ITS HEATING UP 🔥 | DEBATES | IRAN WAR

Yellowstone with the 10, what's up, bro?

Appreciate you, bro.

Comrade Kid with the 5, what's going on with that infrared vision?

Mordor with the 5, we tune into the call.

What's up, bro?

I appreciate you.

Welcome, cult members.

Welcome.

Y'all see some.

That that this shit's going back up to 1000.

I know for a fact I'm manifesting it.

It's out there.

Just wait.

Patience.

Patience is key.

Well, I'm back to my n usual self because I did my Spartan curls today for the first time in about two weeks.

It's been nearly two weeks since I've done my Spartan curls.

If you can believe it.

And uh I'm I'm I'm back.

I'm gonna keep getting bigger and bigger every stream.

You're gonna be seeing it.

We'll be back in no time to our original state.

Okay, so uh to today's stream I have to talk about something that we are kind of behind down on as a community.

And it's there's a lot of discussion and debate going on already about it.

Hassan Piker, Nick Fuentes, all these kind of people, and it's because we're coming up on the midterms.

So it's about time that we outline our political strategy.

For this year.

And don't worry, don't worry, don't worry.

I'm gonna tell you what I think.

I'm gonna tell you my thoughts.

I'm a thought leader, I'm a cult leader.

This is what I do.

We're additionally going to be getting back into the TikTok debates.

That's also not something I've done for two weeks.

I was banned from TikTok Live for approximately five days, and the ban has long been lifted, and the ban has expired a long time ago, right?

So, there are many things that we have today to talk about and to cover.

So, first things first, ladies and gentlemen, first things first, these midterms are going to be an extremely important type of data for our party.

We want to get a pulse on where the nation is at.

I have no fucking clue.

I can guess.

But like 2024, this election is going to help us understand just how much the internet inside the fucking hiccups.

Curse my life.

Don't curse my life.

Save me from these hiccups by dropping 20.

Anyway, it's not going to save the hiccups, but you know, look, um.

Look.

2024 proved that social media is now a huge factor in terms of politics.

I think that's, I mean, you could say that's really vague.

You could say 2016 proved that for sure.

But I feel like 2024 was won because of X, because Elon Musk acquired X.

That's why the election was more or less won.

Of course, everyone was sick of Biden and so on and so on.

But just in terms of the explanations voters would give for why they're voting for Trump over Biden, you could tell they were getting it from some kind of like social media online discourse.

So I think 2024 was the breaking point as far as that's concerned.

Now, two years later, with the release of the Epstein files,

The Iran war, you know, the increased anti-Zionist sentiment of the population.

I am genuinely curious to see where that's going to play out in terms of how people go to the polls.

I think the big winners for 2026, actually, something I want to talk about: the big winners for 2026 are going to be the Democratic Socialist and Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party.

That's a prediction I'm gonna make.

I could be totally wrong, but the the generation of politicians that I think is dead.

That are going to have no place in the future are going to be the traditional centrist or establishment Democrats.

They are fucking done.

From what I could tell, their their electorate, their constituency has always been this kind of meandering boomer generation.

And I think they're on their way out just demographically and in terms of age.

I think the changing in terms of demographics and ages are going to lead to leftists winning big time in the Democratic Party.

Could be wrong about that, but that's an instinct that I have.

So that's actually going to happen.

I mean, I know people are floating AOC for 2028, and she appears to be the frontrunner in the polls for the Democratic Party for 2028, which is quite significant, actually.

And Logo has predicted this, and we all saw it coming, and we know what's coming for sure, for sure, for sure.

You know, the millennial Reich, that's what Logo likes to call it.

Basically, we're talking about Kat Abu Gazala, a NATO-Hitler fascist dictatorship, democratic socialism at home, and imperialism abroad.

Pretty much Adolf Hitler.

Pretty much Hitlerism in America, right?

But that's the major trend and shift I think is mainly going to happen in the Democratic Party.

I think the Republican Party is in disarray, obviously, but there is still a solid Republican evangelical constituency that will continue to be reliable in the deep south and elsewhere across the nation, regardless of what fucking happens, because these people get all of their information from megachurches and they are also very old boomers who have not yet died, unfortunately.

