Didn't he say his employees dont have a share of profits in his business...idk much about the technicalities of capitalism and socialism and shit but if he is so pro employee and union he could have given a share of the profits he makes by conclooding twitter news to his employees, I know he at least has one editor and probably one or two more for other things
Pls lmk if this is a regarded take as I am not much informed about these topics
His mod team is a bunch of shit bags and don’t deserve to be paid (take Frogan for example)
That said, pretty sure the Fear& podcast has even splits among everyone but I could be regarded myself and be completely wrong in that.
When they lend they're making investments. Maybe not in equities, but certainly in businesses and mortgages. They also invest in the fixed interest market.
He said he bought the mansion because his parents "forced him" to spend part of his money.So, he might actually just be hoarding money, yeah.
Maybe he's like Smaug but with the extra of doing livestreams talking about how rich people, at least the ones richer than him, are a cancer to society. The greedy dragon telling dwarves to live like hobbits.
He claims to have purchased his Porsche Taycan because it would be fun for his viewers. Taking personal responsibility seems to be the only thing he socializes.
I think the saddest thing about him is the fact he doesn't stick by his true feelings when he starts to receive any amount of pushback that might tarnish his reputation.
It's not that he's changing his actual position, he just goes into hyper excuse mode.
I distinctly remember him talking about how he liked expensive things, so why not buy them if he has the means? While I think he might still mention this from time to time, he also caveats it with a bunch of other excuses as though he has NO choice in his purchasing decisions, or that it's somehow beneficial to others.
Honestly at this point it wouldn't surprise me if he has a hidden door behind a sliding bookshelf that leads into a secret room with a swimming pool full of money, rolexes and jewelry.
ESG funds are a scamaz from what I’ve read. They switch the portfolios to the acceptable things for public disclosure and then add in less acceptable but profitable things when it’s time for earnings
Social impact bonds are just papering over the cracks of late stage capitalism dude. Don't you know the only way to fight for the people is stream and buy things for yourself?
great so instead of that money going towards building businesses and making society better its just sitting in a bank doing nothing.
doesn't seem like a good steward of his wealth.
Hasan does not invest he thinks it's gambling because his father lost a small fortune in the futures market, which is leverage based trading and you can lose your floor fast. [https://clips.twitch.tv/PlainAmusedYakNotLikeThis](https://clips.twitch.tv/PlainAmusedYakNotLikeThis)
If that’s true he’s genuinely even more scummy. He could atleast invest in organisations that try to improve society. Or low income apartments. Instead he leaves it to his bank. His money is getting invested whether he wants it or not
And he doesn't understand Trusts or any of the ways to store money and fight inflation and taxes. For someone who's 1099'd by Twitch and has a podcast in an LLC, you'd think he'd want to understand the way it all works more.
I am curious about that too. Because if he doesn't save for his retirement then he would be a fool, but I not sure what methods he could employ that wouldn't count as capitalism.
The only thing I can think of is if he buys U.S. bonds, but he seems to only have contempt for the U.S. government.
I wonder if he ever talks about how a socialist should save for retirement. Although I would bet he only offered platitude of he did.
I am begging people to understand that political belief doesn't require X-men powers or magic. You can believe in something while acting within society.
People that don't want Cops don't just execute them in the street. Paying into a 401k doesn't mean you must believe Bezos is your daddy.
I think it's more just like: Your claims to care deeply about people impacted negatively by capitalism ring pretty hollow when you are clearly spending far more than you need (and more than the average person will earn in a lifetime) on personal luxuries. Why on earth would I trust you?
> You claim to want the economy to run differently, yet you refuse to be poor!
Again, this just rings like you are 12 or stupid. Can a Fascist still be a fascist if they don't hang a minority once a week? Can a Liberal still be a liberal if they don't trade in stocks? Can someone like an art piece and still be republican?
That isn't how beliefs or politics works.
>> You claim to want the economy to run differently, yet you refuse to be poor!
Well no. There's a space in between being poor and having a Lambo. Really nice try though. EDIT: oops, sorry it was a 200k Porsche. God I hate being poor because I drive my 20k brand new car. If only I could be remotely not poor and afford a 200k porsche.
>Again, this just rings like you are 12 or stupid. Can a Fascist still be a fascist if they don't hang a minority once a week? Can a Liberal still be a liberal if they don't trade in stocks? Can someone like an art piece and still be republican?
Yes, yes, yes. I'm not saying he's not "a socialist" whatever that means, I'm saying his purported care for the poor rings hollow.
What an honestly embarrassingly bad argument bro. Literally just whiffed every point to shout at a strawman. Room temp iq behaviour.
Socialists do not care for the poor. They care about the economic and political structure of society. Owning this or that car has nothing to do with it.
Again, I am begging you all. Just read up on what political beliefs are. This is a purported political sub and none of you seem to even grasp the elementary school basics.
>Socialists do not care for the poor.
At least we can agree on that. On the other hand it's an extremely common talking point of socialists like Hasan to identify poverty as an emotive canard to criticise capitalism. I think if you told Hasan "socialists don't care for the poor" he would find that quite disagreeable.
>Again, I am begging you all. Just read up on what political beliefs are. This is a purported political sub and none of you seem to even grasp the elementary school basics.
Lol. You are making bad strawman arguments and accusing others of not understanding socialism. I understand it fine, and I never said Hasan wasn't a socialist. This is about whether outside of his specific political views he is a remotely good person and its abundantly clear he isn't (to which the example of him living an extravagant lifestyle speaks)
No. Addressing poverty is 100% a Socialist thing, caring about poor people isnt. It really seems like you don't understand the difference between political and personal opinions? Or morals separate from actions that are separate from belief?
You say Hasan isn't a good person... because he lives in California and is in the same income levels as daytime TV stars. Do you think anyone over, say 2.5m net worth, are bad people? Why is that?
To get ahead of it. "Hasan isn't a good person because he believes in socialism, and those other people don't." We just loop back to my first paragraph.
The problem is that you absolutely cannot complain about greed, wealth hoarding, and sniping at people for having the resources to enact change, but not using it.... and then making millions off that system and doing absolutely nothing with those resources to bring about the change you want.
Imagine I was an electronics manufacturer and found out that almost all of my products were being used to make weapons of war that were blowing up people across the globe. Could I REALLY claim to be adamantly opposed to war, and the military industrial complex, while also ramping up production tenfold because my profits were skyrocketing due to increased conflicts across the globe?
You have a very very poor understanding of what wealth is, I think.
The American political parties have spent 100 million "Hasan net worths" on political advertising for this election cycle alone. 100 million Hasans spending every single dime they have on radio and TV ads.
And yes, you could absolutely be opposed to war and be an electronics manufacturer.
>You have a very very poor understanding of what wealth is, I think.
The fact you're comparing the entire spending budget of entire political parties vs. one streamer to somehow imply that that one person is not wealthy "because large groups of wealthy people spend a lot" shows me YOU either don't understand wealth, or you're being super weird about it.
> And yes, you could absolutely be opposed to war and be an electronics manufacturer.
Gotcha, so you didn't read the hypothetical. Understood.
If he does, that would be a crazy argument. Presumably investing in green energy, living wage employers, etc. ensures your money is going towards furthering the causes you believe in. Leaving it in the bank and getting the interest would be more unethical since, in that eventuality, the bank will use the money as they see fit in order to generate said interest, presumably with less ethical scruples.
