Can someone give me a rundown on Chapo trap house...

They're not bad. Some episodes are really funny while others are meh. They do have some bad takes and at times go too far in defending shitheads like AOC. I still like them and I especially enjoy how much they trigger the twitter ☭TANKIE☭s here.

whats wrong with AOC? She is basically the cream of americna politics

AOC makes me cream

Attached: download (5).jpg (730x500, 46.32K)

She's a succdem not a leftist

as far as i am aware she is the only elected american representative who has talked about surplus value extraction. Well done shes a succdem. lenin advocated for the support of succdems under certain conditions did you know

She is a classcucked opportunist pandering to thirsty bitchboys.

lol when? Are you sure she even knows what shes talking about?

Back then social democracts were revolutionary now they're just reactionary welfare capitalists

Attached: 8f9.jpg (500x222, 21.47K)

It's a sort of comedy "talk" podcast where several of a rotating group of hosts talk about current political events while cracking jokes. The hosts of CTH are actually a good deal more radical than their reputation as a "socdem podcast", but they're all in Democrat Cops of America and I know Will and Virgil seem to lean pretty hard demsoc (they keep talking about stacking the courts like a power move like that wouldn't immediately cause a coup attempt and/or a counterrevolution). Still, I think that if you started listening to this show under the impression that it was a social democrat podcast and then, for instance, heard Amber say that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a world-historic tragedy you'd be pretty confused.

They have supported some socdem candidates before as basically furthering their own politics, like strong support for Sanders and AOC, because they see it as furthering their politics. I think they could definitely be more critical of those figures, but on the flip side its still a stronger political position than a lot of their critics who are essentially just insular "protest culture" cliques with no real political program of their own.

Lenin was much more of a pragmatist than people think.

Lol Lenin would have never supported any of the Kautsky-tier socdems in the US.

Matt is annoying as fuck and the worst Chapo. He's a married incel who pretends to be a cynic but really he just cares way too much. Also he has a complex about the midwest and will trash it any time the opportunity presents itself.

He's also obnoxiously anti-gun while playing at being more Marxist than the reformist podcast members.

and?

Well that's precisely why Lenin's analysis of "opportunism" doesn't apply here. From my reading Lenin was saying that social democrats were poaching revolutionary communists for something that wasn't going to work. But AOC isn't poaching communists; she's poaching liberals into social democracy. That's not opportunism. You've got the order flipped around.

What exactly are you under the impression Lenin would have done in the US?

In our current political atmosphere, we have no real revolutionary party, small and weak worker organization, fledgling-at-best community organization where it even exists and nearly all political consciousness is in the electoral process. What's more, the American electoral franchise all but ensures that there's only two major political parties at any one time.

cumtown is better

Work almost exclusively at the state level. Once you have enough influence within a state government you can remove the barriers that prevent a worker's party from succeeding.

There is no order here though neither of those people are leftist

Supporting social democract is supporting capitalism

Taken a box car to a revolutionary place like he did 100 years ago

But as you said, the material premises for a socialist revolution are absent.

and?

So what is to be done?

Lol, all this talk of "democratic socialism" and how socialism is different from communism, what do you make of it? This is opportunism. This is distancing yourself from any objective analysis in order to appease labor aristocrats and petit-bourgeois coffee shop "socialists".

See this

There's hardly any real political consciousness at the state level and in many ways states can be even less democratic than the federal government.

Lenin didn't simply travel to wherever he thought was the most revolutionary. He was actively promoting revolutionary communist politics in his own country, Russia, which was widely considered to be the most reactionary of all the great powers.

Well that can be speculated upon

but killing revolutionary potential and supporting capital is definitely not the way to go

Study, organize, agitate. Lenin already answered this more than 100 years ago.
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/

what are you talking about there was more revolutionary actively going for for decades before the revolution

There was "revolutionary activity" going on in multiple countries. Lenin himself expressed surprise that Russia was the first to have a real revolution and trumped it up to it being the "weakest link" of the capitalist powers.

It's because he's a hicklib, and like all hicklib's he's got an inferiority complex because he wasn't born/raised in one of the "hip, diverse, enlightened" coastal megacities.

Really? IIRC even they conceded that Trump was "probably" compromised in the early days of Russiagate, but he was so feckless and incompetent even the Russkies couldn't control. Funny to watch them do a 180 and "nuh nuh nuh we always thought it was a bullshit spook conspiracy lmao"

Junkies that don't want to work to make a living

As they've become more mainstream they've started to tolerate larger amounts of democratic party bullshit. I assume that they do this intentionally in order to avoid scaring curious libs off.

But they've always been "mainstream". They had fucking Tim Heidecker on one of their early podcasts. At the end of the day they're just larping NYC hipster libs, and their views reflect that of their wider social circle (i.e. other larping NYC hipster libs)

I haven't come across a single American on the internet that was a decent communist (if you think you can change my mind then do it).