But

That's just a fact.

Okay, so we're looking at a situation where, although, and I don't, you know what, I don't want to continue hearing from people.

I don't want to continue hearing from people this thing where we're just going to say, oh, you know, the election's a sham.

Let's just ignore it.

And guys, don't be retarded.

Don't be mentally retarded.

All right.

We always have to continually analyze the contradictions within the nation, however, they manifest.

And one of the ways they manifest is through politics and is through elections.

So we have to pay close attention just to see what's going on.

We don't have necessarily a clear idea of where everyone's at, but understanding the shifts in terms of where people go and how their votes swing.

If a radical shift occurs this year, we know that social media and cybernetics is in the driver's seat.

And that will be like the truest, fullest vindication of it.

You know, Zoran Mamdani, there could be more Zorons that win in 2026.

I think I expect that they will.

Actually, we should pay close attention to the Democratic primaries leading up to the elections in 2026.

Will progressives win within the Democratic Party?

If they will win, and maybe they do have a chance of winning, but if they will win, then we are going to be looking at a very interesting situation.

We want to know the shape of how the American Civil War 2.0, which is inevitable by the way, is going to take.

There's a civil war coming.

There's a constitutional crisis coming.

And I think it all points to the fact that

Yes, there's a kind of progressive leftist wing of the Democratic Party that is accelerating toward a specific conclusion of look, however people narrativize politics I sound like a postmodern, whatever, because I am.

However we narrativize politics, narratives are fucking important, all right I'll explain to you concretely why.

We are looking at the necessity of scrapping or somehow going outside the bounds of what is allowed within the U.S.

Constitution.

The driving force of the Democratic Party's agenda is going to be defined by if they secure victory in 2028, even if they win in 2026, if they get a clear majority in the House and the Senate, which they very well could, right?

They're basically going to be driven to a point of saying, we can never allow Trump or something similar to Trump or the disaster of the Trump administration, both number one and two.

We can never allow that to happen again.

And therefore, we have to go beyond the framework of the Constitution to fundamentally change the institution of democracy to be more resilient to fascism, whatever explanation they're going to give, right?

And then, on the other hand, if Trump or the Republicans want any motion going forward, and if they want to be able to win, they're going to also have to say, well, look, the Constitution has prohibited us from doing what needs to be done when it comes to mass deportations, when it comes to fulfilling the electoral mandate of Donald Trump in 2024.

Additionally, you know, we cannot allow the Democratic Party to win because they have these radical plans once they take office and it's existential, right?

So both sides are gearing up for preparing the nation for a constitutional crisis, regardless of who wins.

And it's specifically a consequence of the post-MAGA narrative that's going to be the driving force of politics from this point forward, right?

And that's going to solidly split the country in two.

And whenever you have a situation where the country is split in two, just solid down the line 50-50, the reason is basically because it can go either way.

Because it doesn't actually necessarily make much of a difference because both sides of the contradiction are true.

Why?

Because the contradiction is true.

When contradictions are truly a fact, right?

When you truly have contradictions at the level of the governing or the ruling political institution of your country, then both sides of the contradiction end up being correct because the contradiction is itself what's correct, right?

So that's why there's objectively going to be a civil war.

There's not going to be a civil war because there's going to be a good guy and a bad guy.

There's not going to be a civil war because there's one comprehensive vision for the future that's competing with another.

There's going to be a civil war because the contradiction that is at the heart of the American Republic and the United States of America is just an objective contradiction.

It's a real contradiction, right?

So we are looking at a civil war.

Everything has to be fit within the context of civil war, including the upcoming elections and midterms.

Now we're also seeing the proliferation and rise of

Disruptive forms of politics

That aren't categorized along traditional partisan lines.

Specifically, Majorie Taylor Greene.

Has really come out as a

Um, like far to the left of anyone on the Democratic Party, frankly.

And by the way, if imperialism is the primary contradiction.

Then your stance toward foreign policy determines where you are on the political spectrum.

Not your attitude towards transgenders, not your attitude toward political correctness, not your attitude toward abortion.

The thing that matters is your attitude to imperialism concretely, right?

