redtea

I'll take a listen if I can. But I'm not sure how much domestic US politics I can stomach.

Desai tends to be good, too. She says a few things that make me wince. I thought she was a Trotskyist. Her book is based on Trotsky's lines on uneven and combined development, although she keeps the praise kind of academic. Like Trotsky is just a good source/starting point for this idea. But then when I hear here speak, I get the impression she isn't overly keen on China/AES, hence the stronger Trotskyist vibes. A lot of academic 'Marxists' are like this.

Remember that my claim was that Hudson had clearly read Marx. You challenged that claim. I'm not arguing that he is or claims to me a Marxist. I'm not trying to 'defend' further than to say that his economic analyses shouldn't be ignored. I'm arguing that there is evidence to suggest that he has read Marx. Maybe that is only Theories of Surplus Value, maybe more, but Hudson has almost certainly read Marx.

Edit: who’s his audience that makes it ok with the Nazi website someone mentioned above?

Come on now, let's keep this in good faith. I was responding to your comment, not theirs, and in a different context. My point was that if Hudson is in an interview with e.g. Norton, assuming a US audience interested in a different view but which usually gets it's news from other US sources, he might appropriately say things trying to persuade the audience that XYZ is a good idea, leaving it to the audience to decide how to implement that idea. We're talking about an audience that largely doesn't seem to understand that neoliberalism isn't the only option. It's going to need a lot of work to shift the overton window.

That'll be a day to celebrate. 🎉

You got 'em, there. These Lemmygradders haven't been correct about anything yet. All their predictions turn to dust.

This marks the era of appropriately named US politicians.

Scary as fuck to most of the planet. The scarier thing is that it's not just USians who look at you gone out if you question it. That shit runs far and wide. Truly the diarrhea of propaganda.

I responded to this in my other comment but in addition I agree that neoliberalism was a poor choice. I don't think you can read much into this kind of thing unless you (a) ask for clarification and more detail and/or (b) know who he thinks is the intended audience. I don't think there's much inherently wrong with pointing out the US's missteps. The difference may be in how the message is delivered.

We had an exchange in that top thread. I'm still unconvinced. A useful exercise would be to consider the extent to which Hudson's work displays an understanding and application of Marxism, rather than focusing on what he gets wrong, if anything.

It seems to need that there's a purity thing going on here, criticising MH for not doing XYZ when the real question is, okay, 'To what extent are his economic analyses correct/accurate?'

It's a leap to go from MH misunderstands Marx, to MH isn't a Marxist, to MH hasn't read Marx.

The second thread leaves me leaning towards my original position. That MH broadly knows what he's talking about and has clearly read Marx. I'm fairly sure that MH could go through Day's work and find faults based on his perspective; in the same way as Day can go through MH's work and find faults based on his perspective. But we couldn't conclude that Day hasn't read Marx just because MH would say he's weak on this or that aspect of Marx/ism. Day is generally good and I love redsails but he's not a final authority.

We all have to focus on something when we talk or write, which means deciding what to leave out. We all take different things from texts, too. It's a bit futile to conclude that someone else is wrong or hasn't understood something/anything just because they emphasise something different in an article or talk or take something different from a text than someone else.

Even some great Marxists have erred, spotted their errors, and changed their views. Including Marx and Engels. A more recent pair is Hindess and Hurst, who followed up a strong tract with an 'auto-critique'. Some go the other way, like Kautsky. It's dangerous territory to proclaim that someone isn't a Marxist or hasn't even read Marx on the basis of one-sided criticisms that emphasise errors or slips of which the writer/speaker may be aware. At the very least, we need to hear from the other side.

As for MH advocating reforms to reverse imperialism and return to industrial capitalism, I don't necessarily see it. There's another viable interpretation if you begin with the premise that MH knows Marx. Something like, for domestic progress to be made in the US, the US is going to have to retreat from neoliberal finance capitalism and move through a reindustrialisation phase under a socialist government as in China. Unless he's explicitly ruling out socialist governance, I see no reason to conclude that he must misunderstand the historical chronology.

I also don't see the issue with framing neoliberalism as a choice. There are a lot of factors that go in to making that choice, and there are myriad decision-makers. But it's not inevitable. If it's not a choice, the implication is that socialists may as well not bother fighting for a different future.

Advocating for a political economy with a better balance of industry/finance does not imply a belief that it's possible by flicking a switch like turning on a light. From what I've seen, I have no reason to believe that MH is a light-switcher.

Again, maybe I'm missing something, but I wouldn't be confident in claiming that MH thinks reindustrialisation is possible in the US as the US is currently constituted. I would give him more credit and assume he knows that shifting to a Chinese-style political economy entails massive change.

Maybe I've not read enough of his work, but I haven't interpreted MH as saying that.

I'm unsure what you've read or heard that gives the impression that MH doesn't know about those things.

I don't see how he could reach some of his conclusions without having understood Marx. You've got to remember that there's a lot that people can take from Marx, and there are fierce differences of opinion within the tradition.

And there's a way of writing that doesn't use the jargon. I'd argue that approach can be a more effective way of communicating to a wider audience in many cases. Maybe that's where your critique is coming from?

Hear me out. US bourgeoisie is essentially British aristocrats who knew when to keep quiet and when to speak up. They've been upset since that interview where the Chinese diplomat laughs at the idea that China is in competition with Britain. One or more of them has convinced Biden to increase tariffs to make the Brits feel better – at least they'll be able to say that they compete with the US in steel production.

That's my view, too. We also don't know what's said behind closed doors. And the consequence of crossing a red line doesn't have to be a military response. China does seem to respond when it's red lines are crossed, it just does so subtly.

Someone well worth reading. He grew up in a Trotskyist household. Became a banker/economist. His mentor agreed to mentor him if he read Marx, Theories of Surplus Value and everything cited in it. Hence Hudson's ability to see and explain how bourgeois economics works and why and where it fails/will fail. He wrote a report that made him semi famous and apparently wealthy; later published as a book now in it's third edition, Superimperialism.

Just don't expect a Leninist conclusion of 'that's why we need a revolution and here's how to do it'. He frequently kinda implies that all the bad things will simply disappear due to the weight of capitalist contradictions.

Have to admit, he's hard going even for me, who's read a reasonable amount of political economy. It's the same with his video/audio recordings and writing, tbh. I struggle to follow what he's saying because of the structure. He kind of starts too far into the argument IMO but you can piece things together by the end.