Coming on the heels of the Calgary, Alberta encampment dismantling: cops at the university of Alberta in Edmonton have also cleared the encampment located there.
Police raided at dawn when most people had gone home, approx 25 people were at the camp at the time and a handful of arrests.
This is the correct thing to recognise before you become terminally internet brained.
looking into that extremely brief moment in which the soviets were considered allies and a stalin-fdr rapprochement was a distant but possible outcome rather than the cold war we got is a trip. But then again it wouldn't have lasted, capitalism would not tolerate an alternative economic system let alone befriend it
He and Guglielmo Carchedi wrote a book called Capitalism in the 21st Century: Through the Prism of Value. I'm about halfway through definitely worth reading imo. It's more of a general view of capitalism but it reads similar to his blogs.
Plenty of soc Dems and Keynesians (especially Europeans) don't want to crush Cuba and even speak supportively of it while couching their criticisms in one's of the "bureaucracy" or the Cuban state. That being said, giving the thumbs up to Cuba doesn't make you a Marxist imo
You can think that he does good with his platforms and appearances and whatnot, that's a seperate thing. But simply put, if he pushes Keynesianism he is not a Marxist and that's that.
Don't know a lot about Unz Review so if Hudson has actually said anything antisemitic I'd like that to be pointed out.
Is it fair to discount his ideas? because dumbass Nazis can take anything saying "hey rich people tend to have power and that's bad" and force that into their Global Judeo Conspiracy box. I'm sure you could find Nazis who would even quote Marx uncharitably, On the Jewish Question is very commonly misunderstood and reframed in ways Marx had no intention for.
I think Hudson's takes on early Christianity and debt are interesting historically and I have enjoyed reading them, especially put into the context of bronze age class struggles between farmers/debtors and creditors, how palace economies were a sort of proto command economy, what the role of "tyrants" were and the debt reformers of the Roman period, etc. Ancient slave and pre slave societies are something I haven't read a lot of Marxist analysis on (or even much class analysis as such) and so I feel exploring the material origin of debt has historical merit.
Hudson is focused on debt and this is both a strength and a weakness of his. It's not entirely wrong to frame the current age of capital in terms of debt since it's a form of economic penance I would bet almost everyone here has first or second hand experience with. But it is true that his critiques of capital are not particularly cutting, and this framing prevents a more full encapsulation of capitalism.
ramble
For a higher view I have been looking more to Michael Roberts lately, currently halfway through the book Capitalism in the 21st Century: Through the Prism of Value
What is important to understand is why debt is risen so highly to prominence in the west alongside various rent seeking behaviours, financialisation/rise of the FIRE sector which Hudson mentions, and a general stagnation of economic life for the last few decades. This is because capital must operate within certain laws, one of these is the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.
Firms in capitalism are constantly trying to increase their surplus value relative to their competition, and there are many ways to do this. One way of accomplishing this is with new technology. Imagine you and I are competing cloth makers. I produce cloth by hand, and you have a spinning jenny. Who will produce more commodities in a given time, be able to price their cloth lower, and therefore succeed in the market? I will have no choice but to either adopt the spinning jenny, or be forced out of business. Now, imagine someone else comes along with a steam powered cloth loom...
So capitalism has historically been real good at replacing human labour (variable capital) with machine work (constant capital) in order to temporarily increase a given firms profits. Over time the ratio of constant capital and variable capital (called the organic composition of capital) will tend in favour of constant capital, and the relative investment in labour falls. Astute Marx-enjoyers cry out - "Now hold on, I thought only human labour could produce value?" That is right and is exactly the contradiction capital falls into during its technological race.
As capitalists put relatively more surplus value into constant capital rather than variable capital, relatively less labour is employed to produce surplus value and the overall rate of profit falls, even as the mass of profits may rise. Put another way, if the organic composition of capital (how many machines there are) rises faster than the rate of surplus value (how much juice that can be squeezed out of a worker) then the rate of profit falls. This tendency eventually manifests a crisis in which capitalists have to find a way to juice their profits back up.
Note that this is only a tendency, and that capitalists can employ a few different tricks to temporarily stop and even reverse this process.
lower labours costs of living (
)
They can increase relative surplus value and pay people less and less and make them work harder (has a limit as paying too little means your workers die)
try to increase absolute surplus and make people work longer (only so many hours in a day. also people die.)
use foreign trade profits (harder and harder in a multipolar world)
They can go abroad and enter less technologically intensive countries and appropriate surplus value that way. (ditto)
they can flee into speculating on fictitious capital where the points are made up and the rules don't matter (this is by and large the stock market and FIRE sector fyi)
war, and destroy all the constant capital like ww2 europe
This is why the capitalists are doing the things Hudson talks about, western capital is stuck in a drawn out sinking of profit rates and, as they are not leashed a la China, flee into things like finance, bitcoin, nft, saudi golf course ice sculptures, wework, internet and technology startups, whatever the fuck promises a way to juice your rate of profit. Industrialisation is gone, China makes everyone's shit already and what's left here is basically the high fructose corn syrup version of capitalism
Not to mention that the rate of profit reached it's height during that time, and it's not reaching that again (unless ww3 comes around)
For all the pure evil the 
bourgeois are, the petty bourgeois really are the most snivelling class
There are orgs where I live that call each other comrades, I thought it was odd at first actually hearing that in person but now I like it
The early 1970s marks a downturn of the rate of profit which the US has not been able to escape, only delay through a neoliberal turn, increasing financialisation etc. by and large I feel that the rise and fall of a hegemon can't be overly simplified but if you're gonna go by a quick and dirty rule I think that one suffices.