maybe the last one?), but I've certainly seen them. At the very least, being against conspicuous consumption isn't a particularly leftist take, as that's really more a moral judgment than anything else. People have attained arguably excessive wealth in socialist countries too, it's just that, at least in theory, the bottom line for the working class is more comfortable than it would be under capitalism.
@@MrTerapak I guess it’s morality depends on if you view benefiting people as a good thing. This isn’t mutually exclusive to leftism, I’m certain there are many conservatives who view benefiting people as a positive too.
Class isn’t about how much money you have, it’s about how you survive. Hasan doesn’t seem to exploit his partners in work, the amount of money people give to his streams/sponsor him isn’t contradictory to leftist values.
He’s abit of a shmuck personality wise, but his livelihood is fine.
Besides the whole uncredited use of UA-cam vids, but I dunno if he kept at it after the jay exci drama. The evil that Marx pointed at wasn’t the bad behaviours and attitudes people have when capitalist, it’s about the misery that capitalist structure forces people to propagate and take part in. Pointing at individuals and saying “bad” isn’t bothering any companies from keeping on slavery out of sight out of mind. Because they REALLY need the line to go up, they HAVE to get the line to go up or they all get fired. That position is evil, but it is also pathetic. Whether they succeed or fail that’s just a godawful way to be. Breaking the obsession with infinite growth is what we gotta do not say “boo this guy uses money 😡”
There was also a minor scandal a while ago about Hasan not paying an editor who did some work for him, but honestly that seemed down to poor communication more than anything else.
Personally I think he's kind of a fuck, but he's a leftist fuck at least.
Thats what gets the most about it tbh. This hyper individualist view is completely contrary to socialist thought.
What was the Jay Exci drama?
@@missshai2005 Hasan used Jay Exci’s vids on stream without credit or commentary, Jay called that a dick move, Hasan made a react stream, exci made a react react stream, and exci made an hour long vid explaining the critique wasn’t aimed at Hasan not reacting enough but against Hasan using work made by other people without permission or credit in his habit of taking random links from chat and putting them on in a cropped image that doesn’t show the channel name or the video’s title while he goes to eat or something during his hours long streams. Jay didn’t ask for payment or anything, mostly pointed out that producing labor is used without the minimum courtesy of crediting. Hasan didn’t seem to understand the criticism and reacted as if exci was complaining that Hasans reactions aren’t transformative enough to rebrand other videos as “react streams”. Made me think about the labor of content making, interesting vid
@@benzur3503 Thank you for explaining all of that! Were they eventually able to come to terms?
There's two sides of this, though. It's perfectly fine to criticize people for being bad people, but that shouldn't be linked to them being on 'your' side as some sort of magnification of how bad they are.
Rich people are, generally speaking, bad. It's okay, even cool and good, to criticize them. It's okay, even cool and good, to point out how someone's stated beliefs contradict their behavior. It just becomes really toxic if you imply that identifying as a socialist is a virtue in and of itself.
Now that Big Joel has little Joel I can Finally see all the cool stuff that I was missing cause it was on twitter
yeah i would rather go to the chernobyl exclusion zone than be on twitter to see him
I've heard bad things about the Twitters of Thought Slime and BadEmpanada so this was a pleasant surprise
i do not care that Hasan has money but I don’t really understand where the charity critique came from. I’ve never known socialists to be passionate about the rich giving to charity, we’re just critical of relationships to capital.
I mean, should we not critique people who don't do the things they ask other people to do?
If they say “you should not be rich“ while being rich, yes. If they say “we should strengthen labor laws“ while being rich, there’s no hypocrisy there. I have no idea what Hasan‘s politics are, so it’s absolutely possible that he is a hypocrite. But the idea that someone’s criticism of capitalism becomes invalid just because they are able to thrive under capitalism makes no sense.
But when the ideology is to distribute wealth this or that way, saying excessive profit is the fruit of oppression (and thus inherently bad) while saying it doesn't have to be that way, greed isn't inherent and we can all just work together AND THEN to fall into the oldest capitalism trick of consumption... Well it's a kind of failure. It's essentially saying "Well this ineaquality of wealth is kinda sweet, ngl... Check out my cool new stuff". And I don't think that in order to walk the walk you have to give away your money. But how do you think socialism is going to win, if all the socialists spend their money on toys.
Your last sentence is confusing. The way we enact socialism is not by people buying it
He’s saying, “if every self-described socialist gets rich and does nothing but spend their money on toys for themselves, how can that build socialism?”
Hasan doesn’t NEED a Porsche. Bernie Sanders does not NEED three houses. That’s excess wealth that could be used to help fund co-ops or community gardens, or stock fridges for the homeless. Heck, there’s a huge unhoused problem in California. Why not buy a plot of land for these people to set up a tent city or something?
