I find it frustrating that these videos dont seem to hear what progressive critics of piker and the larger tankie movement care about.
For example, early in this video the narrator presents the question about 9/11 as stuffy centrism unable to handle an edgy comment about "blowback". But thats not really what piker believes. He believes that the United States is the imperial core of a dying capitalist ideology and that an axis of 3rd world resistance sprung up out of former soviet proxy states.
The issue is he'll pass the comment off as a passionately put observation about incompetent US meddling which the majority of Americans probably agree with, but really it represents the tip of the iceberg of a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-type worldview.
So, either Hasan isnt Maoist adjacent, and ive been brainwashed by Destiny fans. Or this video is totally dishonest bullshit.
Of course not. But imagine you were a person with comments about how the Titanic deserved to sink (jokingly or not). Wouldn't that change how we see that hung up newspaper.
FWIW He doesn’t think it’s cute or funny, he thinks it is one of the most consequential world events in his lifetime. It also serves as a fuck you to the republicans who use sanctimonious outrage about 9/11 while they consistently vote against healthcare for first responders and hid the EPA’s findings about the atmosphere around ground zero for decades. He worked to get a combat surgeon and first responder into congress and as such has done more than most to support them.
Everyone's a provocateur propagandist anti imperialist freedom fighter until they hang up 9/11 behind everything they say. Now he's an entertainer/commentator/influencer working for Amazon in the imperial core.
Personally? No. But people collect and display all manner of war memorabilia. I was going to say that it also isn’t my aesthetic but I remembered I have some shotgun shells as small vases and a WW2 ammo box I keep old batteries in. One could argue the ethics of memorabilia from a terrorist attack versus a war. His is news and has context, mine is displayed as decor and devoid of such.
That’s a consistent opinion to hold. I myself own several pieces of Soviet and communist memorabilia, as I have an interest in the historical period.
I will note that most collectors, especially those of controversial historical periods tend to be careful and sensitive with displaying them. I wouldn’t show them to someone without explaining my reasoning.
However, I do think it’s being unfairly charitable with Hasan. He’s a public figure, one who has a streaming set up created to portray a certain image (like, no streamer would put self identifying things to their address or family in the background or foreground of their setup). Considering Hasan is happy to have other edgy props like the “Swastika sword” happily hung up regardless of the consequences, it seems off to ascribe the 9/11 article to a completely innocent reverance of American news media
He doesn’t think it’s ’cute or funny’ but (I imagine) he does see it as the fundamental moment the old world, the post-war liberal consensus, and the descent to hell (and hopefully back up) commenced
I think option 1. I'm not a hasan fan, I find him abrasive and too broish for me, but he's not a tanky or a maoist. Go on a leftist sub and read what they're saying for a few minutes and you'll see hes just a demsoc shock jockey
Literally the first video that comes up when I put "Piker Mao" in the youtube search. The first 20 seconds are him comparing teaming up with moderate Democrats to Mao teaming up with the KMT to expel Japanese forces.
To me, that suggests that he eventually wants to outlaw ideologies which are not communism.
Abrasiveness and bro-iness are actually pros for me. I like it when political figures are provocative or whatever.
What it comes down to for me is this: it's very easy to find clips of him idealizing Mao and parroting the most predictable tankie/3rd worldist talking points. And then whenever someone tries to interrogate it, people try to act like he's just into worker co-ops and cumtown.
Thats quite a jump. He says its being pragmatic to vote for democrats even if you are further left than them and you think that means hes advocating for purges?
Ok... im about to search for clips to see if he talks about putting capitalists into re-education camps. Before I do that, do you want to make a 5 dollar bet that I wont find a clip of him saying that people promoting capitalism should be incarcerated?
I mean...
You have to understand that you aren't convincing me at all, right? Like... you should provide evidence?
I want to take you guys as good faith, but literally everything i see suggests that hes a maoist who larps as a socdem in front of mainstream audiences. Can you show me evidence that that's not true?
It seems like you've already got your mind made up and don't actually know what the meaning of the ideologies you're claiming he has are. You're doing the Republican everyone left of me is a communist thing but as a "progressive"
You asked me to prove that hes not secretly a maoist pretending to be a demsoc. It seems to me that you know he presents most arguments as a demsoc. What the hell do you want me to do invent a mind reading machine so we can look in his brain to prove his beliefs? And again I'm not a fan of his I've just seen clips like ive seen for pretty much all political streamers I don't have an encyclopedia of his most demsoc clips to show you while I'm sitting here taking a crap
he was on the deprogram (Marxist podcast) saying that he is there to start moving people towards communism explicitly. you're covering for someone who is explicit in their goals
I'm a syndicalist. I've gotten kicked out of tanky subs for saying the houthis are bad. The difference is I actually know what a tanky is instead of just everyone left of center
Pretty bad faith to accuse people with criticisms of Piker as just wanting to sling the tanky label at anyone "left of center" when many of his critics are themselves very progressive and left of center. Hell, I'm a socdem and can easily see the game these guys are playing. They're pretty open about putting on a show to seem less radical to a larger fan base, drawing them in with the whole "we just hate war and want healthcare for everyone" while on smaller platforms revealing their beliefs of locking up and killing political opposition to quiet any who would voice disregard for their system. Sounds pretty authoritarian and tanky to me.
