Read on Twitter
Lots of well poisoning at the beginning there. Almost seems like we're not dealing with a good faith interlocutor. 
The statement that some leftists are "insufferable" is a wholly subjective assessment based on V's particular sensibilities. https://twitter.com/VaushV/status/1296642227939106817
The statement that some leftists are "insufferable" is a wholly subjective assessment based on V's particular sensibilities. https://twitter.com/VaushV/status/1296642227939106817
In this case, it's worth noting that V's sensibilities are identical with that of the establishment within the Democratic party. What is "insufferable" to him is equally insufferable to, say, Nancy Pelosi.
The point re: Lenin and tactics seems misplaced as this is clearly not just a matter of tactics for V, at least not in the political arena. Rather, V is employing a certain tactic to get clicks. He's exploiting a rift between libs and leftists to produce a meaningless spectacle.
Chomsky is basically useless on this matter. He is employing a script that may have been relevant at one point, but every election cycle he belabors the "lesser of two evils" argument and the country has shifted further and further to the right for decades.
Vaush gets hopelessly confused vis a vis the distinction between principles and tactics. Frankly, this is embarrassing to watch. He keeps appealing to consequentialism which must hinge on some set of principles. He's just displacing where the principles come into play.
I am perfectly okay going down the consequentialist rabbithole with him, since it is an open question to me as to whether a Biden presidency will have worse consequences in the long term for not just the US, but the world. I don't think it's obvious.
Trump's presidency is a dismal failure on every level, but he very clearly not caused as much harm as, say, Bush. It's also important to note that elements of Obama's presidency were carried forward with Trump. The deportations, the drone bombings, etc.
Not to mention the expansion of presidential authority vis a vis executive orders. Who is to say the same will not be true of a feckless neoliberal like Biden? What aspects of his presidency will be carried forward when an actual competent fascist emerges?
I am not saying there's an obvious answer here, and that's the point. The utilitarian calculus that Vaush performs is highly questionable when you extend the scope to include the world's inhabitants, not just the US.
The point about Bernie being a "counter revolutionary reformist" is somewhat ahistorical. We are living in fundamentally different conditions in terms of the political makeup of the country, and a Sanders presidency may have enabled some revolutionary conditions.
For instance, #M4A would've been a game changer in terms of the gaining some semblance of leverage for workers. And when workers see gains in this respect, it's empowering.
That said, Lenin was weary of mere "trade union consciousness" but he was operating at a time when that was actually a real possibility! Rampant deunionization in the US surely changes calculus.
The emphasis on one's individual morality when it comes to voting is pretty tiresome. This is freshman level ethics, not a real attempt to engage in some discourse.
Vaush strawmans the "infantile ultra leftists" (another forced ahistorical comparison). V says their claim is that it's "treacherous" to participate in bourgeois elections. No, the argument is, electoralism sucks the energy out of more consequential endeavors.
Re: using elections to gauge the power of the working class, that seems like a moot point considering the working class's distinct lack of participation in previous elections in aggregate. There's no reason to think it will be different this time around.
I'd argue this point would be more relevant with Bernie, much less so with Biden. I think the average working class person has rightfully assessed that the distinction between establishment Dems and the GOP is largely nominal.
This outcome/principle distinction is only relevant for those who think it's morally wrong to vote in general, which I'd argue is such a small contingent of people that they're not worth addressing (other than for the shallow purposes of getting clicks).
Vaush is using the "infantile ultraleftists" as a scapegoat to garner clicks and engagement in the same way that people like Carl of Akkad used the "regressive left." He's building a brand, not a political project.
Re: Lenin advocating for the formation of a parliamentary voting bloc between labor and communists, we are so adrift from this. just seems like ahistorical posturing and mindless appeals to the authority of people who were operating in a totally different historical situation.
The idea that Biden represents the "opinions of the masses" in this very forced analogy is...hilarious. I don't know why anyone takes this guy seriously.
The number of people who voted for Biden in the primary pales in comparison to the number of people who simply do not vote. He does not represent a majority of people, much less "the masses" of workers. This is so dumb. lmao
Same goes for the # of people who voted for Clinton in 2016, btw. Our elections do not have popular legitimacy.
V undermines his own argument by emphasizing the bourgeois (read: capitalist class) character of both parties and Marx's inability to predict prevailing countertendencies which propel the continuation of capitalism as a general mode of production (the latter is exaggerated by V).
The fact that both Marx and Lenin advocated strategic voting is not contentious. What *is* contentious is that they would have supported Biden. V seems to think he's made the case, but his view is based on an overly broad ahistorical analysis.
V mistakes the fact that the working class is perpetually brutalized for the "complacency of the proletariat," a frankly perverse remark from a Beverly Hills rich kid, in relative terms. The middle classes may be complacent. The working class is wholly oppressed.
For the record, I don't think voting is "treacherous." lmao
However, I do think placing an emphasis on the morality of individuals with respect to voting is liberal bullshit. And V oversimplifies the dilemma to such a degree that his commentary is basically worthless.
However, I do think placing an emphasis on the morality of individuals with respect to voting is liberal bullshit. And V oversimplifies the dilemma to such a degree that his commentary is basically worthless.