There are so many things rich “socialists” could do to help build socialism, and nowhere on that list is “buy million dollar houses and fancy cars for myself.”
I get people being mad at the idea of a rich socialist especially when I'm homeless and don't have a steady revenue. We see someone saying the right things get financial benefits from it and I don't think that there is no argument that there is some disconnect between being rich and a socialist because a big part of the ideology in those leftist circles is about giving back to your community and lifting others, so I do wish that people like Hasan did more, but in his case I also believe that he is more of an entertainer than a socialist and that's ok too, I just choose to avoid him unless I think he has something important to say. Who knows what he'll do in the future, he might start using his fortune to do more on the ground stuff but I'm also not counting on it, I don't really care that much over it
Giving back to your community isn't socialism it's charity. Everyone is already giving back money (or atleast is supposed to) by taxation it's the fault of large societal structures that this is used to support corporations and the military instead of it being used to help the unprivileged. Even if Hassan would give all of his money away, it would be highly likely that you would still be homeless.
@@otto_jk I guess I should clarify that I believe in creating structures outside of the existing ones because I don't believe we can salvage the structures that were created to maintain unequal power distribution. I know that it's a relatively small part of the socialist left who agree with this statement, but I do think that there is much better ways to deal with money as a socialist even if you believe that taxes do any good. Funding people who help those that the government fails to help is not charity to me but human decency and I dislike the concept of charity as it has been defined by capitalist systems. It's a leftover from the church dominated societies of the past that controlled services through the system of charity. Charity does help sometimes but I believe it is a wrong because it takes power away from those who need the services by having the process controlled by those with means. What I meant and probably didn't describe properly is that I would want Hasan and people like him to fund projects that do help those that the government doesn't, because I don't believe that his taxes are going to help those people while the same prople stay in power and control the distribution of resources.
Also yeah his taxes wouldn't help me get out of homelessness even if I did live in the US, but if he did fund groups that build structures to help those in need, his money could directly have an impact on my life because unlike taxes, money used to create power structures tend to spread beyond borders because borders only matters to those who seek to enforce it.
I hope this makes more sense and explains better my position. I have nothing against him, to be honest Hasan has been part of my movement to leftist politics but I've also developed ideas, values and beliefs that differs to his which is why I don't interact with his content directly. I was just basically sending into the world a wish for what I'd like him to do but he's a big boy who can make the decisions he wants, so can we all.
Partial agree, partial disagree. Everyone believes in charity but not everyone believes there should be no ultra-wealthy class.
Isn't it more hypocritical for someone who believes the ultra wealthy class shouldn't exist to happily become a part of it and show off their riches on the gram? Not that it should fall on individuals to redistribute their own wealth but some attempt to do so/attempts to avoid extravagance and status symbols can indicate commitment to the cause.
Not necessarily speaking about Hasan because idk his sitch other than those pictures you showed, but ultimately I respect successful leftists who choose to live somewhat humbly and give generously, but I also certainly don't automatically despise anyone who doesn't achieve this perfectly, I know I don't/wouldn't
Joel says charity a lot in this video, but socialism is not charity, charity is when rich inviduals and corporations control the wealth and decide how to use it 'charitably' and that makes charity like dictatorship, while democratic socialism would give the voters much more say in how the wealth is used
I think its a bit obtuse to look at this issue and say people think leftism is just about being a morally good person or that the politics of leftism are morally good. Hasan is basically the largest left leaning content creator but most of his actions go directly against what he preaches. He's a media figure that plays his part and makes no qualms about how much he loves hedonism. While he gets permission from some creators there are multiple instances of him using content that isn't his that he "reacts" to for profit, which is literally a form of exploiting someone else's labor for profit lmao. Additionally, charity isn't goin g to solve shit and you focusing so much on the charity aspect of hasan is clear indicator you're out of your depth. Systemic change is what actually helps, not charity, and all Hasan has done is profit off of divisiveness and toss small sums of other peoples cash around.
Hasan takes the L on this one and he deserves it lol
thanks little joel, stay lil
'the point is not to pretend that Hasan is not subject to class forces' that's the entire reason for criticizing his place within the online left. I'm ambivalent about it but I think there's definitely truth to the idea that there have been rich, bourgeois and petit-bourgeois leftists rocketed to importance within movements historically due to being able to buy a platform that have been opportunistic and revisionist. I think people should be very skeptical, like particularly skeptical of rich people who claim to be leaders or influencers in the left; class interest shapes all of our politics!!