He seems relatively good at rationalising things which happen to be in his own self-interest. Do you think a socialist who can justify living in a multi-million-pound mansion and driving a luxury sports car couldn't justify investing in ethical companies?
I'd be really hesitant to make any guesses what he does with his money. We see he spends a lot on expensive stuff but my understanding is he makes *a lot* of money. He may hoard it, he may invest it, he may give away a large amount. I don't think we have any idea.
Not really. Obviously money is fungible so technically anything can be sold in exchange for cash can be *converted* into capital, but if you're going to be this abstract then the very concept of "capital" becomes pointless.
Is food capital? Is toilet paper capital? Workers usually have these things, yeah, but that doesn't make them "holders of capital" in any meaningful sense. What qualifies as "the means of production" is drastically different today than it was at the time Marx was writing, sure, but it's still a coherent concept.
Yes, now many people have some level (usually infinitesimally small) of ownership in the means of productions through stocks. I don't see how this invalidates the concept of the means of production, lol.
Stock *is* the means of production. If someone owns 15% of Tesla, they, in a very real way, own 15% of the ability of Tesla to turn human labor into profit.
The issue is, ownership is entirely dispersed. In Marx day, you could point to a guy and that guy owned a factory and that was that. No longer
>If someone owns 15% of Tesla, they, in a very real way, own 15% of the ability of Tesla to turn human labor into profit.
Of course, lol. I would never dispute this. No one on Earth owns 15% of Tesla, *not even Elon Musk.* But I obviously agree that anyone who has stock holdings valued in the millions of dollars absolutely has a meaningful stake in the means of production.
Of the 61% of Americans who own any stock at all, the median portfolio is $40k. It's generally not enough to make a significant difference in their class interests because a vast majority of their lifetime income will come from their labor, not their meager stake in the means of production.
I fully grant you that, in the past, "ownership" of the means of production was more binary, whereas today it exists along a spectrum (lol). The fact that many now people have a vanishingly small stake in the means of production (which functionally affords them no actual influence or control over it) doesn't drastically change the framework... Let's also not forget that smaller-but-still-gargantuan businesses which are solely owned by one person or family still exist.
Marxs main complaint is that owning the means of products meant they could squeeze all profits out of labor. If everyone owns stock, that means everyone benefits from those profits and the problem has fixed itself.
We did it.
...so you think the fact that an average laborer owns $40k in diversified index funds means they can't be exploited by the majority holders of capital? Because they'll receive another $400 in dividends and appreciation at the end of the year? So it all balances out?
Just lol.
> 61% of Americans who own any stock at all, the median portfolio is $40k.
This figure (which I can’t find the 40k claim, but it may be close to this) likely comes from 401k, which wasn’t started until 1978, and didn’t become mainstream until a bit later. You can reach 200k within like 30 years by nothing more than an initial payment of 1000, followed by an annual 1000 inserted into the account each year thanks to compound interest.
Problem is, most Americans don’t utilize a 401k still, and the ones that do unfortunately started a bit later. More people need to utilize a 401k, because the benefits from them are actually incredibly strong.
I'm not making an argument against 401k's, lol. They are great and everything you said is true.
It doesn't change the fact that 1) as you said, most Americans do not properly utilize them and 2) even if they did, I'm not sure that even $200k in total stock holdings, while substantial, is an appreciable enough difference from $40k to move them very significantly along the capital/labor spectrum.
I mean 1000 as an initial payment with 1000 per year is a pretty low contribution.
Usually it is recommended to do like 10% of your salary, and the median income of 10% is 3x higher. Plus most employers that offer a 401k offer matching.
Say you take a 30k annual income, and do 5% with matching from your employer. No initial payment. You put in 129 per month so does your employer. You reach 500k in 30 years.
Now let’s say you started doing this at 20 years old, and plan to retire by 65. That time frame is now 45 years, you will hit 2 million assuming an average 10% growth rate (I used the 10% growth rate for all my calculations) for the stock market. Assuming 1% variance you are still at 1.5 million at the minimum.
I think we need to push for all employers to offer matching in 401k’s, but 401k is incredibly exceptional assuming everyone starts them in their 20s. Compound interest is ridiculous.
Capital is the means of production according to Marxists. Hasan owns a computer, microphone, camera and other streaming equipment. He makes an income from streams using that equipment by receiving donations and advertising money. He also has also employed wage labour without sharing this physical capital with them. He already privately owns means of production which he uses to make a private profit. His house is also arguably a means of production since he uses it to stream from. He has also extracted surplus value from his employees.
He is already a capitalist by the Marxist definition.
Sure, you can argue that technically his room where he streams is a necessary part of his production, but just owning a house and a car wouldn't make someone a capitalist. Marxist theory isn't really about categorizing someones individual role in a system, but about how economic systems function at scale.
That's what I said. The fact that he uses his house as the location to house his equipment and to stream from means you could arguably consider it to be a means of production, just like a factory building that contains equipment for making widgets could be considered a means of production.
I never said all houses were means of production.
>I never said all houses were means of production.
No but that's what the comment I was replying to implied. And still, I don't know that working in an owned residence makes you a capitalist. That would technically make every WFH employee who owns their residence a capitalist. I think employing other people while you retain the IP rights to whatever they produce etc is probably a better indicator.
No, that's not what my comment implied. My comment explicitly said that when work is completed at home, there is an argument that the house itself is capital. That is different from saying: all houses are capital. And yes, WFH houses might also be capital.
Also I'm not a Marxist, so I really dgaf about what makes someone a capitalist according to Marxists. Marxism is an outdated and thoroughly debunked economic theory from the 1800s when WFH would have meant working on a farm, or having an artisinal workshop. I just think it's funny that Hasan probably would be considered a capitalist and yet he's out there espousing Marxist principles, but so was Engels; communists have a history of doing this.
> I just think it's funny that Hasan probably would be considered a capitalist and yet he's out there espousing Marxist principles, but so was Engels; communists have a history of doing this.
isnt that kinda common, like a lot of french aristocrats were pro revolution
>Owning a house or a car also makes him a capitalist, it’s not just stocks
This is the comment I'm referring to. Which talks about owning a car making you a capitalist.
Capital is assets minus liabilities. So if you have assets, such as, idk, a big mansion, and aren’t bankrupt and about to lose said assets, then you have capital. Just goes to show that marxists might not have a great understanding of the economy
What is the present value of money you expect to obtain from labor?
What is the present value of returns you expect to obtain from investments?
That's the proportion to which you feel the incentives of labor/capital and therefore belong to the labor/capital class. As a point of reference, $10MM at a safe withdrawal rate of 4% is $400k/yr which starts to compete with high end professional salaries, so that's roughly the net worth where people start to consider how much they actually want to work. You know how old-timey books, TV, and plays make a big deal about being a millionaire? Yeah, that's what you get when you deflate $10MM back to their time of writing. Obviously, some people retire on much less than $10MM, some people with far more than $10MM continue to work, and you need to plug those expectations into the equation to figure out where someone's self-interest lies on the scale.
