Serious question. I’m vaguely familiar with him as a political commentator on the left, but the more I see of the guy, the more I think he’s just a liberal.
Classic “Non-Marxist Socialist” lol
The hell is a non-marxist socialist
Its like saying “meat based tofu”
unscientific utopian socialism, the kind Engels is contrasting with in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm
Arguably the most common kind of socialism in the ‘west’ historically. To go off of what @emizeko said, they were usually utopian socialists, particularly religious and nudist sects in the U.S., there is a whole sect of German utopians that set up around Missouri I think, but there were lots of these groups up south of Seattle, and even (famously) anarchist nudist socialists on the peninsula in Seattle.
They were non-Marxist in that they didn’t subscribe to any variety of Marxist economic or geo-political thinking, and they usually are big on libertarian principles coming first.
Nudist, you say? Maybe we could learn something from these people.
Volcel Police!
Nudity is not inherently sexual. Unlearn puritan mindset.
Stop ragging on the bit and maybe I will.
Edit: Sorry that was rude. I don’t think there is anything inherently sexual about nudity, I was just playing with the way it was brought up.
Frank Herbert grew up on one of those communes in Oregon.
I’m pretty sure the modern conception of socialism came out of the French Revolution and cropped up here and there in the early 19th century, and was pretty janky before people started figuring things out. More like a pre-Model T car or something. Clank clank awooga socialism
deleted by creator
Libertarian socialism? I don’t think most left-libertarians would consider themselves Marxists despite largely agreeing with his work
Basically a social democrat.
What anticommunism does to your brain.
Are you an actual communist? lol
Yup
He’s just another left-liberal who thinks THE solution is taxing the wealthy and having stronger unions, as if those are even viable options under a bourgeois democracy.
I stopped even paying attention to him when he first ran under The People’s Party, a group of/closely-tied to LaRouchites. I assume the grift is to just get money from whatever Bernie supporters haven’t moved further left since 2020? I dunno, anyone still falling for this song and dance should read “Left-Wing” Communism: An Infantile Disorder by
He’s got some good takes and some wacky ones. He also talks in a way that would suggest he’s very radical, like he calls people brother and sister, and he’s got a very powerful speaking voice. He’s got a good sense of oration and he’s not afraid to throw around words like imperialism, structural racism, stuff like that. I think if you wanna look into West’s ideology, I think he’s caught up in too much religious symbols and metaphysical stuff to ever reach what we’d call coherent leftism. He’s a 1990s style leftist, when the smell of Marxism had drifted away, when any radicalism had been defeated, when everyone was a kind of utopian.
But you’re right. He’s another ivy league professor. They’re always going to betray you, because they’re at their core just some academics who write papers. It’s the same with how people will occasionally get whiplash from something Zizek says.
So far the only ivy league professors who have never betrayed me have been Michael Parenti, Richard Wolff, Paul Buhle, and Jodi Dean. They’re very cool and know what they’re talking about. There’s also Vijay Prashad who is possibly one of the best Marxist academics right now, at least among English speaking academia. China probably has some kickass scholars I’ve never heard of. I have a gut feeling there are some good academics who write in Spanish too.
The way to tell if an intellectual is going to knife you is simple. What do they do outside of the university? Do they organise at grass roots level? Are they cadre in a political org? Or do they just posture at every election and protest to sell books?
There are some exceptions like how Chomsky had bad takes while being legitimately involved in material work, but Chomsky is at least consistent in his bad takes, he doesn’t betray his own stated values at a moments notice. (He’s always walked an inconsistent line of electorialism vs anarchism, for instance)
Yeah this is a good metric. Cornel West has mainly just done speeches his whole life. He’s been involved with DSA too, but mainly as a distant advisor role. He was famously at the Charlottesville thing as a counter-protestor and there was some kind of violent confrontation where some antifa defended him, which is pretty cool honestly.
I don’t know what to make of West honestly. I’ve read his books and from those alone you’d think he’s got it figured out. Clear and concise condemnations of structural racism in the US and where it comes from. But from his interviews and speeches he sounds more vague, more fuzzy, less capable of presenting a coherent plan or message.
I still want to like him because he was instrumental in my own development. I read his books as a teenager and they stuck with me, but he’s frankly a relic of a bygone age. He’s stuck 30 years ago when the moment’s long since passed him.
I think his communication style gets people thinking he’s more radical than he really is, it also did for Obama in the beginning. Parenti would call out people like Hedges and Chomsky for sus logic or statements and they didn’t go as far as this tweet.
Opportunist
So everyone here is voting de la Cruz, right?
Im voting for
It’s her turn
0% chance PSL will be on my ballot.
why
The two party duopoly works together to keep other parties off the ballot
oh I knew that I meant they were singling out PSL as something they wouldn’t put on the ballot
The Republican and Democratic state parties challenge any other party that wants ballot access. It’s standard procedure and they pay lawyers/consultants every cycle to do it.
Oh they literally take other parties to court for trying to participate in democracy?
Yes. They spend a lot of resources trying to keep any other alternatives from being on the ballot.
To be on the ballot, you need to collect signatures. Let’s say for example for local office you need 10k signatures. The rule of thumb is that you will need to collect 20k valid signatures, so you have enough margin for when the Democrats (let’s assume it’s a city where you are running) challenge all your signatures and get a lot of them tossed out for ticky-tack bullshit (wrong precinct, signature doesn’t match even though it is the actual voter, accidentally wrote in wrong zip code, etc etc)
Guess I’ll write her in but it would be better if she had ballot access
deleted by creator
His VP is going to be Peter Daou and on day one he will resign and chairman daou will lead the revolution.
“Daou is the time!”
As a proud crypto first world daouist, I stand at the ready
And where did that lead you? Back to me
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I think in terms of need that’s broadly correct (I might add Goethe and Hugo, and of course the Russian greats but certainly that’s it for English). If you’re reading Shakespeare there’s no reason not to be reading Shikibu or Achebe or a thousand other authors modern and ancient. And Dickens and Austen are way down the priority list.
deleted by creator
A professor I had once did that with Oliver Wendell Holmes, but he was being cheeky about it and his implied purpose for doing so was to challenge us as he made an obvious appeal to authority.
There was a good comment that had a rundown of the ways West helped undermine a lot of civil rights type stuff but I can’t find it in the search and it’s making me think I’m losing it.
edit: I think this was it
god damn it
like the third or fourth time I’ve been referenced when talking about cornel west
He is the latest grifter that the rubes on this website fell for now that Bernie and AOC are gauche and RFK let the mask slip
Another social imperialist sheep dogger. Some people still haven’t moved past free healthcare and legal weed
Fucking idiot, mostly.
scratch a lib
In this day and age can you sincerely run for president of the US and not be a liberal?
Run? Yes
Be successful? No
Yes, but only because you can also run as a fascist.
Spot the difference