But as you say, first and foremost it's fun to be a bitch to rich people. It makes them uncomfortable and it clearly bothers them which is really funny to watch when they tweet about it from their mansions
"hypocritical" is an accurate way to describe someone who extols beliefs which entail a morality which that person does not uphold. You're right that most people are hypocrites in that way. I just think we should have higher standards for people.
Socialists are a prime target because they are seen as using that moral talk to aggressively induce other's to change their behavior. And while most conservatives probably also recognize charity as a good with their moral talk, conservatives by their nature are about not changing your behavior. Conservative morality generally doesn't demand that people make sacrifices for the good (at least, ones which are not normalized as the status quo). Plus certain breeds of conservatism see wealth inequality as just and good. So I think there is a substantive difference in terms of the implied force of the moral language, in terms of the dire need for change from the status quo, between leftist and conservative ideologies.
And if we ourselves are serious about changing the world for the better, we should be serious about trying to get people with excess money to use that money for good, and to be a good example for the rest of us. If you're a member of the lefitst ingroup, I'd imagine that rich leftists are the lowest hanging fruit for that.
"we should be serious about trying to get people with excess money to use that money for good, and to be a good example for the rest of us"
If that's what leftism is then socialists should want no part of leftism. Imagine folks in the middle ages trying to discern who are the "good" and "bad" nobles; it's a waste of time. Or how about the "nice" slaveowners?
We're not asking the capitalists to be more moral, we're trying to crush them as a class.
@M R I meant there that ideally they would no longer be rich after giving away their money. For the analogy its kind of like a noble who gives their land back to the peasants is no longer a noble.
Its a little more complicated because most rich leftists are not classic capitalists (like Hasan is a streamer). I still view extreme wealth inequality as problematic even if it doesn't map cleanly onto an exploitation framework. To be clear I don't come at it from the same socialist perspective as you -- for me the wealth inequality is the main problem.
Presumably both of us want all capitalists to give away all their wealth, give their shares back to the workers, etc. Of course that won't happen voluntarily. I would just think that pressing the issue on the moral outrage of inequality is a part of the political push. And I don't think we should trivialize that the money can do good as well (and in a way which helps the movement).
Being bourgeois is not a matter of how much money you have/make. It's defined by your position in the work relations of a capitalist society. If you have a million dollars but your income still relies on how much your work for a company (in this case, Google/Amazon) you're still part of the working class. Owning private property and making money through the capital generated by your employees is what makes you bourgeois
This raises some interesting questions, though. If a university professor (let's say a professor of business) has a salary of $150,000 a year, while a small-business owner (e.g. shopkeeper) has an income of $50,000, does that make the business owner more "bourgeois" if they happen to employ laborers, whereas the professor doesn't officially employ anyone? Is the lady who owns your local flower shop more bourgeois than a lawyer making six figures from a major law firm? Maybe the answer is yes to all the above, but I can't help but feel that people like Marx had a more nuanced view of the matter, as opposed to being simply determined by one's source of income.
@@richardbaldwin4895 Yes, Marx investigated the proletariat: “the mass of propertyless workers - the utterly precarious position of labour - power on a mass scale cut off from capital or from even a limited satisfaction and, therefore, no longer merely temporarily deprived of work itself as a secure source of life” - The German Ideology
Of course you don’t have to be a worker to be a communist, but this whole “millionaires can be working class too” take is crazy; it completely misses the point of why communism is concerned with the workers in the first place.
The workers have NOTHING to lose but their chains.
@@richardbaldwin4895 why does it need to be any more complicated than that, though? The alternative would be some theoretical threshold of labour exploitation at which Marx would say "ah, fair enough - that's cool I guess".
There are plenty of other reasons to think lawyer money is bad (for one, that they're almost always employed in service of capital), but in terms of class identity it's pretty clear cut.
@@richardbaldwin4895 Marx describes those people as "petit bourgeois", since they do own private property but still rely on larger businesses in a chain of commerce to exist. Most of the petit bourgeoisie still needs to work in their own businesses in order for them to exist. A shopkeeper might technically be a CEO like Musk or Bezos, but he's always 2 months away from bankrupcy whereas the dominant class has the game rigged for them to always tip the odds in their favor. Petit bourgeoisie has no say on the systematic configuration of capitalism, they don't have a stranglehold on politics like the actual bourgeoisie does. So long story short, small business owners are just a type of proletariat that gets to eat the leftovers of the banquet
@@Reionder The petit bourgeoisie is not "just a type of proletariat" lmao. If anything, it's "just a type" of bourgeoisie.
I don't know shit about Hasan, but he is at minimum a "little owner." I imagine he could quit his job and live off of profits from stocks just fine. Let's not pretend he's some desperate prole.