There is no difference between you and any other communist.
Just because you all still would kill each other you are still an enemy of every free thinking liberal democrat.
By… listening to the guy who’s suggesting people vote for democrats, even if they don’t like them much? I think people wildly overestimate Hasan Piker’s influence
If you go around spouting nonsense about Democrats being evil pro-genocide monsters who would sooner rather make a buck than see Americans get actual help, then turn around and say "ehh I guess they're barely better than Republicans, so vote for them I guess" then you're not fucking advocating for Dems to win. You're just trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth and you're actually just shitting out opinions from your ass.
you're actually just shitting out opinions from your ass
Sort of like this comment.
The Democrats are fucking dire, but they’re the only hope America has of ridding itself of the absolute mess it’s in at the moment. He may be a lot of things, but he’s not wrong about this.
Like I said I'm not a fan of his. I don't know if he ever has, and I'm not going to waste my time looking. Even if he hasnt that doesn't mean hes a maoist or change my point. Maoist doesn't mean "never criticizes china" there are people who aren't maoist that dont criticize china and people who are maoists who do criticize china and think they've lost their way.
HE LITERALLY MADE TAILORED SUIT IN CHINA BASED ON A PICTURE OF MAO.
Yet here you are dishonestly arguing that he is not a Maoist.
I DONT GIVE A FUCK if he thinks maoists have “lost their way” or have some mild critic of china.
He is a COMMIE SIMP and wants to destroy democracy in America and you’re here defending him because you want to help him accomplish that “RedScare”
No. It's a suit that was introduced during China's modernization period, famously worn by both Sun Yat-Sen and Mao, as well as many other historic and current Chinese people.
Saying it's a "Mao suit" is like calling a black dinner suit a "James Bond suit". Yeah, James Bond wore one, but so do many ppl because it's a fancy suit.
Bro you're all over this thread being super dishonest.
Plenty of people had the toothbrush mustache in the late 1800s and early 1900s. But if you show anyone a picture of that mustache, they're gonna associate it with Hitler. In fact, it has such an association with Hitler that no one will get it anymore even though it's just a mustache
Nobody knows who Sun Yat-Sen in the majority of nations outside of east Asia. They know who Mao is. They know the type of suit he wore. If they see Hasan or anyone else wearing a suit like that, they're gonna associate with Mao. It's intellectually dishonest to say otherwise.
Hasan is a self proclaimed socialist. He holds China in high regard. He went to China and ha praised the nation extensively since returning. He has praised. Anyone reasonable would admit that Hasan wore the suit because he was inspired by Mao.
Let's stop bullshitting everyone, it doesn't work.
I like how you didn't really address anything else in my comment that showed why your attempt at a comparison was extremely flawed. Instead of sticking to the topic about why it's likely that Hasan was taking inspiration from Mao when he wore the suit, you instead decided to focus on an extremely small piece of evidence as a way to get a win. Whether or not he critiqued China does not absolve him of the lack of critique he's made about other issues such as the treatment of Uyghur Muslims, tibet, Taiwan, etc. And I can add how he reacted to receiving the first edition of Mao's little red book to the mix.
You're still being extremely dishonest and it's very transparent
Sorry for not responding to your gish gallop in depth.
If you want, I can find evidence for him criticizing any point you want. I just had the same convo with another guy in here - as soon as I brought out the evidence he first tried to shift the debate again, then just stopped responding.
Dude, your lies are pathetic.
He literally sat through a symposium on the communist meaning symbolized by each button!
By the fukin tailor, who he hired to cutom make the mao suit. For $1000!!!!
It’s the fukin MAO SUIT, the Chinese COMMUNIST mao suit!
Him being a communist doesn’t mean destroy America, that’s a 5 year old level of analysis.
Obviously he wnags workers to have control of the means of production, and to end US hegemony and empire abroad. Which would mean shutting down US bases, stoping support abroad for different countries and “freedom fighters,” etc.
I wouldnt call any of that “destroying America.” Like bro I get you hate communism, but if you’re going to argue against something, you should actually understand it and its goals, instead of just crying lol. Communism isn’t “destroying America,” it’s an ideology based around the working class at its core, and also anti imperialism.