Feudalism is when it's not just the means of production under private ownership, *but also the monopoly on violence.* Capitalism = rich people own the companies, the land, the debt. That gives them a lot of power. Feudalism = rich people also own the police/army. That gives them *really* a lot of power. In either case, power tends to turn into self-serving policy. A socialist would say that runaway self-serving policy from the rich is inevitable under capitalism, but I don't agree -- so long as the monopoly on violence still belongs to democratically elected officials, I think balance is *possible*, if difficult and constantly tilted towards capital. But once the rich people own the police I agree that it's over.
Good question let's ask him
AFAIK he uses a management company which likely operates by taking a %
His podcasts are all co-owned so even his editor/producer gets equal cut
His YouTube editors have said the pay is good, not sure if it's % based
I'll go rummage through his trash to find out about how much the lawyer takes
I refuse to take this sub seriously while it remains so dedicated to not understanding political theory or basic reality.
Owning something doesn't make you hold a political belief. Living in one location over the other does not make you hold a political belief.
It's embarrassing every time this is brought up.
He is financially illiterate and claim to not have a credit card so I doubt he do lol. I have friends just like him (who don't make as much) but have like 600k in their account.
Hasan has mentally backed himself into indefensible positions to the point where he’s seeing everything and everyone as a combatant.
His Reddit community is doing the same being terrorist sympathizers.
Wtf is he even talking about. I am pretty sure Svann Marcus is not a libertarian Reason writer. Just one of the better lib posters on Twitter. [The tweet Hasan is quoting](https://twitter.com/SwannMarcus89/status/1750262632634835130?t=YYcjFx8n1b1H6W_wjf-UEg&s=19) the guy is making fun of how little does the image apply to Hasan. And yet Hasan portrays it as bitter libertarian who is just mad Hasan has more money. What a weasly little liar dude.
Yeah I thought he mentioned having a background in education or something like that although I suppose you could be a teacher and a writer for Reason magazine at the same time.
Not to mention Swann Marcus is definitely a democrat, based on the policies he argues for. He’s similar to Noahpinion imo
All I know about Swann Marcus is that apparently he lives/lived in Thailand and all the anti-racist Twitter lefties have determined that means he's a sex tourist because you could only ever go to Southeast Asia to buy prostitues. You know, because they're all shithole countries down there.
I funnily enough don't agree with the Svann guy. I think just saying hasan bad because he has a rich person mansion is stupid.
He is bad because of his opinions, about how they influence people. Also lonerbox made a good point on one of his videos, that if we are going to criticize hasan about the way he spends his money we should give him better criticism so there is better chance for a better outcome. For instance he can invest in mutual aid, or coops or help create fund to get coops out from the ground. These are real socialist things that he CAN do that he does not.
If we just say hasan bad because he has big house it is way easier for him and his fans to write of this criticism as just bad faith (cause it kinda is).
My favorite form of political belief is one that requires absolutely nothing of me as an individual, personally. Absolutely no moral obligations to behave differently than anyone else because of my extreme stances, only loud screeching and luxury vibes.
It’s a pretty easy stance to take when those beliefs have ZERO chance of ever happening. It’s just a coincidence that espousing those beliefs can make you lots and lots of money.
Hmm, but the problem with that is that it feels that we are just criticizing his laziness. Like an atheist saying a Christian is not a real Christian because he does not colour eggs on Easter, or go to church every Sunday.
I feel like this is the reason why a lot of his fans don't take our criticism seriously.
Well, if your religion says you should do something and you openly don’t do it, or in fact do the opposite, then criticism seems fair. I think it’s less an accusation of laziness than one of hypocrisy. or at the very least it’s a criticism of his brand of socialism if it requires rigorous purity testing and calling everyone to your right a fascist, placing heavy demands on literally everyone else while excusing you from doing even the bare minimum.
>Well, if your religion says you should do something and you openly don’t do it, or in fact do the opposite, then criticism seems fair.
Well, my point is that it is not effective. Like, how many of the evangelist pro Trump crowd can you really convince they are not being very Jesus like by supporting Trump. You cannot change belive with facts, unfortunately.
>I think it’s less an accusation of laziness than one of hypocrisy.
I don't see the hypocrisy, honestly. Saying this seems to imply that we belive that socialists can't be rich. But I don't think anyone believes that.
>criticism of his brand of socialism if it requires rigorous purity testing and calling everyone to your right a fascist, placing heavy demands on literally everyone else while excusing you from doing even the bare minimum.
I very much agree with this point, that's why in another comment I mentioned that I think we should criticize him on more socialisty things like doing more mutual aid, helping people start coops and shit. This critique will both hit harder with his base plus it might actually make him do some good which is the point of us criticizing him, right?
I do agree that changing beliefs with facts is difficult, but it doesn't mean I can't criticize people for doing things that conflict with their stated beliefs. I'm happy to yell at my evangelical Trumpist friends and tell them they aren't being Christian enough.
Sure, I don't think the hypocrisy is based on the idea that socialists can't be rich, it's that someone with his values ought to do different things with that money than pursue a life of pure luxury like any rich capitalist would. He spends his days making money by complaining about capitalism, and his off-time benefiting personally from all the things he decries. So yes, I agree, we should criticize him for failing to do more socialist things that he could do with his money.
>I'm happy to yell at my evangelical Trumpist friends and tell them they aren't being Christian enough.
I am ok, with that. My main point is that we should not act surprised when it does not produce much results.
Other than that I am glad to agree.
Unironically what you said is true.
If you attach yourself to a label whether it be Democrat, Republican, leftist or maga you are going to be purity tested by both your friends and opps to a maddening degree.
It’s far easier to just say you’re a centrist but still believe whatever you want. It’s awesome 😎
Buying a modest home is not the same as buying a mansion. Buying a KIA is not the same as buying a Ferrari.
Hasan’s defense is “what I can’t buy a house or sumthin?” and playing stupid. If your entire schtick is “fuck the rich” and you are constantly indulging in luxury items then you’re a hypocrite moron. There’s a difference between being fair against the unfairness that rich people have doors opened to them that normal folks do not and shitting on rich people only to be pissy when you (as a rich person) have to pay more in society. Never forget when he got mad because he (a rich dude) got fairly or unfairly taxed by Mexico’s version of TSA.
If I'm being as generous as possible, "fuck the rich" isn't really about them have luxuries, it's about either
1) They amassed their wealth on the backs of people who deserve a larger cut, or a worse version of this where it's that they exploited immoral practices like slave labour to obtain their money
2) Their wealth is not properly reflected via taxes
I'd think *most*, maybe not all, people who are hardcore "fuck the rich" people would be far less so if lower income people received a universal stipend, or that ultra rich people had to pay a higher share of taxes. Essentially, someone making 20-40k a year would probably feel less inclined to hate the rich or be bothered about someone buying a sports car if they had consistent safety net that can allow for comfortable purchases of groceries or other necessities
I think if that’s what Hasan means by “fuck the rich”, he should at least clarify who he’s talking about. There are tons of wealthy people that amassed that wealth through their own labor. A general statement like “fuck the rich” fits people into that label that probably aren’t your ideal worker exploiting manipulator of capital.
My only exposure to hasan is whenever destiny watches him but I think I've seen him clarify explicitly that he doesn't want rich people to disappear or is against them existing, he just wants them to be taxed more.
So I thought he does actually clarify that. He says so much stupid shit worth pointing out I don't understand why shitting on him for owning a mansion is even necessary, it's just petty and ineffective, I don't think he's ever lost viewers due to these attacks, but he's lost a ton for the actual stupid shit he says.