So we have witnessed the rise of a new left wing in the form of Major Taylor Greene, Tucker Carlson, and others.

And they represent a resurgence of left-wing populism.

Even Thomas Massey, you could probably argue, right?

Now, Tucker and Major and others.

These people are not e Massey's a libertarian, so you could give him that.

But most of these people who are adjacent to Tucker and stuff, they're actually like left-wing when it comes to economics as well, not just foreign policy.

So if they're left-wing when it comes to economics and they're left-wing when it comes to anti-imperialism, what makes them right-wing?

They're their their attitudes toward sexuality and and nebulous nonsense that shouldn't matter if you're at like.

Forget about being a Marxist materialist.

Just from the perspective of common sense, that doesn't fucking matter, right?

Not nearly as much as the other two things that I mentioned, right?

So we are witnessing the political realignment I've always talked about happening.

It's just continuing to happen.

And this, what we should really think about is how we can accelerate the development of this anti-Epstein Popular Front.

Because I genuinely think that the rise of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

That is not going to actually conclude.

In, you know, I'm speaking to the choir here, but it's not going to conclude in somehow like pushing the country left or something.

You're going to have a very aggressive moral center of the US Empire.

The US Empire lacks morale right now, right?

The thing that's going to restore to it moral legitimacy and reinvigoration is democratic socialism, 100%.

Kat Abu Ghazala is the model of the future in terms of what could plausibly continue the US empire and build sufficient popular consensus for war with China, which is the ultimate game plan of the US elite, by the way, is war with China.

Everyone knows that, right?

So I'm not being a sectarian, I'm not being a sectarian leftist when I identify AOC and others as a genuine fascist threat.

From a very pragmatic, realistic perspective, I am

Pointing out the fact that

They are gearing up to be the saving grace of US imperialism that it so desperately needs right now.

Trump was that in 2026.

Of course he was.

Trump duped a bunch of anti-system conspiracy theorists into supporting the system.

Now, where has the ball shifted in terms of anti-system and anti-hegemony sentiment?

Well, because the Republicans are in power, it shifted to the left.

So the ball is going to keep swinging in these directions.

Like Obama.

Who did more for American imperialism than Barack Obama?

I don't think anyone did.

Barack Obama really, really gave the U.S.

Empire a lifespan that it otherwise wouldn't have had, right?

Longer.

And then it was Trump, and then it was Biden, and there was not a lot of clarity under Biden.

See, everyone needs to understand.

Biden represented the last generation of these centrist Democrats.

They're fucking dead now.

Just like Biden, I don't know if he's still alive or not.

He's definitely mentally dead.

But Biden, when he won, all the Bernie people and the progressive leftists, they were also disappointed by it, right?

But, like, that form of politics in the Democratic Party is literally dead.

It's gone.

It's been discredited with Trump's election in 2024.

It's been discredited generationally because the old people are literally just dying off by the year.

And at this point, the only saving race of the Democratic Party are going to be the AOCs and the progressive wing.

They have nothing else left.

Zoran Mamdani, he's going to inject new energy into the Democratic Party that it hasn't had before.

And I see the light at the end of the tunnel, the light, if you can call it that.

And it's going to be a reinvigoration of the U.S.

war machine, providing the necessary moral justification the U.S.

Empire needs to embark on a worldwide crusade against Russia, against China, against others for being backward and whatever, reactionary.

My words sound crazy.

They sound crazy.

They sound hyperbolic.

They sound kooky.

But Logo agrees with me.

That means something.

And it also makes a lot of sense.

The U.

S.

just doesn't have the ability to build popular consensus to sustain itself anymore.

This is the only path forward for the Democratic Party, okay?

I want to briefly respond to the Geese magazine people, whom I haven't had a lot of time to talk about on stream.

I actually, I don't know if I should spoil this, but I want to bring back.

Debate among Marxists.

I want to bring back polemics.

I want to bring back.

There's something quite dark about the geese people in a way that I actually find a little amusing.

And.

maybe even promising, actually.

It's gonna shock you that I'm saying this, but you know, leftists have been shills of the Democratic Party for a decade, right?

For a decade.

And what I find so fascinating about the Geese people is that they're finally translating this implicit corruption and unprincipledness, which is what it has been, into the form of a of a definite, like, theoretical self-awareness.