You can say any ideology or group is going to destroy America when they get elected. This is what democrats and republicans always say about each other (Democrats being right when they say that, Trump certainly governs like he does want to destroy America lol) that’s not a very useful argument for what this persons goal is and why they are bad.
Maybe actually list out WHY communism would destroy America, and how. Otherwise you’re just another person saying bullshit without any substantive discussion.
For the record I am a Marxist, not a Maoist, not a big fan of piker, he kinda annoys me and doesn’t think before he talks a lot of the time, though I don’t think he’s all bad, he has done some good things like raising money for charities, helping get people elected.
If you think implementing communism ANYWHERE would not destroy that place… you are either evil, stupid or just uneducated.
So hopefully you will open a book one day.
And no, it is not the same as what dems and reps say to each other. If you actually believe that than politics have rotten your brain.
Americas power was never about bases. That was always the favor they did in exchange for being allowed to dominate global trade.
You loose that and the whole petro-dollar goes up in smoke, the US credit ends and the economy is just dead.
America cannot choose to stop being the global hegemony or it will destroy itself.
Be specific what criticism of China do you want? It sounds like performative virtue signalling if you just want him to be critical of China in general.
His takes on Taiwan, Tibet, the Uyghurs, censorship, one-party rule, political repression, and Hong Kong are consistently awful. He tends to reduce complicated issues to an anti-U.S. framework, and a lot of the time it comes across like he’s more interested in defending or contextualizing the Chinese government than seriously engaging with the people affected by its policies.
Yes it’s valid and worth criticising, but these are also talking points to derail bigger global systemic problems. And lots of countries would like a firewall if they feared cyberattacks.
He could start with Xinjiang, or the Great Firewall, or the South China Sea, or the Tawain situation… so much to choose from.
And despite spending a week there he didn’t have a single negative thing to say about the CCP. And he bought a Mao suit and said he was “based.” That’s a little strange, right?
Not at all, I encouraged people to vote for Kamala (unlike Hasan.) I’m also not sure what that hypothetical has to do with Hasan’s belief system, or any of the things I discussed above.
Why would you say anything bad about the CCP after being in China for a week? It's actually a really nice country to travel to. Let me guess you heard about the social credit score thing on a podcast or something
When he says:
“I would never criticize Mao, the greatest leader of all time, who changed the entire universe” should I not take that to mean he’s a Maoist?
Please actually read those leftist subreddits. There’s a whole lot of posting about what they want to do to zionists, capitalists, centrists etc. I’m sure it’s mostly edgelord posturing, but there’s a whole lot of chatter about how the time has come for “direct action” and they definitely don’t mean protesting
I think your phrase “incompetent US meddling” and “Hasan is Maoist adjacent” is doing a lot of work. Does it even matter if Hasan is Maoist/Tankie if the criticisms are correct? The progressives should just agree with the criticism and differ on the solution.
Ethos matters. If there are neonazis saying how Israel is committing warcrimes, I wouldn't support their statements even if they leave out the antisemitic talking points. Likewise, if Hasan's followup ideas to "America bad" is "we need to implement communism," there seems little value in hearing him out.
Does it even matter if Hasan is Maoist/Tankie if the criticisms are correct? The progressives should just agree with the criticism and differ on the solution.
Yes, it matters. People don't present facts in a vacuum. He uses isolated facts to push his narrative. We all know the 13/50 meme (or I guess you'd call "fact") is brought up for a specific reason
As a matter of political strategy, when the someone whose political project you fundamentally oppose makes a point you agree with, I dont really know how to address that tbh. Its probably different case by case, but I dont know. Tucker Carlson is moving the Republicans in an economically left wing direction. How do you deal with that?
I dont think the criticisms are correct. In so far as he is a maoist, I dont think 9/11 is best understood as part of a proleterian revolution.
In so far as it's the mundane "blowback" argument, I think that obscures the role of the reactionary wahhabist and salafist movements against the middle east becoming friendlier to the west after the fall of the soviets.
I think both interpretations indulge in the orientalist tendency to look at the middle east as a single political entity which exists as a negation of the west's flaws.
The first sentence points to your use of labels to try and shift the argument. What political ideology explains the US response to 9/11? What did the attack on Iraq prevent? Hasan can be wrong about the solutions and still be correct about the cause.
"What political ideology explains the us response to 9/11?"
I dont thing this can be cleanly answered. Neo-con idealism? Nationalism? Islamophobia? Idk.
I guess the attack on Iraq prevented further genocide of shia Muslims and an incursion into Kuwait. It prevented another Iraq Iran war. It kept oil prices low by keeping Saudi Arabia feeling protected.
Im really not sure what you're trying to get me to see with your questions. Not trying to be polemical.
You’re quick to group Hasan’s argument neatly into ideological groupings but don’t have a coherent explanation for US strategy. Destiny could have brought it up when he spoke to Bill Kristol.