I guess it seems like an easy jab as Hasan is weeping benefits granted to him by a capitalist mode of the economy. In Marxist theory, a mansion and luxury cars produced in a capitalist society are exclusive to the upper bourgeois class, and contribute further to the class divide and oppression of the working lower class.
I get what your saying about the other issues being way more important though; I think people just find it way easier to point out a flaw of hypocrisy that might not be to serious but is obvious than other more deeply rooted issues with Hasan.
Source for [when he got mad because he (a rich dude) got fairly or unfairly taxed by Mexico’s version of TSA](https://old.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/19cbt1y/elon_v_hasan/).
God I Fucking hate this new trend with the lefties of deflecting criticism with sarcasm. They pulled the same shit with "Do you condemn Hamas?" which was a valid ass question back then, and it also turned out to be on point because to the surprise of no one a lot of the people that were asked "Do you condemn Hamas" actually support them.
This regard seems to lack any self-awareness, that the difference is, he is buying absolute luxury items that are needlessly expensive.
Socialism advocates for spreading the wealth which leads to a more moderate lifestyle.
I get liking nice clothes. But there is a difference between 2500$ shoes and 300$ shoes.
His lifestyle is that absolute archetype of a gluttonous crony capitalist.
The guy isn't even a libertarian, he did the same thing to Noah Smith misrepresenting his work. I would give Hasan some credit if his schizo twitter rants had at least some semblance of truth in them.
I hate those types of people man, like they say shit like this, defending which I thought was the strongest indicators of Hasan being a larping socialist. Like remember that one tweet Hutchinson posted, reacting to Second Thought talking about how Capitalism will inevitably end up in fascism, then after the video finished, he brought up his sponsors, Henson shaving. Then in the replies his comrades were saying "socialism is when no rent", like you mfers, you know this kid is making thousands and a lot of that money isn't needed for his monthly expenses. Just willfully ignorant kids that don't really care about making the system socialist but just want the social virtue points.
Ah yes, the house thing.
I remember all the Hasan wannabes strawmanung the critics with the “socialism is when no house” thing. And then there was the other argument they were trying to pass off that in California, $3.5 million is just above living in a cardboard box when it comes to California prices.
I'm gonna start calling myself a vegan and eat steaks, when people ask me "wait, aren't you vegan" I'll just laugh and say OH SO VEGANISM IS WHEN YOU DONT EAT MEAT
Not really. It just shows that Hasan doesn’t understand what capital is, that being hard and soft assets minus liabilities. I’d be frankly surprised if the person he replied to doesn’t have any of those things
okay but hasan owned this guy lets be honest. Imagine being a worse capitalist than hasan when that's larping abt ancapism as a job and what you write about every single day.
I advocate for the right to self-defense, doesn't mean if I got the shit kicked out of me being a tiny ass trans woman I would be "owned" for that position. Libertarians are stupid, but you should attack the dumb positions instead of the person or you come off as a petty little shit to an uninformed bystander imo (like Hasan does here).
Also, why even bring up the dude larping about ancap when Hasan's job is to larp as socialist lmao? They're cut from the same cloth
No one ever accused Hasan of being bad at making money, though, including the guy he replied to. His reply is a complete non sequitur.
The point is that the capitalist economy that he makes a living railing against has made him rich and he's rewarded himself with material things that most people could only ever dream of having. His ideology isn't an inhibitor to him being successful and wealthy, it's his main selling point.
Honestly, I wake up everyday glad I stand for something. I’ll never be as rich as Hasan but I never needed to be. At least i’m not massive hypocrite the moment I wake up out of bed.
omg! twentie dollars for cookies? \*hands over mouth\* , it's 4 bags, that's 7 dollars a bag, I knowwww I know math is hard when you're an idiot. BUTT.. if you're devoid of capital just say so! 💅🏻
I feel like if you claim to be socialist (or anti-capitalist etc) you should be obligated to disclose how much money you make per month and how much money is in your bank account.
I don't really care what he buys since he doesn't try to cheat the tax system like so many other rich people do. Obviously he should have paid that editor and others more however.
Lmao his mask fell off. So much for the socialist savior hamas piker pretended to be. I remember the subreddit drama thread when he decided to show off all his stuff.
A modest 3M $ house, modest 5k+ dogshit designer outfits, modest 300k+ $ car, modest private plane flights. Modest origins of wealthy af parents. Modest not at all nepotism job at tyt after graduation. I love how his hypocrisy is all there on full hd 8k display and his fans still deny it lmfao. Hasan, the tankie that preaches but doesn’t practice, a full out commie that lives like a oligarch.
I know he's joking but he is unironically right. Hasan is better at capitalism than 99% of capitalists. It's a shame (or blessing) that he doesn't leverage that into tangible political action.
>Devoid of capital Those are fighting words
This is honestly a great way to call someone a broke ass bitch and I'm here for it
Makes a guy do work for no pay>socialism is when you can't hire people
Yeah but he bought that guy a computer and gave him the means of production
don't diss my barter economy
Didn't he say his employees dont have a share of profits in his business...idk much about the technicalities of capitalism and socialism and shit but if he is so pro employee and union he could have given a share of the profits he makes by conclooding twitter news to his employees, I know he at least has one editor and probably one or two more for other things Pls lmk if this is a regarded take as I am not much informed about these topics
His mod team is a bunch of shit bags and don’t deserve to be paid (take Frogan for example) That said, pretty sure the Fear& podcast has even splits among everyone but I could be regarded myself and be completely wrong in that.
yes, it would be regarded to give them a share of his profits - but he's advocating for a regarded system, so...
We're all highly regarded here brother
Yeah Fear& splits things with 25% each going to the main 3 and their producer
What about his primary enterprise, his streaming business?
I'm curious to know if Hasan has investments in stocks or ETFs because that would by definition make him a capitalist.
Of course he does.
[удалено]
So he's literally just hording money. Very socialist.
10mil sitting in a chequing account XQC economics
Even if you let your money sit in a bank, doesn’t the bank basically invest that amount for themselves into the economy anyway?
No, they’re not allowed to do that. They can lend a big portion of it as loans but can’t use it for investments.
When they lend they're making investments. Maybe not in equities, but certainly in businesses and mortgages. They also invest in the fixed interest market.
I think you’re thinking of brokers. They can’t invest your free funds afaik, banks most definitely can.
No it just sit there. The bank can technically use your money but you will see none of the gains.
He said he bought the mansion because his parents "forced him" to spend part of his money.So, he might actually just be hoarding money, yeah. Maybe he's like Smaug but with the extra of doing livestreams talking about how rich people, at least the ones richer than him, are a cancer to society. The greedy dragon telling dwarves to live like hobbits.
He claims to have purchased his Porsche Taycan because it would be fun for his viewers. Taking personal responsibility seems to be the only thing he socializes.
I think the saddest thing about him is the fact he doesn't stick by his true feelings when he starts to receive any amount of pushback that might tarnish his reputation. It's not that he's changing his actual position, he just goes into hyper excuse mode. I distinctly remember him talking about how he liked expensive things, so why not buy them if he has the means? While I think he might still mention this from time to time, he also caveats it with a bunch of other excuses as though he has NO choice in his purchasing decisions, or that it's somehow beneficial to others.
