I think Hasan deserves more credit than that, I dont know anything about his content from 6+ months ago but these days he has the unique ability to mention that sometimes China good without a 4 hour but-at-what-cost qualifier, infact he openly mocks the trope that most liberals can't mention China at all without also stating the official NATO party line (Uyghur genocide, mao bad, tiny man square, etc.).

[–] CarlMarks@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 hours ago

He can have some positive influences while still being the same thing I described. For example, Bernie focusing on vulgar class analysis and making socialism a more acceptable word (despite bastardizing it) were both useful things and yet Bernie is a pro-genocide chauvinist that sheepdogs for Dems. If Hasan's pattern holds, his takes on China will be, "China somewhat bad but USA worse and targeting it with nonsense" while trying to humanize actual Chinese people. His pattern is based on a vaguely left-liberal-with-socialist-language anti-racist internationalism of having empathy for people that the imperialist state seeks consent to do violence to. It's a good and useful thing to have voices opposed to that. But under his pattern, what will be the call to action, implicit or explicit? It will be to try to "push left" some Democrat imperialists and keep the focus on dead end electoral reformism. The only positive outlet for that is the same as for Bernie: disillusionment that we can build on for recruiting.

It is possible that he might give up on the electoralist angle eventually, which would also be useful if his audience is large. But I don't see that as his current trajectory.