Uh the main people of the Geese movement are not stupid.

They are they do actually have somewhat of an impressive, given their stances, understanding of dialectics.

They do have they they have read Lenin, actually.

And they have clearly thought about their positions in ways that, in their mind, make their position and stance principled.

But what they don't understand is that they have adopted a very dark position.

They've created actually a critical distance toward the otherwise implicit, unspoken, corrupt allegiance to the Democratic Party, where they now have to justify that position by way of a completely autonomous and independent type of logic.

Now, when the logic is autonomous and independent, I actually don't think it's going to take a lot for them to realize that their position is wrong because they're justifying their position in a way that's independent, right?

So there's something dark about them.

And they're not naive Democrats, so to speak.

They're not buying into it.

They haven't drank the Kool-Aid.

They're not ideologically invested in the Democratic Party.

They genuinely think, you know, this is simplification, but they think what they're doing is a type of Machiavellian political realism.

That already, you may not want to admit it, guys, but...

That already puts them in a strange degree of proximity with us.

They have the totally opposite position of us, but what they have achieved is the ability to justify and articulate their stance in a way that is independent of the movement of, you know, nebulous leftism or whatever, right?

So, um, I just wanna I just wanna say that because I think you guys are very hostile toward them.

And we need to we need to pick our battles in terms of who we're actually gonna bully and be hostile to and uh berate and you know bully and and and stomp on and stuff.

And it's like, look, if someone is articulating themselves purely in the language of theory, then respond to them in the same language.

And I'm saying that because it's like, look,

Um

We have to have the confidence that we can justify our positions in clear, lucid, Marxist terms, right?

And that's the most important thing.

Now, when it comes to people who are irrational to us, then of course fucking stomp them, crush them, destroy them, you know, online or whatever, not in real life.

Don't commit any crimes, of course.

But you get the idea.

Um I'm just telling you guys, I want you to have that distinction.

I want you to know the distinction between people who disagree with us theoretically and try to propose arguments about why they disagree with us and people who just point at us and call us Nazis and and whatever and hysterically attack us.

So, understand and comprehend that distinction.

I, for one, okay, I don't even know.

I want to put this out there because if I announce it, if I announce the idea, it's going to be sabotaged somehow.

But here's an idea I have for this year: I want to convene a

Forum of Civil Debate and Discussion.

of Marxists and and people who claim to be communists from all major factions of the US independent you know independent

Left.

If we are able to do such things with the platypus people, with whom we very much disagree on fundamentals, Grayson is con Grayson, Carlos, they're constantly speaking at Platypus panels.

Why don't we just expand that?

And I'm thinking, were we, um,

Will include the geese people.

We can invite Donald Redditson and the Reddit MUG caucus.

They've done some despicable, awful things that I think cross lines, but it's like, uh, how much do I care?

And then we bring in, um, we could bring in other DSA people.

You bring in representatives from the PSL, and we all accept Marxist realism.

We sit down and we say, what is the way forward for Marxism in America?

And let's just let's just have a forum to actually disagree.

Right off the bat, we fucking disagree with each other.

I agree.

But why don't we have a forum where we can articulate our disagreement in a civil and productive way, just so there could be clarity as far as where we actually stand, what our arguments are, and so on and so on, right?

So, this is something I propose, and I think we should have in America.

I think it would do pretty well.

I want it to be civil.

And I want it to be

I want it to be founded upon the principle that Marxists are independent in the sense that like we can have debates and dis disagreements among each other, we are committed to the legacy of Marxism and of Lenin and so on and so on, and we need to articulate our differences and our disagreements in a way that, you know, through the logos, through speech, through language, through theory.

So this is something I want to propose for this year.

And um

This would only be for Marxists.

This would only be for people who consider themselves communists or Marxists.

And I'm not going to spoil who has already signed on to agree, but you'd be surprised

You'd be surprised that actually some people have already agreed that they would they're they're interested in it, right?

So you'd think it's a long shot, but no, actually, it can happen.

So that's something I'm gonna put that put out there.

I wanna tell you guys I wanna give you this is my id way of giving you guys the idea.