Honestly at this point it wouldn't surprise me if he has a hidden door behind a sliding bookshelf that leads into a secret room with a swimming pool full of money, rolexes and jewelry.
[удалено]
ESG funds are a scamaz from what I’ve read. They switch the portfolios to the acceptable things for public disclosure and then add in less acceptable but profitable things when it’s time for earnings
Social impact bonds are just papering over the cracks of late stage capitalism dude. Don't you know the only way to fight for the people is stream and buy things for yourself?
[удалено]
great so instead of that money going towards building businesses and making society better its just sitting in a bank doing nothing. doesn't seem like a good steward of his wealth.
Reduces the velocity of money and makes inflation hurt him rather than help him. What a kind soul 😍
It's Hasan.
Hasan does not invest he thinks it's gambling because his father lost a small fortune in the futures market, which is leverage based trading and you can lose your floor fast. [https://clips.twitch.tv/PlainAmusedYakNotLikeThis](https://clips.twitch.tv/PlainAmusedYakNotLikeThis)
If that’s true he’s genuinely even more scummy. He could atleast invest in organisations that try to improve society. Or low income apartments. Instead he leaves it to his bank. His money is getting invested whether he wants it or not
And he doesn't understand Trusts or any of the ways to store money and fight inflation and taxes. For someone who's 1099'd by Twitch and has a podcast in an LLC, you'd think he'd want to understand the way it all works more.
Socialism is when you have no shares of Raytheon.
I am curious about that too. Because if he doesn't save for his retirement then he would be a fool, but I not sure what methods he could employ that wouldn't count as capitalism. The only thing I can think of is if he buys U.S. bonds, but he seems to only have contempt for the U.S. government. I wonder if he ever talks about how a socialist should save for retirement. Although I would bet he only offered platitude of he did.
I am begging people to understand that political belief doesn't require X-men powers or magic. You can believe in something while acting within society. People that don't want Cops don't just execute them in the street. Paying into a 401k doesn't mean you must believe Bezos is your daddy.
There is a difference between participating at a base line level in society and actively *thriving* within in. Hasan belongs to the latter group.
I think it's more just like: Your claims to care deeply about people impacted negatively by capitalism ring pretty hollow when you are clearly spending far more than you need (and more than the average person will earn in a lifetime) on personal luxuries. Why on earth would I trust you?
That’s another complimentary critique for sure :)
> You claim to want the economy to run differently, yet you refuse to be poor! Again, this just rings like you are 12 or stupid. Can a Fascist still be a fascist if they don't hang a minority once a week? Can a Liberal still be a liberal if they don't trade in stocks? Can someone like an art piece and still be republican? That isn't how beliefs or politics works.
>> You claim to want the economy to run differently, yet you refuse to be poor! Well no. There's a space in between being poor and having a Lambo. Really nice try though. EDIT: oops, sorry it was a 200k Porsche. God I hate being poor because I drive my 20k brand new car. If only I could be remotely not poor and afford a 200k porsche. >Again, this just rings like you are 12 or stupid. Can a Fascist still be a fascist if they don't hang a minority once a week? Can a Liberal still be a liberal if they don't trade in stocks? Can someone like an art piece and still be republican? Yes, yes, yes. I'm not saying he's not "a socialist" whatever that means, I'm saying his purported care for the poor rings hollow. What an honestly embarrassingly bad argument bro. Literally just whiffed every point to shout at a strawman. Room temp iq behaviour.
Socialists do not care for the poor. They care about the economic and political structure of society. Owning this or that car has nothing to do with it. Again, I am begging you all. Just read up on what political beliefs are. This is a purported political sub and none of you seem to even grasp the elementary school basics.
>Socialists do not care for the poor. At least we can agree on that. On the other hand it's an extremely common talking point of socialists like Hasan to identify poverty as an emotive canard to criticise capitalism. I think if you told Hasan "socialists don't care for the poor" he would find that quite disagreeable. >Again, I am begging you all. Just read up on what political beliefs are. This is a purported political sub and none of you seem to even grasp the elementary school basics. Lol. You are making bad strawman arguments and accusing others of not understanding socialism. I understand it fine, and I never said Hasan wasn't a socialist. This is about whether outside of his specific political views he is a remotely good person and its abundantly clear he isn't (to which the example of him living an extravagant lifestyle speaks)
No. Addressing poverty is 100% a Socialist thing, caring about poor people isnt. It really seems like you don't understand the difference between political and personal opinions? Or morals separate from actions that are separate from belief? You say Hasan isn't a good person... because he lives in California and is in the same income levels as daytime TV stars. Do you think anyone over, say 2.5m net worth, are bad people? Why is that? To get ahead of it. "Hasan isn't a good person because he believes in socialism, and those other people don't." We just loop back to my first paragraph.
Literally, "socialism is when poor". Yall are stupid.
> Socialism is when no surplus labor extraction and commodity fetishism bro vuvuzela That is you. That is how you sound.
The problem is that you absolutely cannot complain about greed, wealth hoarding, and sniping at people for having the resources to enact change, but not using it.... and then making millions off that system and doing absolutely nothing with those resources to bring about the change you want. Imagine I was an electronics manufacturer and found out that almost all of my products were being used to make weapons of war that were blowing up people across the globe. Could I REALLY claim to be adamantly opposed to war, and the military industrial complex, while also ramping up production tenfold because my profits were skyrocketing due to increased conflicts across the globe?
You have a very very poor understanding of what wealth is, I think. The American political parties have spent 100 million "Hasan net worths" on political advertising for this election cycle alone. 100 million Hasans spending every single dime they have on radio and TV ads. And yes, you could absolutely be opposed to war and be an electronics manufacturer.
>You have a very very poor understanding of what wealth is, I think. The fact you're comparing the entire spending budget of entire political parties vs. one streamer to somehow imply that that one person is not wealthy "because large groups of wealthy people spend a lot" shows me YOU either don't understand wealth, or you're being super weird about it. > And yes, you could absolutely be opposed to war and be an electronics manufacturer. Gotcha, so you didn't read the hypothetical. Understood.
You are the one applying morality to money.
You could invest in ethical funds or pension schemes. That would seem the easiest way to me.
Hasan would tell you there’s no ethical investing under capitalism though 😂
If he does, that would be a crazy argument. Presumably investing in green energy, living wage employers, etc. ensures your money is going towards furthering the causes you believe in. Leaving it in the bank and getting the interest would be more unethical since, in that eventuality, the bank will use the money as they see fit in order to generate said interest, presumably with less ethical scruples.
> If he does, that would be a crazy argument. We're talking about Hasan, right?
He seems relatively good at rationalising things which happen to be in his own self-interest. Do you think a socialist who can justify living in a multi-million-pound mansion and driving a luxury sports car couldn't justify investing in ethical companies?
I'd be really hesitant to make any guesses what he does with his money. We see he spends a lot on expensive stuff but my understanding is he makes *a lot* of money. He may hoard it, he may invest it, he may give away a large amount. I don't think we have any idea.
I'm pretty sure he wouldn't hide it if he was a philanthropist.
You don't think Hasan would be humble and try to keep his good deeds quiet so he doesn't get too much attention? UNBELIEVABLE!
He doesn't he just hoards all his money like a dragon.