Love how he had to clarify this isn’t a Hasan call out vid made me actually laugh out loud
Fun fact - in Polish leftist communities, "leftist" is used as a synonym for "good", "based" etc. I'm not even kidding, this really is the meaning it usually has, sometimes even in situations that have nothing to do with ideology. We also use the word "unleftist" to describe people doing bad things, like tax evasion, driving an SUV, sexism, being an asshole and stuff like that.
Of course, this was originally (and still is to a large extent) ironic. It definitely is often said in a jokey way. But not always. Nowadays, it really has become a straight-up synonym for "good".
I think it's really interesting, and you are definitely onto something in this video. Many leftists view "leftism" as being one and the same as "doing the right thing", "being empathetic", "trying to make the world a better place" etc. And, I mean, obviously people think that their own ideology is good, that's how ideology works. But with some right wingers' ideology being just straight up "wanting to make people they don't like suffer", I can see how some leftists can come to share this perception. Cause obviously, leftism is not the same as "goodness" and rightism not the same as "badness", but there is definitely some correlation, at least in people's perception.
I'm not sure if it's about getting a "leftist." I wouldn't say he's not a real "leftist" what I would say is that he's not a revolutionary, that much is obvious and he's a capitalist.
I say that because he has the capital to be a business owner.
To be sure, I agree that you don't have to be a revolutionary to be a "leftist" but you can be a capitalist and a revolutionary as Engels was and Hasan is certainly not.
Not buying this one. The reason why I (and lots of people) take issue with someone like Hasan buying and living in an expensive mansion far above what the average person could achieve is because it makes critique of 'capitalism bad' seem extraordinarily hollow, when he himself is happily benefiting from capitalist society. Hasan living in a mansion is an issue of the "real world" - he's directly participating in the allocation of wealth towards wealthy, ostentatious ventures. Being less smug than someone like Andrew Tate bragging about supercars doesn't mean he's not materialistically fueling a culture of excess.
I also don't think a straight line between charity = being a good person logically follows. Is charity good? Sure. But the reason why people criticze Hasan and those like him is because he's a limousine liberal who is specifically preaching the value of charity, while living a largely uncharitable and excessive lifestyle that would not be allowed in the very society for which he claims to advocate.
TL;DR - it's about hypocrisy, you can't take someone who claims to be a socialist seriously when they are quietly benefiting from capitalism
The better argument against "the rich socialist" is that each person takes of their need and each person gives of their ability. What I have to offer is time and certain skills, so I put that towards organizing labor and working on political issue campaigns that move us towards socialism. If what you have is money, it makes sense that you would put money in excess of what you need towards promoting socialism. Otherwise, if a socialist is determined by your beliefs and not actions, then how can you possibly argue Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk are not secretly socialists? They have to live in a society, they aren't obligated to give of their excess to change society, but in their hearts Marx is their BFF and Bernie isn't radical enough.
The way I’ve always seen it, Hasan made his money via small-scale donations and subscriptions, some of which Amazon siphoned off because they own the platform he streams on. He is (or at least, was) a WORKER. He does not own his own means. He happens to be paid pretty well, but that’s not what defines someone as a capitalist.
No, what you describe is a sole proprietor / small business owner who has specific recurring expenses, not a worker. If you own a small corner shop you aren't the employee of the wholesaler who ships your wares, if you own a restaurant but currently only sell takeout you aren't a DoorDash worker. Amazon only owns a single mean of the Twitch streamer's production, the platform. Hasan still has a merch store and the podcast he co-hosts has a Patreon. He presumably uses his own gear and I assume he has means to reach his audience outside of Twitch in case the site or his account goes down.
@@rustkitty Yeah I don't claim to justify his current business ventures, but when he started he was a worker. His new ventures do make him in some respects a capitalist
thank god someone's standing up for rich people
Poor little Hasan and his big mansion being discussed online, can someone be kind to him 😔
It is genuinely hilarious that that is the sentiment you took away from this video
@@DiamondDogVenomSnake1984 🆗
Lmao “usually Hasan” is right
Socialism should absolutely be the construction of a new people, as any fundamental change to mode of production would necessarily require a fundamentally different people to comprise it. I agree with some of this video but fundamentally there is a huge contradiction in building an entire public persona on being a socialist and then purchasing extravagant luxuries for yourself and while people are incorrect to frame it around "not a real leftist", they're absolutely correct to point out that contradiction.
"Construction of a new people" sounds very much like tankie authoritarianism.
@@otto_jk well that's a stupid reading
@@otto_jk before we can achieve communism and give the workers the means of the production the vanguard must first gradually mould people into ethical superhumans, defined vaguely enough so that it’s a carrot on a stick forever out of reach
Yes! And it makes him a WORSE leftist at minimum since those power coupons could help the cause if used differently (I do not just mean charity).