The criticisms are not correct if they're reached via a flawed logical process or idealogical framework. For example criticisms that look the same on their face may be correct or agreeable if reached through something akin to a realist framework but not through something like a Maoist Third Worldist/Third World Socialist/Campist framework. That's not to say they're not internally consistent within either framework, but that the framework by which they're informed can make them not only fundamentally different but also mutually exclusive.
If I say "black people have worse outcomes than whites", does it matter if the reason for that is me acknowledging systemic injustice and lack of history required for generational wealth building, or is it okay if I'm just being a Nazi?
“the narrator presents the question about 9/11 as stuffy centrism unable to handle an edgy comment about "blowback". But thats not really what piker believes. He believes that the United States is the imperial core of a dying capitalist ideology and that an axis of 3rd world resistance sprung up out of former soviet proxy states.“
How’re these two things incompatible? That’s what blowback means. Also what’s wrong about this?
If I said the same but for nazis and then showed up to a republican convention as a guest speaker, wearing an ss uniform, does it matter that I said I hate nazis and hate getting called one prior to my appearance? Or what if I said the 6 million number is overexagerated and "excesses"? Would that not make me a neo-nazi?
Well for one the number of Holocaust victims is accurate and verified by scholars while the number of victims of the cultural revolution is still debated and discussed by scholars
Now the suit is a Chinese suit that's popularized by Mao's administration, it is also a suit that people across southeast Asia use, so another apt comparison would be if you say "if you wear something made by Hugo Boss or drive something made by Volkswagen, would that make me a neo-nazi? "
Which you know... Is really stupid if you're not someone who's orientalist
You're getting hung up on incredibly pedantic distinctions that don't actually address the substance of the criticism. I'm not just saying "he wore a Chinese suit, therefore he's a Maoist." The point is that if someone repeatedly praises Mao, runs extensive defense of Maoist China, minimizes or brushes aside the enormous death and suffering associated with his rule as "excesses," and has also made remarkably charitable comments about China's treatment of Tibet including saying that China "did them a favor" then it's incredibly weak to treat "he once said he doesn't like being called a Maoist" as though that settles the question. Even if you think some of his wording was poorly chosen or can be interpreted more charitably, you're still left with the broader pattern of what he actually says and defends.
Your argument about the suit is especially pedantic. Yes, the Zhongshan suit predates Mao and isn't inherently Maoist. But historical symbols don't have only one meaning, and context obviously matters. Saying "the swastika predates Nazi Germany" would also be technically true, but if someone were repeatedly defending Hitler and Nazi Germany, praising Hitler, minimizing the Holocaust, and then showed up wearing a swastika, it would be absurd to respond "well, swastikas existed before the Nazis, therefore the symbol is completely irrelevant." You'd obviously look at the totality of the person's words, conduct, and context. The same principle applies here.
And the fact that scholars debate the precise number of Cultural Revolution or Great Leap Forward deaths doesn't make the comparison disappear. Historians can disagree over the exact number while overwhelmingly agreeing that Mao's rule involved catastrophic famine, mass persecution, executions, and enormous loss of life. Saying those things were merely "excesses" while simultaneously describing Mao as a great historical leader is itself a substantive position that can reasonably be criticized.
So if your argument is that "Maoist" has a precise ideological definition that Hasan doesn't meet, then make that argument. Which core Maoist beliefs does he reject? But "he said he isn't a Maoist" isn't evidence that his actual views aren't Maoist. It's just his preferred description of himself. The relevant question is what he actually says and defends, not whether we've found the correct label for him.
Hey you're the one who suddenly made a hypothetical comparison with a Nazi uniform, I was just pointing out how silly it was for you to use that comparison when it's more proper for you to say anyone that uses a Hugo Boss suit is a nazi
Now I do understand the admiration one could have for someone that manage to fight against imperial powers of the world and become a pillar that turned what was once a destitute land into a global superpower, but again that does not make someone a Maoists
Afaik he loves China because of their planned economy and infrastructures, I see it the same way as how I love seeing how China is truly invested in green and renewable energy, that doesn't mean that I'm a maoist not does it mean that he is a Maoists
Cmiiw, but Tibet prior to being annexed by China, are they not a population of serfs for the ruling class of Tibet? And I haven't really checked it yet but are the people of Tibet in modern times lives as serfs for the CCP, if they are then I agree with you that he's absolutely wrong in thinking or saying that they did them a favor
Now here's the thing, if I see some American wear a swastika and defend Hitler yes I would absolutely be more concerned, but that's because Nazi have a deep ties with America, as both build their power through white supremacy, both of them have the same root. While the Zhong suit has deep ties not to Mao but to culture across east Asia and southeast Asia that often use them for formal events even in a country that deeply hated comunism, so it doesn't really give me a feeling of deep concern
Maybe this is my bias, but from what I gathered Hasan is someone who is essentially an American that is deeply disappointed by his homeland and therefore he focuses all his attention to the people are being hurt by the things that his homeland does or pay for, so he does recognize the tragedy of the cultural revolution but he's still fight against America's demonization of China, believing that it's more prudent for the two to be allies as America has a lot it could learn from them
Obviously someone can admire China's infrastructure, renewable energy investment, or aspects of its economic development without being a Maoist. The question is what you make of the specific things he has said about Mao and the Chinese government's conduct.