They all are idealistic, hyperindividualist, barely know history and support their homegrown intelligence agencie's position more often than not. Amerikaks are truly a cancer (see: Reddit's "leftists").

That being said, CTH is SOMEWHAT tolerable and at times funny. But their fanbase is full of anarkiddies and demsocs - a truly disgusting community of idealist liberals. The worst thing is them circlejerking about not having read Marx and reading theory being a waste of time while themselves being obsessed with Twitter drama. And these stupid fucks upvote each other too.

Stupidpol is also filled with socdems and demsocs right now. I recently came across literal Kim Jong Un Kills Gorillions tier posts. Lmfao.

Michael Parenti, Richard Wolff, Grover Furr, Jimmy Dore, Glenn Greenwald, Abby Martin, maybe even fucking Roo - these are the decent ones, plus a few others. Add black Americans like Assata Shakur and Mumia and some indigenous activists as well. But the rest of the US left? They can go kill themselves to stop ruining it for the rest of us (im srs). You guys are ruining english online leftist discourse.

Attached: ac3b3b9da588f1a959c8d181739b239c02c36165207bc0b9af4bbc87c923c104.jpeg (561x422, 65.21K)

I see the same thing from people in the south. It's annoying as fuck. They act like they're better than everyone else living down here.

jealous?

Fuck your gatekeeping, that's why left politics died out. Take what you have to push the overton window left.

When will americans learn

never.

No its actually the opposite.
Leftism died about because they stopped being revolutionary and switched to reformism

Let's all take a moment to remember the "Socialist" Party (Debs) trying to shit on the IWW for representing "anarchistic Jacobinism" and "bummery"

heh

Nothing personal kid

I'm not American.

Good luck being "revolutionary" against the modern surveillance state without 70-85% support at least. Especially in the US which is basically a fascist state in disguise.

kys cuck

making up numbers now?
wew lad thats funny

Ok, please give a really brief summary how you can overthrow the US government by revolutionary forces with less than a half of the country's support. Considering quite fascist US army, national guard, police, and wide population's support of these entities.

not today cia

This guy is pol in disguise, shitty disguise at that, in the other thread he’s posting infagraphics about how being gay is a mental illness

...

No, I'm not and I'm not right-wing. Reformists exist, relax.

yes

I'm far to the left of them, but I honestly enjoy their podcast. can we stop talking about them though? If they introduce normies to the left let them. I think they're pretty funny, and that Matt Christman and Amber Frost are on the track to something decent.

Most revolutions are fought with only 3-10% of the country.

Read Lenin and stop being autists. Stop pretending that you're not just standing behind AOC because you're thirsty bitches. You would vote for her with tho hands if she flashed her tits.

I mean she's basically just a congresswoman from Queens, right? It's not a big deal. Reminds me of Vito Marcantonio in a way. If I lived in her district I'd vote for her but there's a lot of media blah blah blah or "how the left should orienate to AOC" but that's a big distraction I think.

although in one of the last episodes they really started to reconsider their love for AOC

I'm a bit out of the loop on Burger politics, mostly to guard my own mental health. Could someone fill me in on AOC, and why she's a shithead? I haven't read the GND but from what I gather seems pretty decent for Burgerstand standards.

She's a liberal and people support her because shes hot.
Not a leftist in the slightest

cumtown is just people shooting shit, there's nothing informative about that show.

I've studied the history of Russian evolution. For example, the technological progress and the speed of the state's response complicate Lenin's "let's capture postal services and telegraph" approach.

Again, I'm not American and I'm also asexual. AOC could be an overweight fedora-wearing katana master and I would still be glad to see someone like him in the shitlib Democratic party.

Real leftists come later, I repeat: move the overton window with socdems to make socialism more acceptable in the McCarthyism-infested US society. Of course, elect a true socialist if a chance arises but so far there are not many.

Socdems don't move the "overton windows"(That is assuming you even accept the idea of an overton window)
Socdems are not leftists by any means there is no sliding scale and socdem is next to communist.

The Overton window definitely exists has moved rightward. Purism is a cancer. Have you ever actually been involved in organising? Nobody who is has this attitude

I have read Lenin. Lenin supporter reformism so that the proletariat could see it’s limitations.

spontaneous revolution of the working class soon comrade

In what areas? In what time frame?
The "overton" window if you're going to accept it has moved Left away from monarchy in favor of what we have now. You know Marxism? Slave society>Feudal>Capitalism>Socialism>Communism?

this is Marxism not purism.

Lenin supported reforms not reformism. The reforms he supported were already in a revolutionary state.
Lenin did not advocate trying to work within the tzarist system

yes

Careful, spontaneous protests and revolutions can easily be co-opted by the far-right. Its what happened to Brazil in 2013.

