Asklemmy

That’s weird, because the class = relation to labor stuff is literally in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Frederick Engels

I would challenge you to actually find such a quote, because such a claim doesn't make a lot of sense in the language of Marxism. Socialism: Utopian and Scientific is effectively a literary review of "how we got here" and such a definition of class excludes classes of feudalism which are covered in that work. Not only that but a peasant's relation to labor is vastly different within the peasant class. Some peasants have a relation to labor in the same way as the bourgeoisie, some the same as the petite bourgeoisie, and some without any real relation to labor at all. And yet peasants are a distinct class according to all modern Marxists.

Kulaks were literally a class according to the Bolsheviks, which was at its clearest defined as a class based more-so on wealth than relation to labor. It wasn't really until Maoism that a more complete understanding of socialist class was developed especially in relation to peasants since communism was mostly developed as a collaboration between educated urban intelligentsia and urban workers.

The difference between the proletarian class and the lumpen proletarian class is generally accepted in modern times not as their relation to labor but their relation to communism(or more specifically class consciousness) itself. Like the problems around the peasants most communism between 1840 ~ 1970 had trouble working through the entirety of the urban landscape, so "normal people" that were difficult to qualify or deemed morally degenerate by various authors were just put into the lumpen space. It wasn't until the Black Panther Party and the Young Lords took a look around and said the normal people around us don't fit into pure "proletarian" definitions. That begged the question of "does this mean that communism is doomed?". As a natural consequence of this these groups that lead the way in the theory and practical organizing spaces to start speaking about working with and activating the lumpen proletariat in earnest rather than casting them off as dregs that could only be useful to counter revolutionary forces.

The last reason this doesn't make sense is that wealth is capital which under a capitalist system is the means of production in and of itself. Marx himself even goes further to say that accumulation of wealth is systemic and has an equilibrium with the accumulation of misery.

"The law that always equilibrates the relative surplus- population, or industrial reserve army, to the extent and energy of accumulation, this law rivets the laborer to capital more firmly than the wedges of Vulcan did Prometheus to the rock. It establishes an accumulation of misery, corresponding with the accumulation of capital. Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole, i.e., on the side of the class that produces its own product in the form of capital (Marx's Capital, p. 661)

Hasan has accumulated much capital, therefore according to Marx has also accumulated much misery because he is not exempt from the systemic nature of capitalism. Hasan very often in response to house gate says "There's no ethical consumption". The corollary here is that there's no ethical production, and there is no ethical accumulation.

Whether your faves are implicated or not Marxism is a sociological system of the poorest, those among us who are wealthy communists should have much more personal sin to grapple with than those who are poor, that is our privilege.

Everything else you said is weird too online gossip so I’ll just move on.

This whole thread is weird too online gossip if you haven't noticed.

I was just correcting an incorrect sentiment in this post that having wealth means you can’t be on the side of the working class.

This is true, however this is actually hard to prove, and denying Hasan's implication in the capitalist system and his accumulation of wealth simply because Hasan is popular is a willful misunderstanding of Marxism. Having in-house conversations is literally how people advance their understandings of Marxism, what's happening in much of this thread is denying those conversations via thought terminating cliches but from the left, because many see this as a "grand posting battle". I'm not advocating that we have to game out a percentage of Hasan good or Hasan bad, I'm arguing that we have to understand Hasan as Marxists warts and all. That understanding is not happening because in this circumstance stan culture is at odds with Marxism.

Lastly it's my view that if Hasan is indeed a "fellow traveler" and someone who people learn "the left"/Marxism/whatever from, he should be showing us this journey himself, instead of steeling himself because of his constant battles with H3 or Destiny or whoever. Otherwise this is just kayfabe.