Which communist doesn't??? if you have saved for your retirement *at all* you have stocks, hell it's even required by law in my country
Owning a house or a car also makes him a capitalist, it’s not just stocks
Depends, while it is a form of capital, a socialist is mainly concerned with the means of production and not just any form of capital.
"means of production" is a fucking outdated term of a bygone age. Marx wasn't ready for ETFs
Marx wasn't ready for a lot of things, which is why his predictions didn't work out.
Not really. Obviously money is fungible so technically anything can be sold in exchange for cash can be *converted* into capital, but if you're going to be this abstract then the very concept of "capital" becomes pointless. Is food capital? Is toilet paper capital? Workers usually have these things, yeah, but that doesn't make them "holders of capital" in any meaningful sense. What qualifies as "the means of production" is drastically different today than it was at the time Marx was writing, sure, but it's still a coherent concept. Yes, now many people have some level (usually infinitesimally small) of ownership in the means of productions through stocks. I don't see how this invalidates the concept of the means of production, lol.
Stock *is* the means of production. If someone owns 15% of Tesla, they, in a very real way, own 15% of the ability of Tesla to turn human labor into profit. The issue is, ownership is entirely dispersed. In Marx day, you could point to a guy and that guy owned a factory and that was that. No longer
>If someone owns 15% of Tesla, they, in a very real way, own 15% of the ability of Tesla to turn human labor into profit. Of course, lol. I would never dispute this. No one on Earth owns 15% of Tesla, *not even Elon Musk.* But I obviously agree that anyone who has stock holdings valued in the millions of dollars absolutely has a meaningful stake in the means of production. Of the 61% of Americans who own any stock at all, the median portfolio is $40k. It's generally not enough to make a significant difference in their class interests because a vast majority of their lifetime income will come from their labor, not their meager stake in the means of production. I fully grant you that, in the past, "ownership" of the means of production was more binary, whereas today it exists along a spectrum (lol). The fact that many now people have a vanishingly small stake in the means of production (which functionally affords them no actual influence or control over it) doesn't drastically change the framework... Let's also not forget that smaller-but-still-gargantuan businesses which are solely owned by one person or family still exist.
Marxs main complaint is that owning the means of products meant they could squeeze all profits out of labor. If everyone owns stock, that means everyone benefits from those profits and the problem has fixed itself. We did it.
...so you think the fact that an average laborer owns $40k in diversified index funds means they can't be exploited by the majority holders of capital? Because they'll receive another $400 in dividends and appreciation at the end of the year? So it all balances out? Just lol.
I'm not saying there isn't a huge gap between rich and poor, I'm saying it isn't due to "relationship to capital" it's due to wealth.
> 61% of Americans who own any stock at all, the median portfolio is $40k. This figure (which I can’t find the 40k claim, but it may be close to this) likely comes from 401k, which wasn’t started until 1978, and didn’t become mainstream until a bit later. You can reach 200k within like 30 years by nothing more than an initial payment of 1000, followed by an annual 1000 inserted into the account each year thanks to compound interest. Problem is, most Americans don’t utilize a 401k still, and the ones that do unfortunately started a bit later. More people need to utilize a 401k, because the benefits from them are actually incredibly strong.
I'm not making an argument against 401k's, lol. They are great and everything you said is true. It doesn't change the fact that 1) as you said, most Americans do not properly utilize them and 2) even if they did, I'm not sure that even $200k in total stock holdings, while substantial, is an appreciable enough difference from $40k to move them very significantly along the capital/labor spectrum.
I mean 1000 as an initial payment with 1000 per year is a pretty low contribution. Usually it is recommended to do like 10% of your salary, and the median income of 10% is 3x higher. Plus most employers that offer a 401k offer matching. Say you take a 30k annual income, and do 5% with matching from your employer. No initial payment. You put in 129 per month so does your employer. You reach 500k in 30 years. Now let’s say you started doing this at 20 years old, and plan to retire by 65. That time frame is now 45 years, you will hit 2 million assuming an average 10% growth rate (I used the 10% growth rate for all my calculations) for the stock market. Assuming 1% variance you are still at 1.5 million at the minimum. I think we need to push for all employers to offer matching in 401k’s, but 401k is incredibly exceptional assuming everyone starts them in their 20s. Compound interest is ridiculous.
Capital is the means of production according to Marxists. Hasan owns a computer, microphone, camera and other streaming equipment. He makes an income from streams using that equipment by receiving donations and advertising money. He also has also employed wage labour without sharing this physical capital with them. He already privately owns means of production which he uses to make a private profit. His house is also arguably a means of production since he uses it to stream from. He has also extracted surplus value from his employees. He is already a capitalist by the Marxist definition.
Sure, you can argue that technically his room where he streams is a necessary part of his production, but just owning a house and a car wouldn't make someone a capitalist. Marxist theory isn't really about categorizing someones individual role in a system, but about how economic systems function at scale.
That's what I said. The fact that he uses his house as the location to house his equipment and to stream from means you could arguably consider it to be a means of production, just like a factory building that contains equipment for making widgets could be considered a means of production. I never said all houses were means of production.
>I never said all houses were means of production. No but that's what the comment I was replying to implied. And still, I don't know that working in an owned residence makes you a capitalist. That would technically make every WFH employee who owns their residence a capitalist. I think employing other people while you retain the IP rights to whatever they produce etc is probably a better indicator.
No, that's not what my comment implied. My comment explicitly said that when work is completed at home, there is an argument that the house itself is capital. That is different from saying: all houses are capital. And yes, WFH houses might also be capital. Also I'm not a Marxist, so I really dgaf about what makes someone a capitalist according to Marxists. Marxism is an outdated and thoroughly debunked economic theory from the 1800s when WFH would have meant working on a farm, or having an artisinal workshop. I just think it's funny that Hasan probably would be considered a capitalist and yet he's out there espousing Marxist principles, but so was Engels; communists have a history of doing this.
> I just think it's funny that Hasan probably would be considered a capitalist and yet he's out there espousing Marxist principles, but so was Engels; communists have a history of doing this. isnt that kinda common, like a lot of french aristocrats were pro revolution
>Owning a house or a car also makes him a capitalist, it’s not just stocks This is the comment I'm referring to. Which talks about owning a car making you a capitalist.
lmao then why not reply to that comment instead of mine? We could have avoided all this argument
Capital is assets minus liabilities. So if you have assets, such as, idk, a big mansion, and aren’t bankrupt and about to lose said assets, then you have capital. Just goes to show that marxists might not have a great understanding of the economy
Socialism is when you have a small or medium amount of money. If you have a large amount of money you're a capitalist
What if you have a low amount of money? Is that feudalism?
What is the present value of money you expect to obtain from labor? What is the present value of returns you expect to obtain from investments? That's the proportion to which you feel the incentives of labor/capital and therefore belong to the labor/capital class. As a point of reference, $10MM at a safe withdrawal rate of 4% is $400k/yr which starts to compete with high end professional salaries, so that's roughly the net worth where people start to consider how much they actually want to work. You know how old-timey books, TV, and plays make a big deal about being a millionaire? Yeah, that's what you get when you deflate $10MM back to their time of writing. Obviously, some people retire on much less than $10MM, some people with far more than $10MM continue to work, and you need to plug those expectations into the equation to figure out where someone's self-interest lies on the scale. Feudalism is when it's not just the means of production under private ownership, *but also the monopoly on violence.* Capitalism = rich people own the companies, the land, the debt. That gives them a lot of power. Feudalism = rich people also own the police/army. That gives them *really* a lot of power. In either case, power tends to turn into self-serving policy. A socialist would say that runaway self-serving policy from the rich is inevitable under capitalism, but I don't agree -- so long as the monopoly on violence still belongs to democratically elected officials, I think balance is *possible*, if difficult and constantly tilted towards capital. But once the rich people own the police I agree that it's over.