“I’m a communist but I’m to much of a pussy to admit it so instead, because I am to weak to actually take the form of a true narcissist, I will take on the form of a covert narcissist to manipulate useful idiots to do what I see as moral and just.”
It’s insufferable every time. Nothing but senseless platitudes with no merit. You cannot change “fundamental” aspects of man to fit your ideal, it does not work that way.
not to make this about me, but this a point i struggle with internally almost daily. i 'inherited' socialist values from my parents who are marxist academics. i was raised as an only child in an enormous house, which i have learned to appreciate for its historic qualities, but has made me highly uncomfortable ever since it was in the paper as 'the rich side of town'. like all this space for two people? in a housing crisis? i have found that to apologize for your wealth, while custom in some cultures, mostly tends to irritate people, almost more than if youre boasting it. so i am trying to switch my negative spiral to humility and gratitude. i always have to remind myself: 'i would want someone else to enjoy this, so i need to allow myself to enjoy it too.' what good is privelege if youre just going to sit and mope? like hasan, i dont shy away from what i have been given in this life, but i try to the best i can do with it to make society more equitable.
If you stay true to your ideals, you would share your home with friends & comrades who need a place to stay (as you said it’s enormous so put the space to good use) I don’t like Joel’s framing of this argument leftists don’t beg for “charity” from each other or the rich, they want solidarity, community care, praxis. To give away clothes, to do food distro, is not to look down on someone and give them pity, it is to look each other in the eye and share in kindness and solidarity. THATS what Hassan lacks. He talks abt socialism, it scores him fans online, it makes him money, and out in the world, he does not act. He betrays his ideals not by lack of philanthropy, but by never putting his very public words into action, into praxis.
What you should be doing is leveraging your privilege to do the risky work that needs to be done. If something happens you can take the heat while many comrades can’t. You also can engage more in mutual aid to benefit your community. I don’t think you need to feel bad, you should see it as a tool that can be used against the state instead of for it.
@@Anna-xh6fk How do you know he doesn't put his words into action?
I like your cat
Little Joel i love u but this makes zero sense. People don’t call rich socialists hypocritical because charity is good and socialists are supposed to be good. they call it hypocritical because socialism is about redistributing wealth and a rich socialist isn’t redistributing their own wealth.
Socialism isn't about wealth redistribution.
Wealth redistribution doesn't really mean rich people giving away their money to others; it means that *systematically* no individual can privately control so much wealth that it becomes a problem.
Someone having a few million in the bank isn't a problem. Billionaires are.
This could and should be made into a 30 minute Big Joel video.
Agreed. DO IT FOR THE OOMPA LOOMPA JOEL
Or a 15 minute Middling Joel.
Given that we are subject to material forces, perhaps it does matter if people who are rich and indulge in bouts of conspicuous consumption are constantly being pushed to the front of leftist discourse. That doesn't mean they can't be leftists, but maybe a left in which such people are the most audible voices is not a very effective left and being pissed off in a political way about that might be a good thing.
I feel like this didn’t address the issue, or at least the meaning behind the title, which is about rich socialists being hypocritical, not all leftists being moral.
I tend to compartmentalise the political and the personal, to the extent that you can. I disagree that having good (read: leftist) politics, being a good public citizen, doesn't make you a good person. It's just that it is half of the equation. Being a good person, politically, and being a good person, personally, are both important. And neither is a substitute for the other. Having good politics doesn't balance out being a shitty person to other people; and doing good, personally (charitable giving, kindness, manners, etc.), doesn't excuse cruel politics. I don't know why you'd even suggest that your politics don't reflect on you, as a person, like that.
"Eat the rich" leftists when I forcefeed them the organs of their favourite breadtube streamer
Hi, sorry, I have an unhealthy obsession with this discourse this week, and a question cane to mind:
How is “eat the rich” employed online?(i’m not very online) Because it seems like it’s used more as an “all rich are bad” statement (I don’t necessarily disagree), and I’ve seen it used by Contrapoints and Khadij Mbowe (I definitely got her name spelling wrong, sorry) refer to “eat the rich” as an expression of envy.
I think that’s really curious, because it seems the origin of the statement is:
“When the people have nothing left to eat, they shall eat the rich”
Which I find to be expressing something very different about the relationship between rich and poor than simply “envy”. That seems more like it’s describing resource and wealth extraction gone awry.
Anyway, sorry to bug you, just had a thought. Have a nice day!