I've already told people in the EB the idea.

I guess the whole party can just hear the idea right now and you know I'm I'll continue to update you as far as what we can do.

How much progress has been made when it comes to that, right?

That was an extremely long tangent.

But critically, why are the geese people and Hassan Pika wrong when it comes to?

I keep seeing the geese people, they're basically, I think they have Hassan's one-for-one view on this.

I keep seeing them make the argument that they're citing something from Lenin, 1920s, with respect to the elections in Britain, right?

The logic is: let's support AOC, let's support Zoran AOC and all the other progressives, so that once they do get elected and inevitably betray the proletariat.

We could acquire the concrete basis for a left-wing opposition to democratic socialism and social democracy.

So, the idea is that thus far, our only opposition is rooted in ideological sectarianism, right?

And that in order to actually create concretely the conditions by which we can actually successfully challenge AOC or Democrats or Zohron from the left, we actually have to help them win to prove to the masses the betrayal concretely and then seize the opportunity to articulate, to be at the vanguard of providing the explanation basically for why they committed the betrayals that they did.

And thus, voila, like thus, it's first of all, two things.

This will.

Sound familiar.

Because

First of all, it's quite a sophisticated dialectical logic that does come from Lenin.

Lenin uses that same argument for the British Labour Party when he tells communists you should actually help the labor leaders in Britain win, so that because right now you don't have a concrete basis with which to distinguish yourself and oppose them, right?

So you need to create the conditions by which you could concretely draw out these contradictions to tell the workers, see?

You know, we are the only ones that could provide an explanatory paradigm for why these labor leaders have betrayed you.

We Bolsheviks, we neo-Bolsheviks, we communists, whatever, right?

In contrast to the reformists and opportunists in the ranks of the Labour Party.

So the logic is actually quite clear.

But what's ironic about employing this passage from Lenin is: doesn't it kind of sound like the entire logic of MAGA communism?

Like, the whole point of MAGA communism is: we're going to be here with the MAGA movement, and then when Trump inevitably betrays them, we're going to be able to provide.

So, that logic was absolutely clear.

The difference is, of course, we're not assisting Trump winning the election, but the Leninist logic of basing yourself in the concrete development of politics and then waiting for the opportunity or participating in the process by which the contradictions that justify your stance acquire a concrete existence.

Like, instead of just saying, Yeah, Trump is a scam artist and he's lying to you and he's a Zionist, instead of just saying this to MAGA in 2022.

Ideologically, you know it's true, and so you're just telling it to them.

Wait for them to see it with their own eyes concretely, and then concretely there's going to be a contradiction.

You can then have an advantage because you have an explanatory paradigm that lends itself to a superior narrative that you could capture and make sense of, right?

So the reason why you should not dismiss this argument out of um

Out of hand, so to speak, is because it's the same logic behind MAGA communism in 2022.

So, what should our response be?

Should we?

How the f you guys are am I a clone?

Am I a real Haas?

Should we support progressive Democrats so that we could create the circumstance concretely by which we could justify the contradiction taking form within the Democratic Party?

No.

And I'll tell you why.

Are you ready to hear the real reason?

You know, to be a little sadistic, I want to ask the community, what do you think the reason is?

I want to see if one person understands why this is wrong as an argument.

So I want to see if one person understands why this is wrong.

I'll look at the chat.

Does anyone understand why it's wrong to say that this Leninist logic of

Cre of helping the progressive Democrats win so that we can create the conditions by which the left-wing opposition to them can be justified concretely.

Why is that a wrong argument?

Democrats and leftists are de-radicalizing.

That's true, but it's not you're not getting to the key argument here.

The why.

Why are they de-radicalizing, right?

Because it's n uh because there's n uh, one person kinda got close.

Uh there's no social democratic movement, only Democrats.

Um, no, that's not a good argument.

Because the masses will remember.

I actually think that's an intelligent argument, which I will touch on, but that's not what I'm looking for per se.

Um

Okay, well, I want you guys to stop trying because you're not gonna get it.

If someone got it and I didn't see, then I'll.

apologize, but no, it's actually a lot more simple.

Okay, Kyle got it.

Kyle got it.