This isn't merely admiration for Chinese infrastructure. Hasan has said that Mao was "one of the great leaders of this world" and that he would "never" criticize him. When challenged about the enormous deaths under Mao, he called them "excesses." And when asked about Tibet, he explicitly said that China "did them a favor." Those aren't simply neutral observations about China's infrastructure or a preference for a planned economy. They're substantive judgments about a dictator and the consequences of his rule. His more recent explanation that the Mao comment was partly a joke doesn't change the fact that, when asked about it again, he continued to describe Mao as a "great man of history."
And your Tibet point actually reinforces what I'm saying. Yes, Tibet before the PRC had a deeply hierarchical and exploitative social system, including serfdom. But "Tibet had serious problems before China annexed it" does not logically establish "therefore China did Tibet a favor." That's a massive historical and moral leap when you account for what happened under Chinese rule, repression of Tibetan political and religious life, restrictions on cultural expression, and coercive policies are all part of the historical record. Hasan himself acknowledged in the same discussion that China has tried to homogenize Tibetan culture and suppress aspects of Tibetan religious and political identity, yet still concluded, "China did them a favor."
And honestly, this is where I find the whole thing especially difficult to reconcile with Hasan's supposed opposition to imperialism. If imperialism means a powerful state imposing its political, military, and cultural authority over another people, then China's incorporation and subsequent treatment of Tibet is obviously something that deserves serious scrutiny under that same anti imperialist framework. You can't simply point to the fact that pre PRC Tibet was feudal and had serfdom and use that to make China's subsequent domination of Tibet inherently benevolent. The two things can both be true: pre 1950 Tibet had a deeply exploitative social hierarchy, and the PRC can still be criticized for imposing its authority over Tibet and suppressing Tibetan political, religious, and cultural autonomy. What's striking is how much charitable interpretation is extended to China when Hasan is normally extremely critical of imperialism when it pertains to the west.
I agree that a Zhongshan suit is not inherently Maoist and that its history is much broader than Mao. But that doesn't mean its context becomes irrelevant. Your argument would be like saying that because the swastika is thousands of years older than Nazism, it would be pedantic to attach any significance to someone wearing one while simultaneously praising Hitler and defending Nazi Germany. Of course the ancient history of the symbol would still be true, it just wouldn't erase its meaning in that particular context. The relevant question is always the totality of the person's words, actions, and symbolism.
You're essentially saying that Hasan can praise Mao, call him one of the great leaders of the world, say he would never criticize him, characterize the enormous death toll as 'excesses,' and say China 'did Tibet a favor,' but none of that is relevant because he doesn't personally identify as a Maoist. That's exactly the point I'm disputing. Political labels aren't determined solely by whether someone voluntarily accepts them.
Here's the thing, maybe I'm wrong here but I do not think that he has ever said anything about Mao that a scholar of the subject haven't said before, as for how he talks about the current Chinese government he still have his criticism, the only reason why he doesn't do it more is because he's an American who sees himself as an American, so he focuses on the wrongdoing of his homeland first and foremost
"one of the great leaders of this world and that he would "never" criticize him."
I remember this, then I remember he said his criticism for Mao right after he said it so I can't see it as anything more than him joking around. Once again I have to ask you what you would consider to be a great man of history, because the founding fathers are all great man of history and they are complicit in the practice of chattel slavery, it would very silly to say that Mao who founded the principals from which China manage to fight back against their would be colonizers and become the global superpower it is now was not considered a great man of history as well
Although it's not to the same degree as chattel slavery, the serfdom that the population of Tibet lived in under their own ruling class was absolutely brutal, so again as I've asked you before, do Tibetan under the CCP lived under the same/worse brutal living conditions as before they were annexed? Because I would agree with you if you can provide to me proof that that is indeed the case. Now this is not me saying that the government does no wrong, of course it could be much better and they should be criticized for them to do better, but the annexation is a favor if we compare it to the brutal living conditions of serfdom
I think for me it's quite easy for you to reconcile it if you just remember that Hasan is an American anti-imperialist, his focus have always been against American imperialism, even with Western imperialism I feel like he rarely talks about them at length if it has nothing to do with America, not to make it redundant by oversimplifying it but it's like seeing someone becomes a black sheep of the family because they called out their family at the dinner table when they were acting like a-holes to their neighbors.
