Yes but he’s doing it in a way that is not a threat to the ruling class and arguably even helps it. They like it when people that would otherwise radicalize adopt a false catharsis of arriving at nice-sounding conclusions with no concrete actions to take. They also like the implicit nationalism in his selective telling of history. They will also like his hand-waving away of “left vs. right” about anything that isn’t explicitly labeled economic, as rather than forcing a focus on the political economic basis of oppression and poverty, it lends itself to a liberal class reductionism where you cannot align your thoughts and demands with those marginalized and oppressed at the behest of the ruling class. “The culture war” is not just distracting rhetoric, it directs violence and oppression. It is a false consciousness for those who follow it and do the oppressing, e.g. racists, but it is generally not that for the oppressed, it is, for example, poverty and alienation and exclusion and internalized racism.
Presenting it like Gary has done fails to reach the correct synthesis, again likely because of his poor understanding of history, politics, and economics, and it creates a choice for the marginalized who listen. Do they:
Just try to look past it, seeing yet another guy that mostly doesn’t get it but has useful tidbits?
Buy in and begin denying their own experiences and robbing their politics of oppression that is not explicitly economic?
Reject him as someone dismissive of oppression and their experience?
I am normally pretty charitable with people trying to spread even vague class consciousness but Gary’s ignorant, liberal, and reductionist form tends to backfire on top of being incorrect.
It doesn’t. It only requires summarizing, which he is already doing. The problem is not that he’s oversimplifying for brevity, it is that his analysis is ignorant and incorrect.
Yes but he’s doing it in a way that is not a threat to the ruling class and arguably even helps it. They like it when people that would otherwise radicalize adopt a false catharsis of arriving at nice-sounding conclusions with no concrete actions to take. They also like the implicit nationalism in his selective telling of history. They will also like his hand-waving away of “left vs. right” about anything that isn’t explicitly labeled economic, as rather than forcing a focus on the political economic basis of oppression and poverty, it lends itself to a liberal class reductionism where you cannot align your thoughts and demands with those marginalized and oppressed at the behest of the ruling class. “The culture war” is not just distracting rhetoric, it directs violence and oppression. It is a false consciousness for those who follow it and do the oppressing, e.g. racists, but it is generally not that for the oppressed, it is, for example, poverty and alienation and exclusion and internalized racism.
Presenting it like Gary has done fails to reach the correct synthesis, again likely because of his poor understanding of history, politics, and economics, and it creates a choice for the marginalized who listen. Do they:
Just try to look past it, seeing yet another guy that mostly doesn’t get it but has useful tidbits?
Buy in and begin denying their own experiences and robbing their politics of oppression that is not explicitly economic?
Reject him as someone dismissive of oppression and their experience?
I am normally pretty charitable with people trying to spread even vague class consciousness but Gary’s ignorant, liberal, and reductionist form tends to backfire on top of being incorrect.
That’s a hell of an analysis to fit into a short YouTube video. That would require a major video essay, something which Gary doesn’t do.
It doesn’t. It only requires summarizing, which he is already doing. The problem is not that he’s oversimplifying for brevity, it is that his analysis is ignorant and incorrect.