@@pleasedonotwatchmychannel I've observed it being used online primarily as a mere slogan, similar to how the Communist phrase "Workers of the world, unite!" was plastered all around shops and factories in the Warsaw pact. The majority of those owners, managers et cetera weren't politically active nor particularly sympathetic to communism, yet they would still have posters of communist slogans, portraits of communist leaders and the hammer and sickle within their businesses, because it was the norm and the obligation caused by the Soviet culture, and if they were not to show their alleged support for communism, they'd be shunned as a detractor or even an enemy and thus become alienated and arrested. I believe that this "eat the rich" slogan is quite similar and that most people who say it are doing so out of fear of going against the popular culture, not because they genuinely believe in it, though some do, for sure.
Curious!
Thanks so much for the thoughtful reply! Please have a nice day!
socialism is when i chat crap on twitch and buy expensive cars
Ive always interpreted this discourse as more "being rich is immoral" than "being leftist makes people more moral".
Like not substantively different from criticizing bezos or musk etc
I understand that take when in relation to billionaires but people like Hasan are nowhere even close to being near _that_ rich. I think some people struggle to imagine the differences in wealth being discussed though..
@@genericname8727 Yeah they're not *that* rich, but still rich enough to be worth criticizing. Like how we should be critical of moderate conservatism even though it's not as bad as fascism, yknow
Today is a sad day to be a fart smeller.
I must be the most authentic socialist according to conservatives, as a poor person. It makes me the best. Somehow, struggling month to month makes me a better socialist than Hassan. being poor doesn’t make me a good person or a leftist.
I get what you're saying, but flexing wealth as a socialist is a bad look imo. i understand that we're all operating under the same exploitative system, but if you claim to have values, I would prefer if you would act upon those values. Set an example for others to aspire to.
Exactly, there are these things called “optics” and “praxis” and they matter!
I'm a leftist specifically because i don't think that relying on people being "morally good" is a smart plan. I want to see society and economy structured in such a way that people are less capable of harming others. If someone's idea of left wing political thought demands that all actors be "morally good" then i probably disagree with them about something.
Hm… by that definition I may not be leftist
Hypocrisy in general is a really useless counter argument. Like if I say "it's wrong to punch little kids in the face" and then I punch a little kid in the face that makes me a hypocrite and a shitty person, but pointing that out is not a counter-argument to "it's wrong to punch little kids in the face".
Yes, but it wasn't being used as a counterargument by the people in the video. They weren't trying to debunk socialism.
somewhat fair, but I also feel like leftist communities should make an attempt to elevate people who are good people. So if spending money on tons of luxury goods *does*, in fact, make you a bad person if you could otherwise donate the money, it seems relevant to call that out when it's being promoted by one of the biggest leftist creators online
DarkViperAU's series WHY REACT CONTENT HARMS EVERYONE is the best criticism of "hasan there is that is not just hasan is rich therefore bad socialist" (and streamers in general)
Darkviper is someone who is open to leftist thought but is stuck on the presence of hasanabi. Hasan who is so keenly aware of the extraction of value from labor REFUSES to see how his react content is doing just that. Which sucks for viewers in totality because there is barely a cohesive online left as it is. Everyone is problematic to varying degrees but the discourse is always siphoning the life and reach of the left instead of reinvigorate it.
dark viper compared react content to sexual assault, that is incredibly stupid, and pretty much invalidates anything he could say afterward, plus the almost of the content hasan reacts to are:
1.) news broadcasts and other political pundits, and i dont think theyd give af if hasan was watching their shit
2.) tv shows
3.) friends of hasan who either dont care about or encourage hasan to react to said content because it gets in front of more eyeballs.
dark viper doesnt speak for the people hasan reacts to, and if they didnt like hasan reacting to their content, they could very well voice that to hasan and he'd stop reacting to it.