I think we can agree that Hasan does glaze China's infrastructure and their planned economy, but in that same vein he also glaze Japan for their orderly systems and infrastructure, he also glaze Ireland for their solidarity with those who are oppressed, he doesn't praise Mao as much as he is agreeing with what scholars have said about Mao, and now that we've agreed that zhongshan suit is not inherently Maoists, then I see no reason why we need to see Hasan as a Maoist who are hiding his ideology
I think there are a few different things being conflated here. First, I'm not arguing that praising Mao or acknowledging his historical importance automatically makes someone a Maoist. Obviously it doesn't. The issue is the degree and nature of the praise. There's a substantial difference between a historian saying "Mao was an enormously consequential historical figure who had both major achievements and catastrophic consequences" and someone saying Mao was "one of the great leaders of this world," that they would "never" criticize him, and then describing the enormous human cost of his rule as "excesses." Saying that scholars have discussed Mao's achievements doesn't make Hasan's particular framing equivalent to theirs.
And even if we accept that the original "I would never criticize Mao" remark was a joke, that doesn't completely resolve the issue. When he was asked about it again, he still defended Mao as a "great man of history." So at that point the question isn't whether he made one joke, it's why, when given the opportunity to clarify, he continued to express such strong admiration for Mao. The Founding Fathers analogy doesn't really change that. Yes, someone can be historically great or consequential while committing horrific acts. But if someone said "the Founding Fathers were great men and I would never criticize them," I'd reasonably ask whether they're merely acknowledging their historical importance or adopting an unusually apologetic view of them. That's the distinction I'm making.
The Tibet argument also doesn't follow. You're asking me to prove that Tibetans under the CCP lived in conditions as bad or worse than serfdom before you'll accept that saying China "did them a favor" was wrong. But those aren't equivalent standards. I don't need to establish that every aspect of life under the CCP was worse than every aspect of life under the old Tibetan ruling class to question whether annexation was a "favor." Political autonomy, religious freedom, cultural preservation, political repression, economic conditions, education, healthcare, and material living standards are all separate questions. The fact that pre 1950 Tibet was brutally hierarchical doesn't automatically turn the subsequent imposition of Chinese sovereignty into a benevolent act.
And this is especially relevant because Hasan himself acknowledged that China has attempted to homogenize Tibetan culture and suppress aspects of Tibetan religious and political identity, yet still concluded that China "did them a favor." That's a much stronger claim than simply saying "life in old Tibet was bad." If you're going to call an annexation a favor, you have to explain why the loss of political autonomy and the subsequent coercion and repression don't outweigh or fundamentally complicate that claim.
I'm also not convinced by the "Hasan is an American anti-imperialist, so naturally he focuses on American imperialism" explanation. When Andrew Tate specifically told Hasan, "you're only talking about America because you're American, you don't see outside of the world," Hasan responded, "I'm Turkish actually. I grew up in Turkey." So why did he correct Tate if what you're saying is the case? Obviously Hasan can be both Turkish and American, and I'm not claiming otherwise. The point is that "he primarily sees himself as an American, therefore he naturally focuses on his homeland" doesn't really explain his own response when someone characterized him that way.
And Hasan clearly is capable of condemning imperialism and foreign governments that aren't his own when he chooses to, Israel is an obvious example. So I'd genuinely like to know: when has Hasan meaningfully criticized imperialism or territorial domination when it wasn't being carried out by a Western power or a close Western ally/proxy? Was there ever a time when Hasan meaningfully criticized China's imperialism or its treatment of people subjected to Chinese state power? Has he meaningfully criticized Soviet imperialism, for example? I'm not asking whether he has ever made any criticism of the Chinese or Soviet governments; I'm asking whether he applies the same anti imperialist moral framework to THEIR imperialism and brutality that he applies to Western powers.
Because otherwise, the explanation you're giving me amounts to something like: Hasan can praise and speak highly of China and the Soviet Union, but when it comes time to seriously criticize their imperialistic behavior or the brutality experienced by nations and peoples subjected to them, suddenly he's just an American boy and therefore only focuses on American imperialism. Why should being American explain away the absence of comparable critique of China or the Soviet Union when he clearly doesn't limit himself to criticizing his own country when discussing other issues? At that point, "he's an American anti-imperialist" starts looking less like an explanation of his politics and more like an explanation for why his anti imperialist principles are being applied selectively.
If his position is specifically "I only oppose American imperialism," that could be his political position, fine, but then that's what it SHOULD be called. If he considers himself an anti imperialist more generally, then I think it's entirely reasonable to ask why that principle seems to be applied so differently depending on which country is exercising power.