The truth is, this did already happen.

That's the hill I'm gonna die on.

This did already happen.

You know, in 2015, it happened multiple times actually, but to be to be clear, in 2015, I actually did see promise in the Bernie Sanders movement.

Do you think I was a social democrat or a democratic socialist in 2015?

I really wasn't.

I really wasn't.

I was very much a fanatical communist who believed in revolution and

I thought Stalin didn't go far enough and so on, like I was not a democratic socialist, but I still thought Bernie Sanders' movement was promising.

Why did I?

Because I have read Lenin.

I understand the logic here.

My argument against the Democratic Party since twenty since that has never been.

You know, oh, well, it's not even that the Democrats are Zionists and that they're pro-imperialist and that they're anti-communists or whatever.

It's actually concrete.

When Bernie had the elections rigged against him, that should have concretely proven to the masses, which it did, by the way.

It fed MAGA.

MAGA's the one who was able to absorb all that.

But, like, those elections were basically rigged.

They were basically rigged.

Okay.

That would have been the cause's belly by which you could have

You could have begun the process of building a like a very strong left wing opposition to the hegemony and and against the Democratic Party.

That concretely justified breaking from the Democratic Party, even in the eyes of the insurgent masses.

Now, in the eyes of all the masses in America, no, but enough of the masses to be decisive in getting Donald Trump elected in 2016.

Trump was elected in 2016 in part because the elections were rigged against Bernie, in part because the institution of neoliberal democracy had already concretely been discredited.

Now, if you don't find that to be a strong argument, I'm going to tell you another thing that's going to be very strange to you.

I thought I liked the idea

of the progressive Democrat

run for the midterms starting in twenty seventeen.

AOC and all these other people I don't necessarily remember.

But I thought that was actually promising.

For the exact same reason.

AOC did get elected, in fact.

She did get into Congress.

And what did she do?

She betrayed.

She betrayed, you know, the progressive momentum that got her elected.

That already happened.

Finally, if that's not enough, in 2020, I was paying very close attention to Bernie Sanders.

I thought this is the momentum we need to build up a left, to clarify the various contradictions within the Democratic Party.

And despite everything, I said, maybe this time, you know, we need to accentuate these contradictions.

I was there, you know, the analogy was the Hassan versus Destiny dispute.

I was absolutely saying there's so much promise in the Hassan wing of this dispute.

You think I was some naive, retarded democratic socialist?

No, I was a Stalinist actually.

Very, very hardcore Stalinist at this time.

So

But what happened?

The election was basically rigged a second time.

Obama made some phone calls, everyone dropped out of the race very suddenly and immediately, and structurally, you know, it was they were they maneuvered against Bernie Sanders.

And that, to me, was my MAGA communist moment.

By the way, my MAGA Communist moment started then.

That's when Infrared came on the scene and basically said, you know what?

It's time to fully abandon this specific strategy altogether.

Maybe it was mistaken from the beginning.

But it had already been decisively proven in the eyes of the masses in twenty fifteen, twenty sixteen, that neoliberal democracy has been discredited.

That the hegemony has been discredited.

COVID also accelerated this to a huge extent.

The big story in 2020 was not Trump.

Where was MAGA?

Where was Trump?

What was that?

Well, it was QAnon, it was the vaccine skepticism.

The big story was the proliferation of conspiracy theories and the Jeffrey Epstein thing breaking.

Everyone forgets what happened, but the whole Jeffrey Epstein stuff, it began around 2019-2020 in terms of captivating the public consciousness.

And

You know, it wasn't there, it's not like there was this white that that was when you could clearly observe.

A unforgivable type of opportunism that started to seize hold of the progressive left.

And this is the origin story, by the way, of Jackson Hinkle and

Jimmy Dore kind of and others.

Because there was this ambiguous conspiracism that was on the rise among the population, and it was ambiguous.

It was absolutely not attached to any specific comprehensive ideology.

But AOC and all these progressive leftists and Democrats, they would look at that phenomenon

And they would reduce it and they would crucify it on the cross of being far-right white nationalism, racism, Nazism, the Ku Klux Klan or something.

They were lying.