do you honestly think the leftists he reacts to like noah sampson, second thought, and other leftists he reacts to actually care if hasan watches their shit? no. hasan reacting to these channels could only help them grow, because some of his viewers will see that, go "i also like this other leftist cc, ill go sub to them too"
and they might watch those vids on their own, but ultimately the point they make that content is not to make money, its to get the most amount of eyeballs watching and getting the message, and hasan showing his very large fanbase those vids is imparting that message to those viewers, and thats what ultimately matters, not the individual cc's growing their own personal brand
listen to the cc's he actually reacts to, not some irrelevant nobody youtuber/streamer who nobody even knows. its the classic "is there someone you forgot to ask" meme where both hasan and the person he reacts to are fine with the reacts, but nobodies like viper are screeching in the background, like "nobody asked for your opinion, man"
@@dilawn_bv I hope you taking the time to comment is a sign of good faith. I encourage you to watch the series of videos because alot of what you have said has been addressed within them. I know I (and many within his community) didn't like Darkviper using SA as an analogy for react content, and he understood that. He does not include that analogy within his series. Darkviper wrote a rough draft of his video and put it on Twitter which is what recived the majoity of scrutiny. Rough drafts are not Final and may not be expressing your own argument very well. And Darkviper refined his argument which included removing his SA analogy but his series did not receivethe same amount of coverage as the rough draft. Darkvipers argument was about the consent of the creators being reacted too being disregarded and the harm that brings. I deeply encourage you to watch the series beacuse the comments you make don't express to me that you did, or that you didn't watch in good faith. It sucks that you want to completely disregard someone's argument from the initial impression that he directly compared SA to react content, which he did not. He was saying that consent cannot be asked for AFTER the fact of an action. You typed "..and if they didn't like hasan reacting to their content, they could very well voice that to hasan and he'd stop reacting to it". This proves everything that I stated. Hasan is reacting to content without the consent of the creators FIRST. Then AFTER the action has been done, can hasan actually claim he has the consent of the creators if he had gained what he wanted out of the reacted too video?
No, he's already absorbed the audience that could have watched that video on their own which could have algorithmicly boosted the original creators video; but hasans react content serves as a replacement to that video within the algorithm that promotes videos to viewers.
Please, honestly engage with darkvipers arguments, watch his series in good faith. I hope to receive a response from you because holding People including CCreators accountable to the harm they produce is THE life blood of the online left.
I mean, if you have wealth that you got from your own labor somehow, that’s one thing. If you own a business and it isn’t cooperatively owned and doesn’t have a union, or if you’re a landlord, and you claim to be a socialist, then you are absolutely a hypocrite. In fact, it would make you the literal definition of a capitalist.
I…think that’s a difficult standard to hold a lot of people to, depending on where you live. I’d judge it by how you treat people who are, for lack of a better term, under your authority. Are you charging high rent, even if it is comparable to the area? Uh, maybe rethink that. Are you keeping your workers wages competitive and fair while also giving them benefits (and typically ones that would go beyond most businesses)? Do you meet their needs when they advocate for better conditions and wages? Ok, good, that’s what we like to see. But you know…we live in a society, and a co-op might not do well in Memphis or something just cuz it’s a co-op. And conversely, a co-op in San Francisco could still be enabling abuse of some sort. What matters is how people are being treated and whether the owner works to their benefit, not necessarily if it follows leftist parameters in name. It’s the same thinking behind assuming anyone who’s socialist is a good person.
@@TheNwr1 Not everyone who is a socialist is a good person, but I’d say being a socialist is a requirement for being a good person. And not being a landlord or a capitalist are pretty clearly requirements to being a socialist. And it’s pretty easy to not be a landlord or a capitalist. Just sell your extra house, and give your employees equal ownership to you in your business. Or failing that just don’t own property to rent and don’t own a business that has employees.
Does being on the left automatically guarantee that one is a morally acceptable person? ... hmmm ... I guess not.
Is social-ISM morally superior to capital-ISM? ... yes ... yes it definately is.
I just started stumbling onto this guy's videos, and I'm pleasantly surprised by what such fresh, genuine takes he has. They're also just conversational and straight to the point, no performance or signaling. Looking forward to more videos!
Ayy, welcome to the channel, so pleased you'll get to enjoy Joel's content afresh.
Personally I think rich people should only be allowed to be fascists tbh.
I think that would a good thing, if we force all the most powerful people in the country to side with the far right
We should actually have separate ballots for them, with only one box, already filled in:
☑️ TRUMP
This will help our movement tremendously
🤔
I mean rich people are always going to side with the fascists because Socialism cost them money
Little Joel over here like Gandalf getting offered the ring, what a small lad.
Wrong. He is obviously frodo, if you give him money you can see his inhumanly large hairy... Feet, on Patreon. There as he is frodo we should give him all the money that Hassan has.
Socialism is not about charity, it's about _social ownership and control of the social means of production_ so that everyone has a say in, and everyone benefits from, the conditions of our labor & our lives.
Every artist, entertainer, "content creator", etc., is in a complex relationship to their MOP, since their immediate production is almost always entirely under their control (making them _petit-bourgeois_ pardon my French), but their ability to "monetize" it is entirely under the control of large corporate entities (making them Uber-proles, in modern parlance).
And as in every field of art, entertainment, etc., some individuals will end up getting disproportionately rewarded for their "content", for whatever reason. That, in and of itself, does not change their relationship to the means. It _may,_ depending on what they do with the money - but the money doesn't do it on its own.
In this case, the pics shown of Hasan flexing with his consumer purchases indicate that he is _not_ changing his relationship to the means, at least with _that_ money - he's simply buying stuff, which is what _proles_ do with our money. It may be "boogie" but it's not _bourgeois_ (again, pardon my French).