I think the precipitating event was her "calling-in" ilhan omar for being anti-semetic over omar's criticism on aipac. the whole thing made aoc look like a retard

I've already suggested in the other thread yesterday but let's stop USSR circlejerk for a moment and read a bit of Chilean history where socdem Partido Radical moved the overton left, making Allende acceptable (he successfully participated in two elections before winning on the third try).

Overall, Chile is much more relevant and modern example of a transition to socialism, including the Cybersyn project and the CIA trying to paralyze your economy.

There is no USSR circle jerk. I am speaking about Lenin because he was mentioned, a farcry from "USSR" circle jerk.

lol right the ONLY marxist to ever be elected in a liberal democracy, one data point(that failed 2 years later) really proves your point. it doesn't.
Also there was no shift in any sort of "overton window" he actually got less votes in 1970 than previous years there was just a third party running stealing votes from the other party.
Also that didn't really end up too well for him.

It is an example of that you cannot reform into socialism. Thanks for pointing out an utter failure.

The US and Europe lets say since the 2007 financial crash.

it is so, so painful when people with an utterly vulgar understanding of Marxism do the whole "i am the ultimate marxist thing" its not a direct linear definite path, it has peaks and troughs, back and forward, reaction and action, dialects y'know.

what is Marxism and not purism? Refusing to work within the electoral system at all?

Got a thing to tell you about what Marx advocated in his day buddy

semantics. The conditions in the US are extremely different to the russian revolution. You can work on both reforms and revolutionary praxis at the same time. Attack on all fronts.

is how i know you've never organised shit in your life. You fail to understand the necessity of struggle in forming revolutionary organisations, the proletariat must struggle in order to become conscious of their surroundings, it is only in struggling against them that they see their true nature and it is only in seeing their true nature that they can come to an understanding of what is needed to overcome it. The Russian revolution happened in 2917 but really there was 20+ years of direct struggle before this could happen. Ever militia and soviet was formed and developed through this struggle.

Recent history should show you what happens to spontaneous "revolutions". They are co-opted, liberalised and subverted, the organisations are not strong enough to be able to with stand any kind of subversion or attack. The workers have not struggled in order to become concious of such subversions.

It takes time and dedication to develop and organise solidarity.

Look at occupy wall st, for example, complete failure. Interesting experiment but at the end of the day nothing was achieved.

And USSR is example that revolution gets you Stalin that fucks everything up, kills people he doesn't like, and dooms the whole project.

Studying the mistakes of Allende in 71-73 is useful for 2019, while dreaming about gettin all the events of 1917 together is not.

Its an example of why you should arm your unions.

A third party shows the disinteigration of the forces of reaction which is a shift leftward

10 years is barely anything in the lifespan of capitalism.
We are just as capitalist now as we were in 2007

no where did I say this
you haven't described dialects here though.

Just as Marx supported capitalism as a progressive force against feudalism. Today that is no longer the case capitalism and bourgeois democracy are reactionary forces against the proletariat

Umm no.

No you cannot.

lol this is not an argument
Yes I agree. What you said is more in line with what I am promoting than you

do you have examples? I don't think anyone would support a revolution lacking class consciousness if you can even call that a revolution.

Just because some communists and anarchists show up at events like that does not negate the fact it was sponsored by neo libs

"There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen"

implied with the "you know marxism"

more so than simply saying " Slave society>Feudal>Capitalism>Socialism>Communism? "

they hard bourgeiose democracy in Marxs time it was from within this system he was advocating for reforms as one front. He believed you could potentially use bourgeious democracy for communism in the right conditions.

if you actually make a counter argument i will be happy to answer
this is just completely obtuse, you haven't made an argument you've just denied what iv'e said with no further explanation. You can on the one hand push for reforms while on the other organising the proletariat into revolutionary organisations. Almost every communist party ever has done this.

better than "ummm…no" and "no you cannot" with no further qualification. You haven't have you though.

and during that time they were pushing for reform in the immediate and revolution in the long term.

arab spring, euromaidan, occupy, etc.

it was organised by Anarchists. Which neolibes sponsored it initially exactly? This kind of furthers what i am saying. Spontaneity is always subverted.

Also on the one hand you've argued for spontaneity and on the other for 20+ years of struggle so which is it?

congratulations more misquoting and misrepresenting my argument. You're shitposting now.

yes I was speaking about marxist concepts

you just said something about linear paths and called it dialectics . I was speaking of Marx's concept of societal progress which unlike what you said, is dialectics

Like I said that was a time when bourgeoisie democracy was a progressive force

same with you. "semantics" is not an argument

You mean what you just did with asserting something with no actual argument? :^)

Like I've already said before they do thing over 100 years ago when social democracy was a progressive force against the current order OR they do it in a revolutionary context. i.e. they soviet participation in the provisional government prior the their own revolution.

you're still not making an argument.