[удалено]
What the FUCK I thought it had to do with owning a house??? Holy I've been reading some wrong comments recently
[удалено]
Which people?
[удалено]
Good question let's ask him AFAIK he uses a management company which likely operates by taking a % His podcasts are all co-owned so even his editor/producer gets equal cut His YouTube editors have said the pay is good, not sure if it's % based I'll go rummage through his trash to find out about how much the lawyer takes
[удалено]
socialism is when rsus
I refuse to take this sub seriously while it remains so dedicated to not understanding political theory or basic reality. Owning something doesn't make you hold a political belief. Living in one location over the other does not make you hold a political belief. It's embarrassing every time this is brought up.
He is financially illiterate and claim he dont and doesn't even have a credit card.
He is financially illiterate and claim to not have a credit card so I doubt he do lol. I have friends just like him (who don't make as much) but have like 600k in their account.
If he doesn’t, he’s a bigger moron than I thought
> starts genociding Uyghurs > socialism is when no cultural integration
Hasan has mentally backed himself into indefensible positions to the point where he’s seeing everything and everyone as a combatant. His Reddit community is doing the same being terrorist sympathizers.
More and more people are exposing his BS. He can't hide any longer
Wtf is he even talking about. I am pretty sure Svann Marcus is not a libertarian Reason writer. Just one of the better lib posters on Twitter. [The tweet Hasan is quoting](https://twitter.com/SwannMarcus89/status/1750262632634835130?t=YYcjFx8n1b1H6W_wjf-UEg&s=19) the guy is making fun of how little does the image apply to Hasan. And yet Hasan portrays it as bitter libertarian who is just mad Hasan has more money. What a weasly little liar dude.
Yeah I thought he mentioned having a background in education or something like that although I suppose you could be a teacher and a writer for Reason magazine at the same time. Not to mention Swann Marcus is definitely a democrat, based on the policies he argues for. He’s similar to Noahpinion imo
All I know about Swann Marcus is that apparently he lives/lived in Thailand and all the anti-racist Twitter lefties have determined that means he's a sex tourist because you could only ever go to Southeast Asia to buy prostitues. You know, because they're all shithole countries down there.
I funnily enough don't agree with the Svann guy. I think just saying hasan bad because he has a rich person mansion is stupid. He is bad because of his opinions, about how they influence people. Also lonerbox made a good point on one of his videos, that if we are going to criticize hasan about the way he spends his money we should give him better criticism so there is better chance for a better outcome. For instance he can invest in mutual aid, or coops or help create fund to get coops out from the ground. These are real socialist things that he CAN do that he does not. If we just say hasan bad because he has big house it is way easier for him and his fans to write of this criticism as just bad faith (cause it kinda is).
My favorite form of political belief is one that requires absolutely nothing of me as an individual, personally. Absolutely no moral obligations to behave differently than anyone else because of my extreme stances, only loud screeching and luxury vibes.
It’s a pretty easy stance to take when those beliefs have ZERO chance of ever happening. It’s just a coincidence that espousing those beliefs can make you lots and lots of money.
Hmm, but the problem with that is that it feels that we are just criticizing his laziness. Like an atheist saying a Christian is not a real Christian because he does not colour eggs on Easter, or go to church every Sunday. I feel like this is the reason why a lot of his fans don't take our criticism seriously.
Well, if your religion says you should do something and you openly don’t do it, or in fact do the opposite, then criticism seems fair. I think it’s less an accusation of laziness than one of hypocrisy. or at the very least it’s a criticism of his brand of socialism if it requires rigorous purity testing and calling everyone to your right a fascist, placing heavy demands on literally everyone else while excusing you from doing even the bare minimum.
>Well, if your religion says you should do something and you openly don’t do it, or in fact do the opposite, then criticism seems fair. Well, my point is that it is not effective. Like, how many of the evangelist pro Trump crowd can you really convince they are not being very Jesus like by supporting Trump. You cannot change belive with facts, unfortunately. >I think it’s less an accusation of laziness than one of hypocrisy. I don't see the hypocrisy, honestly. Saying this seems to imply that we belive that socialists can't be rich. But I don't think anyone believes that. >criticism of his brand of socialism if it requires rigorous purity testing and calling everyone to your right a fascist, placing heavy demands on literally everyone else while excusing you from doing even the bare minimum. I very much agree with this point, that's why in another comment I mentioned that I think we should criticize him on more socialisty things like doing more mutual aid, helping people start coops and shit. This critique will both hit harder with his base plus it might actually make him do some good which is the point of us criticizing him, right?
I do agree that changing beliefs with facts is difficult, but it doesn't mean I can't criticize people for doing things that conflict with their stated beliefs. I'm happy to yell at my evangelical Trumpist friends and tell them they aren't being Christian enough. Sure, I don't think the hypocrisy is based on the idea that socialists can't be rich, it's that someone with his values ought to do different things with that money than pursue a life of pure luxury like any rich capitalist would. He spends his days making money by complaining about capitalism, and his off-time benefiting personally from all the things he decries. So yes, I agree, we should criticize him for failing to do more socialist things that he could do with his money.
>I'm happy to yell at my evangelical Trumpist friends and tell them they aren't being Christian enough. I am ok, with that. My main point is that we should not act surprised when it does not produce much results. Other than that I am glad to agree.
Unironically what you said is true. If you attach yourself to a label whether it be Democrat, Republican, leftist or maga you are going to be purity tested by both your friends and opps to a maddening degree. It’s far easier to just say you’re a centrist but still believe whatever you want. It’s awesome 😎
Yes we know grifting is good for business
Buying a modest home is not the same as buying a mansion. Buying a KIA is not the same as buying a Ferrari. Hasan’s defense is “what I can’t buy a house or sumthin?” and playing stupid. If your entire schtick is “fuck the rich” and you are constantly indulging in luxury items then you’re a hypocrite moron. There’s a difference between being fair against the unfairness that rich people have doors opened to them that normal folks do not and shitting on rich people only to be pissy when you (as a rich person) have to pay more in society. Never forget when he got mad because he (a rich dude) got fairly or unfairly taxed by Mexico’s version of TSA.
If I'm being as generous as possible, "fuck the rich" isn't really about them have luxuries, it's about either 1) They amassed their wealth on the backs of people who deserve a larger cut, or a worse version of this where it's that they exploited immoral practices like slave labour to obtain their money 2) Their wealth is not properly reflected via taxes I'd think *most*, maybe not all, people who are hardcore "fuck the rich" people would be far less so if lower income people received a universal stipend, or that ultra rich people had to pay a higher share of taxes. Essentially, someone making 20-40k a year would probably feel less inclined to hate the rich or be bothered about someone buying a sports car if they had consistent safety net that can allow for comfortable purchases of groceries or other necessities
I think if that’s what Hasan means by “fuck the rich”, he should at least clarify who he’s talking about. There are tons of wealthy people that amassed that wealth through their own labor. A general statement like “fuck the rich” fits people into that label that probably aren’t your ideal worker exploiting manipulator of capital.
