Jimmy Dore disavows capitalism, retracts the term 'predatory capitalism' @ 13:47...

Jimmy Dore disavows capitalism, retracts the term 'predatory capitalism' @ 13:47, calls for worldwide French Revolution 2.0


Other urls found in this thread:


Dore threads are getting out of control, we might as well just make him a board mascot.

It's very subtle and kinda weak but it shows he's starting to understand there's no difference.

Why does the board give so much attention to some guy who works for TYT? I've never really heard Dore mentioned outside of here.

This is good.

Because he's a liberal who got workerpilled and now everyone circlejerks him.

Personally I do like the guy, and we need more people like him, but some people on here treat him like the second coming of Marx.

Someone please make him read Marx.

It begins. Hopefully he can radicalize his audience.

Someone should throw piss jugs at Bezos

Someone should throw bullets at Bezos.
Out of guns.

Even better

He may paint himself more red but he will always be a liberal.

Kinda like the people here.

So? Just give him some time

one of us indeed

He's American. Any further left and he'd get summarily executed by his neighbors.

You faggots literally underestimate how fucking powerful American propaganda is. This is a net good even though Jimmy is still ignorant. I know how it sounds but honestly nobody has been this far left on a large platform in the USA for decades

Everyone who's being a butthurt faggot that Jimmy Dore said liberal shit 20000 years ago can suck my dick. he's getting way more radical and has a huge viewership and if you aren't happy that he's starting to say shit like this to them you're just a LARPING fag who's terrified of actual revolution and you can go fuck yourself faggot

This. Holy shit. I can't stand how autistic marxists can be suddenly expecting people to come into the immediate conclusions of starting a vanguard and have violent revolution. Jimmy has attracted a huge audience of people outside leftists circles to come on board to genuine leftist causes. He's tapped into the same common man's rage that Trump and better yet he goes after Trump in the Alt Right in way that doesn't result in invoke pearl clutching liberalism or idpol nonsense. Jimmy does good work. Who cares if he doesn't do lectures on Trotsky. Think about normies for a second. Jimmy gets them. We use Jimmy to get the normies.

He said in one of his live shows that someone gave him Wage Labour and Capital.

I didn't expect Dore to radicalize as fast as he did. We can probably attribute that to the Wolff. So long as the 2018 midterms don't get him too attached to reformism, I see him becoming an open Marxist within a year or to.

That wife of his is quite a liberal, I think maybe we need to work on her too.



Do you unironically believe liberals who watched Jimmy Dore and read a little Marx will be wiliing to pick up a gun without some sort of horrible crisis or famine going on?

I don't know what your experience that led to you turning into a Marxist was, but most everyone was a liberal at some point.

When has anyone become revolutionary through reading? Most of the people involved in the russian revolution weren't well read Marxists but people revolting due to maybe poor working conditions or not enough food. Thats how people become revolutionary.

except now the west is 99% literate.

What does that have to do with what makes people revolutionary?


Was thinking of making a clip of this earlier. Might as well now.

this is going in the next Jimmy "arm the poor" Dore hype video

Slightly better cut.

I've noticed that she keeps interrupting him whenever he uses the term "neoliberal" in a negative light, and keeps trying to defend "liberalism" as something positive.

She is the Miserable Liberal, as a matter of fact.

The intelligentsia do the reading & direct the others accordingly. You need people of all kinds for a revolution & most times it's been accomplished by relatively small groups of people, not with the majority behind it.

Holy fuck, if he wasn't just barely hiding his power level before, he definitely is now. I don't know what to say to people who think h'e just a liberal He's a vulgar Marxist though with a lot of baggage from being a progressive/liberal. Treating him like a commisar is fun for memes, but the good thing here is he's getting prolepilled and bringing a bunch of viewers with him.

Was interesting to see Dore summon Wolff, now we need to move him to the next level and get someone like Parenti on the show

She (like most burgers) thinks liberalism is when you try to treat people better as opposed to when the aristocrats toss bread crumbs to the poormies as a bribe not to revolt. She has potential to be swayed like Jimmy, but she's not as "out there" as he is, I don't think. Jimmy is the "face" of the Jimmy Dore Show so he's the one whose positions are getting presented most of the time and up for being challenged or expanded. Ron and Steph mostly help him run the show and throw in comments here and there. Somebody has to willingly step into the role Jimmy has of being open to criticism that way, and I don't think the other two are really about that. People have a hard time having their beliefs challenged, especially beliefs that are central enough to their identities that they base their online handle around them.