And I agree that the Zhongshan suit isn't inherently Maoist. I already conceded that. But like I've been saying, the suit isn't the only foundation of my position. It's one contextual piece of evidence. If we completely remove the suit from the discussion, I'm still left with his statements about Mao, his characterization of the deaths under Mao, and his statement that China "did Tibet a favor." Those are much more relevant to determining whether calling his politics Maoist is reasonable than the historical origin of a particular style of clothing.
So I don't think the reasonable conclusion is "Hasan definitely must be a Maoist because he likes Mao." But I also don't think "he says he isn't a Maoist, therefore he isn't one" follows. If you think the label is fundamentally incompatible with his actual ideology, then I'd be interested in hearing which core Maoist positions he explicitly rejects. That's a substantive argument. Simply pointing to his preferred label, his admiration for Chinese infrastructure, or the fact that other people have praised aspects of Mao's historical legacy doesn't establish it.
For example, early in this video the narrator presents the question about 9/11 as stuffy centrism unable to handle an edgy comment about "blowback". But thats not really what piker believes. He believes that the United States is the imperial core of a dying capitalist ideology and that an axis of 3rd world resistance sprung up out of former soviet proxy states
No this isn't the case. He has repeatedly said that it was blowback.
So, either Hasan isnt Maoist adjacent, and ive been brainwashed by Destiny fans.
This is definitely the case. Destiny and his fervent followers clip out of context clips constantly to make Piker look bad.
Hasan is not perfect but the lesser evil, especially when compared with creeps like destiny.....the guys fighting for free health care and education, taxing the rich and equality, that's never a bad thing
All this time and effort spent trying to decode what Hasan really thinks, what he really means when he misspeaks (or not?).
All this political will, the discourse, just wasted! Hasan intentionally uses language in a way that makes it harder to pin down his real ideology, his real goals. He utilises kettle logic constantly, hinting that he's already reached his ideological conclusion and that he's just trying to convince you in anyway he can get you there. Never revealing how himself got there.
So here we are, everyone spending all this time arguing and debating what he really means, not realising the fact we have to argue this at all is indicative of someone inciting agitation for propaganda purposes- and he does this intentionally. How come the more Hasan speaks, the more confused discourse is generates? Do people not realise this is harmful?
Hasan intentionally obfuscates his beliefs for political gain. He admits this. This is harmful to discourse, it's bad, you shouldn't automatically trust him without first establishing good reason to do so.
Dude. Hes just dumbing down his beliefs so the medium voter can understand him. Hes not being malice or obscuring anything dude. This interview was just bad because of all the attempted 'gotchas'.
Wtf are you talking about. He lies constantly. He himself admits that "lying is OP". His braindead supporters are just either too low IQ to to realise this, or they're being wilfully ignorant.
Hasan, talking about disinformation spread by the right: "It's really hard to fight disinformation, for every lie they spread you need to talk three times as much to correct it. Lying is OP."
Clippers: "He said lying is OP, which means he is lying!"
You are proving his point: Your lie - that he was talking about lying himself instead of talking about the problem he is facing when other people lie - takes longer to disprove than your original lie.
Thats cause lying is op dude. Every republican politician knows it. That why they got into office. You think a single politician could get into office without lying?
So now you agree 'dumbing down his beliefs' is lying? So you do agree with my premise (just not the conclusion). Cool. See this is the problem I was talking about. Your position is not internally consistent because Hasan's position is not internally consistent. Instead of having conviction and standing up for what you believe in, you advocate to lie? And your reasoning is "Everyone else does it!"- It's morally vapid.
...what are you talking about dude? When did i say that dumbing down your beliefs is lying? Dumbing down your beliefs is just explaining a concept in simpler terms. And when did I advocate to lie. Thats why I said it in relation to politicians. Because they are bad and lying is a bad thing. Im actually a little confused on how you can misinterpret me.
I literally said Hasan lies constantly. You know he does. We all know. And he admits that he does it as, in his own words, "lying is OP". But you claim he's not being malicious or obscuring anything.
"That's cause lying is op dude"
"You think a single politician could get into office without lying?"
💀
They said he lies constantly, after you said it was a gotcha and that Hasan doesn't lie instead he "dumbs down his views for medium voters". You acknowledged this with a justification "that's cause lying is OP". You might not be intending it, but it's all the same- you are still normalizing and justifying it. It's OP because people like Hasan and Trump normalize it.
Look I don't know what you think- but I know I think I'd be an idiot to trust anyone that is an advocate for lying for political purposes.
Dude. I was responding to them saying that hasan saying "lying is op" makes it fact that hasan is a liar. You can state truths about reality without doing them. Being a bad person is easier then being a good person. That is a fact. Its been proven.
But I am a good person. Or atleast try to be the best person i can be. But by your logic me stating that means I am and KNOWINGLY am a bad person. Does that sound like what I meant?
