You may not be familiar with Hasan Piker. Rest assured: your kids are.
To Gen-Z and Gen Alpha, he is one of the most influential left-wing voices in the world today. Getting his start as an intern at The Young Turks (the left-wing populist network co-founded by his uncle Cenk Uygur) before hosting his own show The Breakdown, Hasan achieved internet stardom after making the move to Twitch in 2018. Here, he would fashion a reputation as the modern left’s enfant terrible, invoking ire and inviting praise in comparable measure. Almost daily, he streams for hours, commenting on developing news stories in his signature firebrand style, often supplemented with gaming and other media consumption.
Today, across all his active platforms, he boasts close to 10 million followers.
Why did we invite him on?
While we might not see eye to eye with Hasan on much, he shares the key trait that all our best guests do: an unwillingness to self-censor. It’s what makes him such a popular figure, but also such a magnet for contempt.
In the last 7 years, Hasan has argued that “America deserved 9/11”, stated he has “no issue [with] Hezbollah”, suggested that it “didn’t matter if rapes happened on October 7th”, and called for “the streets to soak in red capitalist blood.” These remarks have not only inspired condemnation from major political pundits but, in some instances, even been discussed in the U.S. senate. No small fish.
Hasan insists some of what he says is satirical, or deliberately hyperbolic, making a grounded point through absurdism. We wanted to investigate that further, and we thought there was no better way of getting to the bottom of it than sitting across from the man himself. Is he serious? You can decide for yourself.
What did we talk about?
In years gone by, any one of those comments would have been enough to sink a career. If Hasan were a TV anchor in the years of cable news dominance, he would have had to go on his show, give a tearful apology-cum-resignation, and bow out into obscurity. Today, he’s a juggernaut. Much like his mirrored figures on the right, Hasan’s ascendancy captures the fundamental shift that’s happened in our media.
So how did it happen?
Hasan represented a different kind of voice from what much of the left was pushing in the latter end of the 2010s. Demoralised by the holier-than-thou, school-marm behaviour of his allies, Hasan wanted to model a different kind of political action. One that was just as radical, but shed off the bureaucratic finger-wagging.
”A lot of the left was leaning into being joy-killers and woke-scolds. I wanted to show that that left didn’t have to be that way - we could have fun and still have values.”
So what are those values? As one of the most popular figures in the movement, what does ‘progressivism’ mean to Hasan?
”Progressive values are, for me, oriented towards empathy. They’re focused on protecting those who need protection and advancing the cause of unlocking the person of every single person, no matter where they are. There are probably billions of brilliant people in the world who never get the potential to unlock their true potential because of where they’re born.”
It’s the kind of thinking a conservative might label ‘utopian’. Sure, we’d all like to live in a world where nobody’s hungry, or gets sick, or grazes their knee, but it’s just not feasible. Scarcity is an inevitable part of life; no matter how much we produce, there will always be trade-offs. There simply aren’t enough hours in the day, or apples on trees, or oil rigs at sea to fuel, feed, and house everybody. Don’t like it? Tough.
Hasan disagrees. He suggests there isn’t just a way of achieving this goal, but “many”. To him, one thing’s for sure…
”… Capitalism doesn’t. Capitalism revolves around the inherent contradiction that we can’t advance humanity too much. If we were to allow the third world to develop, things would cost too much - you wouldn’t be able to get an iPhone. But I think if we allow them to develop, extend an open hand today, society would flourish.”
Hasan is an avowed socialist. In the first 20 minutes of our conversation, he explains how a market economy is fundamentally unfit for producing fair outcomes - your wage is the result of your replaceability, not your work. Instead, he advocates strong union representation, labour activity in politics, and ultimately, a strong redistribution of wealth.
Francis, with his Venezuelan heritage, has his back up. He’s seen the country take up the model and spiral into poverty, authoritarianism, and stagnation. Its president, Nicolás Maduro, has been accused of human rights abuses, electoral fraud, and rampant corruption, including the arrest of political rivals. Do cases like this give Hasan pause?
”All countries engage in authoritarianism. It’s a function of government. I’m not going to defend Maduro, but America has openly talked about staging coups against Venezuela. Trump is threatening to wage war with Venezuela right now with some of the most sophisticated weaponry known to man. If China had encircled the United States [like that], and I was going to China and trying to work with them, America would arrest me, and it would probably be worse.”
As tough as things get in America, there’s always an underlying presumption: it will never get that bad. Free speech, free markets, and democracy protect the nation against the kind of catastrophe that characterises despots and “People’s Republics”.
Hasan doesn’t see things that way. If there ever was an ‘American Dream’, the people woke up long ago. And the hangover’s getting worse.
”There’s nothing to look forward to in America. Not in terms of scientific achievement, or economic prosperity, or the overall health of society. Young people feel that - there’s nothing to look forward to.”
Hasan suggests the same is true for Britain (hard to argue), and that this is the reason why a recent poll found that young people in Britain are less likely than ever to say they would fight for their country in the shadow of an existential threat. If the leaders won’t fight for their people, or can’t promise them a good future, or don’t even look like they’re trying to achieve it, why put your life on the line?
”People are angry for all sorts of reasons, but ultimately, it’s going to be because the trains don’t run on time, because you don’t have access to resources like you used to, because everything takes too long.”
Konstantin raises a counterargument. It’s not the absence of high-speed rail or new skyscrapers in Britain that demoralises its youth; it’s mass immigration. They see the culture of their country shifting, while elites with luxury beliefs insist it’s all the better for it. Doesn’t that better explain the phenomenon?
This, Hasan argues, is just right-wing scapegoating, and it’s endemic on both sides of the Atlantic. He points to the perceived persecution of trans people, accusing Britain of wanting to make being trans itself illegal. When Konstantin and Francis push back, he suggests that the rollbacks we’re seeing are a soft deployment of their real agenda. They don’t want trans people to exist, but they know banning it outright would be hugely unpopular, so they settle for sinister, underhanded forms of oppression.
Konstantin suggests this line of thinking could be applied to him. Hasan is only a socialist because he’s really a communist.
His response might (or might not) surprise you.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to TRIGGERnometry to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.