We have nothing to worry about from her. Jimmy definitely isn't the type to be controlled by his wife. I doubt she will be anything but supportive during his radicalization.

Also, pretty much every Marxist praises the positive aspects and achievements of genuine liberalism.

Killing aristocrats so the bourgeoisie can take control is socialism! Having a revolution is socialism! Flags and marching are socialism! Supporting "the people" is socialism! Guillotines are socialism! Vague ideals are socialism!

Jimmy Dore patreon hype thread

It's a revolution normies actually support. Calling for a worldwide Russian Revolution would just get him vilified for being a Stalinist or whatever.

I mean hes clearly radicalizing, for some people it just takes longer.

Even zizek likes the French Revolution and robespierre you stupid fucking asshole

Something that I and many others here have given Jimmy shit and criticisms for in the past is his stance on firearm ownership and the role of an armed working class in the revolution that Jimmy keeps bringing up.

For a long time I believed that this stance of his came from his previous liberalisms and TYT baggage. However after listening to a few talks given by Chris Hedges (and realizing how much in the way of opinion Jimmy draws from him) I've come to realize that this view is largely taken from Hedges notion that the state is prepared for, and indeed gleefully anticipates any attempt or even appearance of possible uprising to double-down on draconian policies, surveillance, and other civilian control measures.

This is an older video that illustrates this point, but here's a debate-style discussion between Hedges and a guy going by the name B. Traven on the legitimacy and efficacy of blackbloc tactics at Occupy and beyond.

Hedges pumps out a fuck-ton of content, so if you want to watch something more contemporary (post Trump, collapse-focused) you'll probably hear him make similar points eventually, but that discussion is worth a bit of consideration.

Interesting take, but even then violence can just be manufactured out of peaceful protests and the result is the same.

My gubmint here does it all the time and normies eat it up.

I'm a bit torn here. I think about events like 9/11 or Pearl Harbor - events where the cultural narrative is strongly driven by the powerful for their own benefit, but these are events (manufactured or otherwise) where the easily tugged heartstrings of the citizenry are pulled in such a way that will get them to sign-off on virtually any kind of insanity, even if it is obviously to their own detriment. You don't have to burn the Reichstag to whip stupid people into nationalistic fervor, but a big (and real) fire and death display can certainly help things along.

I would guess that an actual credible threat to the status quo is easier to demonize than a purely fictional threat, but in the end I think you're right, the veracity of the threat isn't ultimately what matters, it's the support that can be manufactured for the government's actions taken against that threat.

I would say though that Hedges makes his argument for passive resistance much more cogently than I can recreate here, and that it was very refreshing to realize that Jimmy was swayed by Hedges opinion on the matter and not someone like Cenk's opinion.

The state is going to do that regardless of how armed its populace is. Would you rather take longer to peacefully overcome these measures, or ramp things up sooner to make the near-future worse than it otherwise would be? Maybe it's because I'm a burger, but I expect my government to continue draconian policies no matter what anybody does.
That doesn't sit right with me. The men and women who create said laws will continue to do so as long as it's in their best interest to do so - and the quickest way to make it against their interests is to threaten them and mean it.

FUCK Jimmy Dore. Jimmy Dore was paid to slander Jeff Bezos. Jeff Bezos is the only competition to Elon Musk's Spacex. Jimmy wants us to be slaves to Elon Musk's ambition and he wants our planet to be poluted until uninhabitable so we need to slave away $1million to get on one of Musk's rockets to Mars. FUCK Jimmy Dore.

fuck off shill that story was fake news. What we have to pretend some hack fraud rich cunt from TYT is our ally now? FUck Jimmy Dore you fucks are retarded for thinking this faggot cares about your minimum wage ass

I don't disagree, the ruling class is obviously already gearing up for these sorts of threats to become more common as the state of the economy further deteriorates and more people begin to realize that their countries are collapsing under the self-cannibalizing nature of late capitalism. Though I have some doubts about the ability of disparate, disconnected and already thoroughly surveilled individuals to band together in such a way that would allow them to use small arms and basic demolitions technology to overthrow or oven inflict minor damage to the functioning of a modern state - though obviously this wouldn't be the only avenue of resistance that people would be following, so who knows what that amalgamation might look like or how it might behave as a decentralized force.