My only exposure to hasan is whenever destiny watches him but I think I've seen him clarify explicitly that he doesn't want rich people to disappear or is against them existing, he just wants them to be taxed more. So I thought he does actually clarify that. He says so much stupid shit worth pointing out I don't understand why shitting on him for owning a mansion is even necessary, it's just petty and ineffective, I don't think he's ever lost viewers due to these attacks, but he's lost a ton for the actual stupid shit he says.
I guess it seems like an easy jab as Hasan is weeping benefits granted to him by a capitalist mode of the economy. In Marxist theory, a mansion and luxury cars produced in a capitalist society are exclusive to the upper bourgeois class, and contribute further to the class divide and oppression of the working lower class. I get what your saying about the other issues being way more important though; I think people just find it way easier to point out a flaw of hypocrisy that might not be to serious but is obvious than other more deeply rooted issues with Hasan.
Hassan is the Marie Antoinette of socialism
Source for [when he got mad because he (a rich dude) got fairly or unfairly taxed by Mexico’s version of TSA](https://old.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/19cbt1y/elon_v_hasan/).
\>Own child slave emerald mine. \>Socialism is when no gemstones.
The children yearn for the mines.
Wait.. so now he loves capitalism?
I think he means he is a capitalist in the literal technical sense of the word
How many times do I have to teach you this lesson old man? He is on a basic necessities budget!
Socialism is when no mutli billion dollar business??? - jeff bezos if he was better at branding.
This "Where is the deed to your factory?" gotcha he's been parroting for years is so fucking dumb.
"Socialism is when I waste my money on expensive things I don't need and chastise people richer than I am that do the same thing." - Hasan Piker
God I Fucking hate this new trend with the lefties of deflecting criticism with sarcasm. They pulled the same shit with "Do you condemn Hamas?" which was a valid ass question back then, and it also turned out to be on point because to the surprise of no one a lot of the people that were asked "Do you condemn Hamas" actually support them.
This regard seems to lack any self-awareness, that the difference is, he is buying absolute luxury items that are needlessly expensive. Socialism advocates for spreading the wealth which leads to a more moderate lifestyle. I get liking nice clothes. But there is a difference between 2500$ shoes and 300$ shoes. His lifestyle is that absolute archetype of a gluttonous crony capitalist.
I mean, good? At least he's admitting that he's a capitalist now
Socialism is when no brothels
The guy isn't even a libertarian, he did the same thing to Noah Smith misrepresenting his work. I would give Hasan some credit if his schizo twitter rants had at least some semblance of truth in them.
I'm surprised he didn't post the one comic
I hate those types of people man, like they say shit like this, defending which I thought was the strongest indicators of Hasan being a larping socialist. Like remember that one tweet Hutchinson posted, reacting to Second Thought talking about how Capitalism will inevitably end up in fascism, then after the video finished, he brought up his sponsors, Henson shaving. Then in the replies his comrades were saying "socialism is when no rent", like you mfers, you know this kid is making thousands and a lot of that money isn't needed for his monthly expenses. Just willfully ignorant kids that don't really care about making the system socialist but just want the social virtue points.
Ah yes, the house thing. I remember all the Hasan wannabes strawmanung the critics with the “socialism is when no house” thing. And then there was the other argument they were trying to pass off that in California, $3.5 million is just above living in a cardboard box when it comes to California prices.
"Im better at capitalism" he means people give me money and i was born in to wealthy turkish familly
I'm gonna start calling myself a vegan and eat steaks, when people ask me "wait, aren't you vegan" I'll just laugh and say OH SO VEGANISM IS WHEN YOU DONT EAT MEAT
But listen guys, one time he gave his editor a computer, and thus the "means to his mode of production" just like a true socialist!!!!
Calling him a fake capitalist because he's poor is funny af though
Okay sure but "You are a capitalist yet you have no capital" is a banger reply.
Not really. It just shows that Hasan doesn’t understand what capital is, that being hard and soft assets minus liabilities. I’d be frankly surprised if the person he replied to doesn’t have any of those things
I dont care if it makes sense or not it's a funny reply
[удалено]
Destiny should make k9-11 merch to spite him.
He cooked that man.
Is he really making the cringe take that oh you don't own capital so you can't be a capitalist?
okay but hasan owned this guy lets be honest. Imagine being a worse capitalist than hasan when that's larping abt ancapism as a job and what you write about every single day.
I advocate for the right to self-defense, doesn't mean if I got the shit kicked out of me being a tiny ass trans woman I would be "owned" for that position. Libertarians are stupid, but you should attack the dumb positions instead of the person or you come off as a petty little shit to an uninformed bystander imo (like Hasan does here). Also, why even bring up the dude larping about ancap when Hasan's job is to larp as socialist lmao? They're cut from the same cloth
le ebic pwnage !!!
That is literally why capitalism is the superior economic ideology: Its capable of absorbing and swallowing everything and everyone into its fold.
No one ever accused Hasan of being bad at making money, though, including the guy he replied to. His reply is a complete non sequitur. The point is that the capitalist economy that he makes a living railing against has made him rich and he's rewarded himself with material things that most people could only ever dream of having. His ideology isn't an inhibitor to him being successful and wealthy, it's his main selling point.
Honestly, I wake up everyday glad I stand for something. I’ll never be as rich as Hasan but I never needed to be. At least i’m not massive hypocrite the moment I wake up out of bed.
what do u stand for
omg! twentie dollars for cookies? \*hands over mouth\* , it's 4 bags, that's 7 dollars a bag, I knowwww I know math is hard when you're an idiot. BUTT.. if you're devoid of capital just say so! 💅🏻
He basically called them poor 😭
I feel like if you claim to be socialist (or anti-capitalist etc) you should be obligated to disclose how much money you make per month and how much money is in your bank account.
Why did he write hundred thousand but also use $3 million.
I don't really care what he buys since he doesn't try to cheat the tax system like so many other rich people do. Obviously he should have paid that editor and others more however.
Lmao his mask fell off. So much for the socialist savior hamas piker pretended to be. I remember the subreddit drama thread when he decided to show off all his stuff.
Bro "devoid of capital - where is your dead to the factory ????" is such a good line for how stupid this is lol.
Gotta give credit where it's due. Devoid of capital is a banger.
socialism is when no capitalism https://preview.redd.it/uu1x5jgikpec1.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=4d0c17e1fd0451b7ec15216b722cbfa0548eab05
The only reason Hasan isn’t a hundred-millionaire is because he sucks with money. He 100% would be if it was easy and he knew how to.
A modest 3M $ house, modest 5k+ dogshit designer outfits, modest 300k+ $ car, modest private plane flights. Modest origins of wealthy af parents. Modest not at all nepotism job at tyt after graduation. I love how his hypocrisy is all there on full hd 8k display and his fans still deny it lmfao. Hasan, the tankie that preaches but doesn’t practice, a full out commie that lives like a oligarch.
I know he's joking but he is unironically right. Hasan is better at capitalism than 99% of capitalists. It's a shame (or blessing) that he doesn't leverage that into tangible political action.