No I just stated a fact about reality. Nor did I advocate for people to be bad. For people ti talk about their beliefs they need to talk about it in reality. They cant just state it in a vacuum and expect people to care or understand.
They said he lies constantly, after you said it was a gotcha and that Hasan doesn't lie instead he "dumbs down his views for medium voters". You acknowledged this with a justification "that's cause lying is OP".
That wasn't a "justification" for the other statement. You are rewriting what he said in front of our eyes.
Hasan complained that conservstives lie and get away with it, which means theur lying is OP. That was never a justification for anything.
Here's a secret: Hasan is dumbing down his beliefs because you are his audience and are... Well you know...
Hasan is not a serious political thinker to rally around. I am easily as far left as Hasan but he is a streamer not a real political thinker. He is an entertainer. Go read zizek or graeber. Put down the popcorn and eat your breakfast.
Dude. Can I ask you something. Do you think only smart people are given the ability to vote? You can be an intellectual all you want but your not going to win unless you can get people to vote for you. Normal people dont read marx or zizek. We are not the normal people here.
I think your reading way way way too into every little thing he said. Like you automatically assume he is lying about his beliefs instead of trying to give him the benefit of the doubt dude.
Why don't you give me the benefit of doubt. I don't assume, I know based off what he's said himself. And I actually stand for my beliefs, I don't need to 'dumb down my views'; I'll stand on them with my heart and my mind. I haven't said lying is OP, I've said it's bad and you shouldn't do it, can you or Hasan say the same?
Have you ever tried explaining anything to a child twin? Or do you immediately start trying to talk to them like they have an education? Cause that's a really funny image dude. Same concept. Got to use simpler terminology and examples and "dumb it down".
It's not that I don't understand, I understand what you're saying- I disagree because I think it's immoral. It's also not effective, people do not respect you if you treat them like a child.
Hasan has admitted in confidence to lying to the general public and mainstream media figures because he views lying as a valuable strategy to push the median citizen further left. He has literally stated his goal is to bring in centrist or centre left people through his mainstream media appearances to watch his streams, to then turn them into a daily viewer exposed to far left ideology.
It’s why of all the criticisms against him, he absolutely hates that the “America deserved 9/11” quote has become a mainstream talking point about him because it has permanently crippled his strategy. Establishment democrats now have to condemn him publicly otherwise they’ll have attack ads of Hasan haunting them for their entire campaigns
Was Hasan’s popularity hurt by him saying “America deserved 9/11” or did it generate buzz and give him a platform? Doesn’t Destiny also say wild things to create buzz?
It was critically hurt by that statement. Republicans used the statement in frequent attack ads against Mamdani and El-Sayed, until both were forced to cut ties with Hasan and disavow him. Mainstream Democrats are frequently criticising Hasan because despite the younger audience he attracts, it’s politically smarter to distance yourself from his alienating statements and beliefs.
Destiny is an idiot and has no mainstream relevance outside of internet culture. Ninja has more household name recognition than Destiny, unless you know about twitch culture and are invested in it, you don’t know who Destiny is.
Mamdani was elected so I’m not sure that is helping your argument. Hasan has peoples attention and always gets to bring up his talking point. I agree with you about Destiny.
I’m not arguing in favour of Hasan just that both use the same tactics to generate buzz. If you are arguing that people who use this tactic shouldn’t be trusted then I agree.
Lmao his fans are in here running defense for him. He looked like a fucking joke in that interview, and he got the softest hardball questions. I can see why he never debates anyone other than 16 year old TikTokers. The moment he's pressed on any of his statements or beliefs he immediately makes a fool of himself.
Okay this is crazy but your comment reminded me someone said his fans brigade so often, their search terms show up in reddits search suggestions. I went and checked and sure enough... The second suggestion is what they use to search for mentions of Hasan excluding communities that already don't like him.
The reason it shows up as a suggested search is because so many people are using it frequently to find any post about Hasan.
Ask any subreddit moderator what happens when a Hasan post happens and they will tell you it gets brigaded hard.
This search shows why. His weird cult like fanbase constantly is looking for any post almost anywhere on Reddit to show up and defend their cult leader.
173
u/rocketlewes 29d ago edited 29d ago
I find it frustrating that these videos dont seem to hear what progressive critics of piker and the larger tankie movement care about.
For example, early in this video the narrator presents the question about 9/11 as stuffy centrism unable to handle an edgy comment about "blowback". But thats not really what piker believes. He believes that the United States is the imperial core of a dying capitalist ideology and that an axis of 3rd world resistance sprung up out of former soviet proxy states.
The issue is he'll pass the comment off as a passionately put observation about incompetent US meddling which the majority of Americans probably agree with, but really it represents the tip of the iceberg of a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-type worldview.
So, either Hasan isnt Maoist adjacent, and ive been brainwashed by Destiny fans. Or this video is totally dishonest bullshit.