They’re a pseudo-left-communist quarterly magazine (not actually an organisation since 1991, when their predecessor, funnily named “Marxist Group”, dissolved) that is known for its dense writing style and being notoriously aggressive and annoying to interact with.
They see activism as currently useless because most people on the left have views that according to them are a dead-end that has kept the left in stagnation for decades - something that needs to be fixed before anything productive can happen. Criticism of moral argumentation and nationalism are shared by the communist left, but its views of the state are the main source of controversy in Germany. The state acts in self-preservation and it chooses to support a capitalist economy and the interests of the bourgeoisie, because the people running it see it as the best way to advance its own interests. Thus, it can act against the class interests of the bourgeoisie, or decide which faction to favor, according to what it wants to. If you talk to them, you’d probably get something more nuanced, but that is what they write. They also are critical of Lenin. I am not sure why exactly, but the way they criticize the state does lead some GS-influenced people into Anarchism.
They’re rapidly growing in influence in the left, mostly in groups that only mostly agree with them, thanks to a couple of large podcasts. Someone influenced by them, journalist and podcaster Ole Nymoen, has become a hate figure of the liberals last year because he wrote a book denouncing militarist propaganda and has thus been given lots of (negative) publicity. This growing influence has led to attempts at pushback from MLs and more recently Trotskyists, but the criticism I read so far has been pretty bad.
C. Derick Varn has recently examined one of their texts on his show… and has argued with one of GSP’s influencers in the comments lol. Unlike the above-mentioned criticism, he did actually investigate the source material. GS people are infamous for going “you didn’t understand the argument correctly upon disagreement”, as well as reliably showing up whenever they are mentioned, and are hard to push back against.
If you speak German, Fabian Lehr also had a long discussion with Ole Nymoen and Simon Dressler on GS-influenced criticism they had of the recent anti-conscription protests:
I don’t know these first 2 youtube videos. But Lehr, whom I think pretty highly of, really didn’t make a great point in this talk. Many of the points he raised against them were kind of nothing burgers because he ascribed beliefs and opinions to them that they do not actually hold.
If you listened to it then you also know that the other 2 guys are not “against praxis” or whatever other people are trying to claim here. They simply raise a, in my opinion, very well argued and justified critique about the praxis of the SDAJ. And quite frankly I am puzzled by the fact that so many otherwise “based” people on the left have such a huge issue with that critique. It seems sometimes like people have more of a problem with the fact that they are directing the critique at fellow leftists than with the content of the critique themselves.
My verdict: they didn’t understand the argument correctly upon disagreement lol
They’re a pseudo-left-communist quarterly magazine (not actually an organisation since 1991, when their predecessor, funnily named “Marxist Group”, dissolved) that is known for its dense writing style and being notoriously aggressive and annoying to interact with.
They see activism as currently useless because most people on the left have views that according to them are a dead-end that has kept the left in stagnation for decades - something that needs to be fixed before anything productive can happen. Criticism of moral argumentation and nationalism are shared by the communist left, but its views of the state are the main source of controversy in Germany. The state acts in self-preservation and it chooses to support a capitalist economy and the interests of the bourgeoisie, because the people running it see it as the best way to advance its own interests. Thus, it can act against the class interests of the bourgeoisie, or decide which faction to favor, according to what it wants to. If you talk to them, you’d probably get something more nuanced, but that is what they write. They also are critical of Lenin. I am not sure why exactly, but the way they criticize the state does lead some GS-influenced people into Anarchism.
They’re rapidly growing in influence in the left, mostly in groups that only mostly agree with them, thanks to a couple of large podcasts. Someone influenced by them, journalist and podcaster Ole Nymoen, has become a hate figure of the liberals last year because he wrote a book denouncing militarist propaganda and has thus been given lots of (negative) publicity. This growing influence has led to attempts at pushback from MLs and more recently Trotskyists, but the criticism I read so far has been pretty bad.
C. Derick Varn has recently examined one of their texts on his show… and has argued with one of GSP’s influencers in the comments lol. Unlike the above-mentioned criticism, he did actually investigate the source material. GS people are infamous for going “you didn’t understand the argument correctly upon disagreement”, as well as reliably showing up whenever they are mentioned, and are hard to push back against.
The Illusion of Critique: Gegenstandpunkt’s Radical Critique of the State (1) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xbYicjuQTY
The Illusion Of Critique: Gegenstandpunkt’s Critique of Democratic Law and its Limits (2) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUmLZxSX0dc
If you speak German, Fabian Lehr also had a long discussion with Ole Nymoen and Simon Dressler on GS-influenced criticism they had of the recent anti-conscription protests:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwHdc2guxvE
I found YouTube links in your comment. Here are links to the same videos on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Link 1:
Link 2:
Link 3:
I don’t know these first 2 youtube videos. But Lehr, whom I think pretty highly of, really didn’t make a great point in this talk. Many of the points he raised against them were kind of nothing burgers because he ascribed beliefs and opinions to them that they do not actually hold. If you listened to it then you also know that the other 2 guys are not “against praxis” or whatever other people are trying to claim here. They simply raise a, in my opinion, very well argued and justified critique about the praxis of the SDAJ. And quite frankly I am puzzled by the fact that so many otherwise “based” people on the left have such a huge issue with that critique. It seems sometimes like people have more of a problem with the fact that they are directing the critique at fellow leftists than with the content of the critique themselves.
My verdict: they didn’t understand the argument correctly upon disagreement lol