Here's the most succinct opine of Hedges (and by extension, I would surmise, where Dore draws the same opinion) that I could find.


He makes some legitimately good points. I don't know that I agree with all of them, and I'd certainly still recommend that people own and learn how to use firearms if they can, but I have trouble imagining how this on its own would be enough to sufficiently frighten an entity that would pump its last (trillion) dollars into storm troopers, gulags, gunships and other forms of civilian control in an effort to prop itself up for as long as possible.

Jesus it's like Hedges was in a room full of small children.

Wow what a surprise

Hedges is a retard

Hedges is a limp dick social democrat.

Dore's energy could legitimately be a great revolutionary tool, Youtube is to 2017 what newspapers were to 1917

I disagree with the image you posted. Power most certainly does not applaud non-violent resistance, at least not in all cases. That's why journalists are frequently targets of state-terror. They aren't a physical threat, but they pose a threat to the credibility of the system itself. Look into the cases of Gary Webb or Michael Rupert - both of which exposed CIA drug running and law enforcement corruption, both of which were involved in shady suicides.
Similar to Occupy and Standing Rock. Look at the reactions of the state to people gathering to thwart the immediate interests of the banks and the oil companies in those cases. I wouldn't call government thugs cracking heads of peaceful protestors 'applauding non-violence'.

We don't remember MLK because he was an expert marksman or bomb-maker, we remember him because he was able to rally people in a significant way to effect change. Keep in mind that most of the people who rallied behind King would not have rallied behind someone advocating violence. Whether that stemmed from their age or moral inclination isn't really relevant - what is relevant is that some of your comrades will not be willing to pick up a gun wait outside their nearest bank for a board-meeting to get out. These aren't people you should shrug off as counter-revolutionary, comrade. You need them. And Hedges is apparently pretty good at appealing to those people.

I'm not saying that there is no role for credible threats of force or that the populace should be unilaterally non-violent in its resistance, but to say that it can't be effective or never has worked is flatly incorrect.

So you unironically believe people revolt because of something they read not because of horrible conditions?

We remember MLK because he meant a compromise that did not fundamentally challenge power while disarmed the actual threat, the parallel movements of radical, armed groups. All your other examples had been dealt with with no lasting consequences, how could they be considered threats in any meaningful sense?

That's the watered down MLK that liberals want you to remember. In reality he had a lot of far left sympathies and wanted mass societal reform in general, not just for blacks suffering from de jure discrimination. Back then, liberals ostracized him for being too "extreme", but when he became nationally famous, brushing him under the rug was no longer an option.

That's the watered down MLK that actually succeeded. Your "pure" MLK was dealt with accordingly.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Being shot by a lumpen that escaped prison isn't exactly evidence of ideological failure.

On the other hand, your movement falling apart because it relied on a single person is evidence of operational failure.

I would disagree that there was not a fundamental challenge to that era's status quo in the form of MLK and the protest movement he lead. This was obviously not something that the power elite applauded, as your original contribution indicated. I don't disagree that he was to some degree a compromise in that white liberals ultimately had to either side with him or deal with Malcolm X and similar groups.

And that's kinda' what I'm getting at here. Providing multiple avenues for resistance and protest has been a historically successful way of challenging power.

I guess I'd be curious to know what you believe to be a viable alternative to this methodology. Forming armed resistance militias within the US to try and overthrow the government and global capitalism from it's dark corrupted core doesn't seem like it has a high potential for success, at least not while people have electricity, unlimited porn, fast food and the rat race to busy themselves with.

Operational failure is a fact of life. If someone shot him before his speech, would that make racial integration inherently flawed?

The "contribution" claims that power applauds non-violence in its opponents, not that it applauds having opponents.

The whole original problem was that Hedges claimed that violent struggle (in which he includes vandalism) has no place. I can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me.




Does anyone here know his net worth? He's a celeb, he'd likely be on the chopping block himself.

class =/= net worth you rube

All hail Comrade Dore. Uphold Marxism-Doreism.

Someone shop Dore's face onto a Robespierre.

He's more of Marat tbh.




color me fucking surprised