I’ve never seen her engage with these critiques in good faith. She seems to mostly just get really defensive and refuses to rethink her strategy or the theory in general. A big point here, I think, is the fact that her business model where her readers pay her, reinforces that kind of non-Marxist analysis of propaganda, because it lets the readers feel as an educated and truth-knowing elite above the majority of the masses that are ‘brainwashed’.

I want to try to fight those as best I can before worrying about being a perfect Marxist.

The problem with this is that it’s very hard to actually fight propaganda without a Marxist understanding of how it works. Just telling people the truth doesn’t really do a lot in most cases. To be effective at counter-propaganda, we have to understand how it actually works in the first place, and theories like ‘brainwashing’ don’t enable us to do that. To effectively fight propaganda, we have to first understand its material origins, relations to different classes, and modes of operation (licensing and bullying rather than brainwashing). These parts are missing from Johnstone’s analysis and that makes her counter-propaganda less effective. This article goes into it in more details, and Red Sails has a whole bunch of articles on the topic.

Wait till they find out about this: https://redsails.org/on-stalin/

This is the point Marx makes when he’s making the distinction between labour and labour-power.

The worker sells his labour-power - his ability to work for a certain period of time - to the capitalist for a wage. That wage is determined by the value of the necessities needed to reproduce the labour-power of the worker (food, rent, etc.) - and it can also fulctuate due to supply and demand.

Labour-power is a special commodity because it creates additional value while it’s used up (while a person is working). The additional (surplus) value created is greater than the value necessary for the reproduction of the used up labour-power, and the capitalist owns the produced surplus value.

Engels explains this distinction, and the reasons why it’s necessary in the introduction to Marx’s Wage Labour and Capital.

But then again:

Of course. As Lenin said, Communism is Soviet power and the electrification of the communal toothbrush.

She also recently tweeted about a Soviet documentary on Islam.

A barrel of oil.

Deinocheirus - even though it’s a herbivore, I’m still pretty fucked.

Reminds me of Philomena Cunk

I don’t take anything Shea says at face value. I’ve listened to the part of the interview in question and find Becker’s answers to be weird and contradictory. As I’ve explained in another comment, he answers the question “is it good that unipolarity has been challenged?” and his answer is in essence no because it seems like he just argues against some multipolarity in general without considering the material reality of today’s world split into the west and the rest (with China on top). His answer implies that today’s multipolarity is like that of pre-WW1 which is in contradiction with his stance in general.

He asks the question "How can we make radical change in America by saying ‘Vladimir Putin is our leader?’, which is a very salient point. He goes on to say that we should strive for socialist leadership in all of our countries. What is so off about that? Seriously?

Nothing is wrong with that in general, but who is he saying it to? Who are these people that only want multipolarity and simp for Putin? His call for socialism is good, but ignores the material reality of today’s world in which new socialist construction is not possible without first the decline of US hegemony.

I don’t like Shea and think he’s quite problematic, but your comment about what Kim is saying is, I think, not a good portrayal.

but just thinking about it for like 20 seconds, this obviously wouldn’t mean supporting reactionary states against the US for the pure sake of it. Would Kim il Sung have supported Hitler? Obviously not.

The USSR and China did ally with other capitalist and imperialist forces against Japan and Germany in WW2. And today’s world is largely split into two camps - the US and China. Critical support given to Russia (which while being reactionary still currently plays a progressive role globally in the struggle against US hegemony and is allied to the world’s socialist countries, though only out of necessity) is not the same as “supporting Hitler”. Putin and Russia today are not equivalent to Hitler and Nazi Germany.

As Losurdo puts it:

we can speak of a struggle against a new colonial counter-revolution. We can speak of a struggle between the imperialist and colonialist powers — principally the United States — on the one side, and on the other we have China and the third world. Russia is an integral part of this greater third world, because it was in danger of becoming a colony of the West.

Not to mention that the blackshirts and brownshirts of Europe were inspired by the KKK and similar groups in the Southern US.