Now, the idea that flexing with your consumer purchases is a cool and good thing to do always struck me as weird, but then, I never did understand _competitive eating_ as a sport. And the things he's posing with are absolutely not the kinds of things I would spend that kind of money on, but that's a matter of personal taste. An old commie I used to know, who retired comfortably after decades working a good-paying union job and enjoyed expensive cigars & whiskey & the like, responded to someone criticizing him of "high living" thusly, and it's become one of my favorite aphorisms:
*Nothing's too good for the working class.*
I get what you’re saying, Hasan is still annoying and hypocritical
yknow supporting socialism isn't a vow of poverty in which any wealth is like sand in your fingers. Just yknow pay your taxs and free health care type of stuff.
Honestly yea. We should be encouraging people with privilege to do the work that can be risky! That’s how we ensure that things get done and people who are already marginalized will have minimal harm in those cases. Also this whole thing just really comes off as the “they don’t know I’m pretending not to have rich parents” meme. The only thing I’m really against is the conspicuous consumption of some of the shit he buys. Otherwise I hate this shit. We should’ve be discouraging people from higher classes to help. Give us your money to fund the revolution
We also have to ensure that they understand their place in all this. Kind of like how with Engels trying to rail against anarchism (he has a lot of reason to want to keep up some parts of the status quo with his bougie status). We need accomplices and class traitors.
I think just buying expensive stuff and trying to get attention with it is seen as bad... and I think throwing in the political is just more wood to the fire.
I don't think this theme is as deep as it seems.
Damn, I genuinely never realized that I actually do think I'm leftist as an extension of my goodness. Joel really cutting me down to size with this one
hasan watched this video on a live stream and his response was really annoying i thought you should know.
BROKE: 'rich leftists are bad because they don't donate!'
BESPOKE: 'rich leftists are bad because they are rich, simple as'
Marx and Engels were rich.
@@epileptictrees5213 wow, those bastards!
Joel did not just say socialism is when charity
and i mean saying a socialist being rich is hypocritical is like... socialism doesn't mean "no rich people", it just means ownership over the means of production, and etc etc. Also yeah, you can want socialism for completely selfish reasons, like less homeless people to pass by on the street, better opportunities for you, better social safety nets if you can't work, better societal advances if we don't have a bunch of people unable to work towards their passions because they need to work 3 jobs just to have a studio apartment that probably should be condemned. And when people say it's just about being a good person it kind of obscures the fact that the policies are also FAR more effective and efficient than our current system too.
"Socialism only works on paper"
"What is socialism?"
"It's where everyone is paid the same"
"Off to the gulag with you"
This comment was all over the place haha. Better social safety nets, societal advances and less homeless people is a socialist policy.
I'll put my farts up against anybody anyday 😤
Rich socialists can exist but they absolutely need to be kept in check because their class positions will have an inevitable effect on their politics so long as they stay in that position. They should be assistants to socialist movements, not leaders, you feel me?
I think if you’re a free figurehead for an ideology, you should have to meet some minimum threshold for living your values otherwise it seems like it’s just an aesthetic.
Big Joel Is a silly Little guy that deserves a bit of love
The reason why people are saying Hasan is a hippocrite is simple: You get to win the argument without having to form your own opinion on the matter. Someone believes thing A and does B, and you point out that those two contradict each other, and boom, you „won“ the argument without having to bring up convincing arguments on why you disagree with belief A
What if you also believe thing A, but point out that that persons' actions contradict their beliefs? I just think we can recognize that someone is acting hypocritically, even if that doesn't make them 'not a leftist.'
unless marxism has “evolved” more than I was aware, this guy might not know what he’s talking about. That is to say “leftists” are definitely concerned with morality. they’re concerned with morality and economics.
My favorite thing is people acting as though money and the exchange of goods and services is somehow exclusive to capitalism. Even in a purely socialist society, in which the means of production are owned by the workers, some businesses are going to be more successful, meaning those particular workers would be earning more money. But the idea would be that in that company, no one is left behind and we would, presumably, have a myriad of social safety nets to ensure that those who work at a less successful business don’t wind up begging for scraps on the streets
It's just that hasan campaigns for socialism but would hate paying more taxes and having less money
he advocates paying higher taxes, and lives in california, if he hated paying taxes so much, he could live in florida or texas, he literally says "if you hate that im so fucking rich, tax me more, please"
@@dilawn_bv I'm not going to read this. I don't care. I'm a lib.
If he hates being rich, why doesn’t he fund a community garden or co-op or something. Why wait for the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT to decide what to do with his money?