I've responded to this already.

are you just assuming any sort of revolt or regime change = communist revolution? it doesn't.

wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203833004577249811049566178

Situation dependent

The ends don't justify the means.

I'm saying the good out ways the bad

how is this either of these two things. I was quoting lenin.

yes and impyling i dont understand them

"its not a direct linear definite path, it has peaks and troughs, back and forward, reaction and action, dialects y'know. " Is what i said. Dialectics is push and pull, back and forth, not straight progression.

The resolution of contradictions.

"Slave society>Feudal>Capitalism>Socialism>Communism?"

there is nothing dialectical in this statement.

it was as progressive in his time as it is now.

he argued for reform in certain situations and this is somehow not a certain brand of reformism. Yes that is semantics.

" You can on the one hand push for reforms while on the other organising the proletariat into revolutionary organisations. Almost every communist party ever has done this. "

was my argument

this is still doing it. They still support reforms under certain conditions while engaging also in organisation of the proletariat. So, as i advocate for candidates such as AOC, i am also part of tenant and trade union organising among other things.

no im saying there has never been a spontaeneous communist revolution, for this reason. All spontaeneous "revolutions" are liberal, revolutions take organisation.

>wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203833004577249811049566178

so they eventually got corporate support that doesn't mean it was organised by neoliberals.

no give me one concrete example of a spontaenous communist revolution.

oh ok
and?
you were demonstrating that

Marx's view of societal progress is a straight progression. We are not going to fall back to monarchy

That's Marxist dialectic.
More proof of your ignorance of basic marxist concepts

proof?

its not

Like I've already said before they do thing over 100 years ago when social democracy was a progressive force against the current order OR they do it in a revolutionary context. i.e. they soviet participation in the provisional government prior the their own revolution.

But that isn't what is happening today

ok?

i said it was sponsored by neo libs

Attached: 1448009833878.png (2880x2020, 757.34K)

Paris Commune

They're pretty good. They are undoubtedly too social democratic for some people on here, but every now and then they will show some skepticism of reformist politics (mostly Matt) and they've been consistently anti-imperialist and haven't bought into regime change propaganda about Venezuela or Syria like other jacobin reading "socialists". Also they recently did a very pro-Cuba episode.

I also think they're funny. I understand their humor might not be everyones cup of tea but I enjoy it.

Chapo Trap House on internet socialism, leftism as subculture and identity politics
youtube.com/watch?v=e-28RP5lk88

Matt Christman of Chapo - Deaths Under Communism vs. Capitalism
youtube.com/watch?v=X_jpKgKmVgY

Very much this.

that was a good episode.

Attached: sam harris nicki minaj.png (721x551, 776.95K)

Is the slave empires thing all that real? I thought it was primitive communism -> feudalism, like maybe European tribes were at first. Even in ancient Egypt and China, weren't they more like feudal monarchies or something?

IDPOL NIGGERS

Attached: 55c2baf8d6bdd89ca4d36bcb24427d19c3a33dd03b3d450a6d8626e82b5aa738.jpg (255x255, 24.57K)

id nig

Attached: 78ad17cda5b09871676bf2eee513edfb1a41454e569e0b2000911b703b366352.jpg (127x127, 21.11K)

They share some similarities which would develop into feudalism, just like how we see vestiges of feudalism persisting in capitalism today, but they weren't very much like feudal monarchies, no.

Is it fair to call them slave societies though? And if not, then what; mercantilism? In ancient Egypt I'm pretty sure that there were normal people and slaves separate from each other; not like everybody who wasn't in the ruling class a slave.

yes see every empire prior to the fall of Rome. roughly

primitive communism would be before slave empires

Tbh I think that all the hate they get here is unfair. They’re demsocs sure, but they pretty clearly call out lib bullshit including imperialism. I’m honestly not sure why everybody here hates them so much.

so according to Lenin ten years can make a huge difference to life of capitalism.

this is now "i know you are but what am i" we are engaging in. But your whole attitude vis a vis the above comment where i was clearly quoting someone else is kinda indicative of where you are coming from. You're not here to discuss marxism.

Marx's view of societal progress is a straight progression.

Straight progression in long run, but forward and back in the short and medium term. We live in the short and medium term.

we might not, but consider at the time of the emergence of capitalism and the death of feudalism there a lot of deposing and reinstating of monarchs

French revolution is a good example.

mate it just isn't. Dialectics is the synthesis between anti thesis and thesis, as these contradictions resolve, new contradictions emerge.

Sure Marx believed slave society to socialism but simply listing the various stages is not an explanation of the dialectical process.

proof of YOUR ignorance but again its " i know you are but what am i"

again not giving any qualification.

where? My local communist party does exactly this. Push for parliamentary reform as well as engage with unions.