holy shit Jeffrey Sachs says “the most violent country in the world since 1950 has been the United States” then the moderator cuts him off and the audience applauds lmao
In particular, while I would hesitate to label him a comrade, as its hard to assess how much he’s changed ideologically, his takes come from an academic point of view, which should serve to validate the truth of our claims. Just as scientific publications from bourgeois institutions are still worth citing(and often support all kinds of communist talking points), I think it is easier to use his recent takes as a way to introduce people to the deep contradictions of capitalism.
I think a lot of non-communists can still have based takes, especially if those takes are just “America is imperialist/violent/evil”. As long as their takes don’t serve reactionary standpoints(e.g. american “libertarians”), in my opinion they deserve at least some degree of critical support. I do respect his courage and hope that he helps radicalize people against US imperialism.
I think it’s fair to consider that maybe he isn’t as consciously driven by ideology as much as his past role would lead to believe. He strikes me as someone who had a sincere belief in neoliberalism leading to collective wellbeing. And now his current stances can be simply explained as him witnessing the results of that experiment and adjusting his worldview in accordance. Hindsight 20-20?
In particular, while I would hesitate to label him a comrade, as its hard to assess how much he’s changed ideologically, his takes come from an academic point of view, which should serve to validate the truth of our claims. Just as scientific publications from bourgeois institutions are still worth citing(and often support all kinds of communist talking points), I think it is easier to use his recent takes as a way to introduce people to the deep contradictions of capitalism.
I think a lot of non-communists can still have based takes, especially if those takes are just “America is imperialist/violent/evil”. As long as their takes don’t serve reactionary standpoints(e.g. american “libertarians”), in my opinion they deserve at least some degree of critical support. I do respect his courage and hope that he helps radicalize people against US imperialism.
I think it’s fair to consider that maybe he isn’t as consciously driven by ideology as much as his past role would lead to believe. He strikes me as someone who had a sincere belief in neoliberalism leading to collective wellbeing. And now his current stances can be simply explained as him witnessing the results of that experiment and adjusting his worldview in accordance. Hindsight 20-20?
That might be right. Though I still find it very hard to forgive him for his role in destroying Russia during the 90s.