Money on the Left

Some bits are quite cool but after listening to 4 episodes I still mostly don’t know what the hosts are talking about. Just when I think I’m starting to grasp it, there’s a digression into Hegel jokes that I don’t follow... I wanted to get a handle on how Left MMT works and thinks, but I’m not really grasping more than the outlines of its critique of Marxism. Everything else is conveyed in a difficult mixture of grad school lingo, high context humor, and What’s New in Vulgar Marxist Media. Going to keep listening but it would be helpful if there was a bit more focus in the non-interview episodes. When there isn’t a guest to interrogate, i feel like I’m outside the podcast trying to overhear what’s happening. I keep seeing this podcast described as an urgent project and so I’m trying to keep up, but I feel like I’m missing out on something. At the very least, it would be great if there was like a background prerequisite reading list for engaging with the podcast!

Such an inspiring discussion! Imagining the possibilities and creating the future. Relationality that is quantitatively describable. One interesting point: UMKC, where much of MMT was developed, had interdisciplinary social science seminars where the strengths and weaknesses of critical realism, pragmatism, hermeneutics were debated. I think it is significant.

Worst podcast I’ve ever listened to, but it does bring me back once in a while for my Ninety Minutes of Hate. Despite hating most other people on the left and most movies (because the Jedi don’t use MMT or whatever), they bizarrely seem to adore the awful Disney+ Marvel shows. It’s been a few months so I wonder if that host who laughs obnoxiously at everything she says is still on…

Of the two male hosts, one rambles so much by the time he gets to his point it’s hard to figure out the point he was trying to make. The female host insists on making a joke about every second or third sentence uttered by others and seems to find herself very funny. The other male host seems to have interesting ideas or arguments to present but the relentless interruptions, in-jokes, and immaturity of his two companions gets in his way. Overall it feels like listening in on three grad students riffing on and making jokes about their chosen discipline. When they started “Superstructure” I had high hopes but in the end it’s just been eavesdropping on three acquaintances talking to themselves instead of three people presenting ideas, arguments and analysis to others not already in their in-group.