They were lying about this insurgent kind of populist sentiment that was nebulously associated with MAGA, but truth be told, even at that time, wasn't reducible to it.

And it was it was the most clear and obvious symptom of mass discontent with the system.

was rearing itself in twenty twenty in this way.

And in popular media and popular culture, I guess the movie with Joaquin Phoenix the Joker was a big symbol of that in a lot of ways, if you remember.

But there was just this very general anti system.

Consciousness that was emerging outside of the confines of US politics that.

US politics could not contain really and it was like a thousand con I I have the theory, the cybernetic malign sovereignty, like a thousand malign cybernetic forms of popular sovereignty, like rogue AIs were on the loose and and taking shape.

And this was in fact something that was happening.

So

That was the moment that I began to realize that leftists were agents of the system.

They were reducing that to the right wing, but it wasn't inherently right wing.

There was potential within that for building out the basis of the left.

Foo, what's up?

And Jackson saw that.

Jimmy Dore saw it.

And, you know, an example, that was the whole purpose of the force the vote thing in late 2020, which is you want a majority in the House and the Senate.

So why don't you force a vote for health care, for Medicare for all, or whatever, right?

And

You know?

It's like that's why that contradiction was drawn out in the way it was, the force the vote movement.

And everyone, that's that, that was, you know, the rest is history.

That's when Vosh started saying, you know, these are the Nazbulls, the Red Brown alliance.

Jimmy Door is a Red Brown.

That's when even Hassan Piker was saying the same thing.

That's when AOC, that was when really like I think a decisive contradiction began to emerge within the left between, you know, the so-called, you know, I don't know, tankies and progressive mainstream Democrats.

And you could say, well, you're tankies and you're so marginal and whatever.

But it's like, well, when you understand it as part of this broad.

Third estate within politics of conspiratorial consciousness and momentum and stuff associated with the release or the news that Epstein killed himself, COVID, the post-COVID era, and so on and so on.

No, it's not in a minority.

It's actually the symptom of that within the left, right?

It's the way the left started to conform.

And bend in the shape of a completely new era, right?

And so Infrared came on the scene, we took the stances that we did, and the rest was history.

I love how everyone gets so fucking bored when I recap history, when I when I when I do this.

And it's because people are mentally retarded and it's quite sad to me actually.

It's quite sad and pathetic that people cannot track the importance of recapping things that everyone has forgotten that happened six years ago.

So, the reason it's wrong to apply the logic of Lenin with respect to the Labour Party in the 20s.

Harold, thank you so much with the five.

The reason it's wrong to attempt to apply that logic, so to speak, is very simple.

Because yes, it would have been true maybe in 2015, maybe in 2016, 2017.

But

The logic has already played out and the left has been missing.

Marxists have been missing.

Communists have been missing.

MAGA communism was the loudest and most aggressive way in which we wanted to draw out that fact that Marxists were missing.

Yes, the masses are ready for a very radical change, for a very radical alternative concretely to politics.

The conditions are ripe, absolutely, for it.

And who but Marxists and communists should be the ones to place themselves at the avant-garde of this third estate, let's call it whatever anti-Epstein popular momentum that has been brewing since for a decade now, okay?

Now you're not going to be able to do that by

You know, participating in a symmetrical political strategy.

You have to use that as the basis for the emergence of an asymmetrical form of politics where our electoral strategy is not based on Democratic Party or Republican Party or anything, but it's an independent strategy based on maximizing the hegemony or sorry, maximizing the supremacy of counter-hegemonic and disruptive political forces within the country.

I think only a Communist Party, only an organization of that type, could consolidate and centralize the implementation of that kind of strategy.

And that's what I have to say about going forward.

Our party is not big enough to be decisive with respect to participating in elections in that way.

But if

Hassan Piker and others started throwing their ring in it, throwing their hats in the ring.

If significant portions of the left started to get on board,

We could precisely do it.

Without any issue.

And then um I wanna talk about

Also why the Leninist logic is not necessarily applicable, because there's a presumption, there's an assumption that it is applicable, and I think that's wrong.

So the reason why it's actually not applicable, um, strictly speaking,

Is because the Labor Party in the twenties is not the equivalent of the Democratic Party today.

Project actually the Labor Party was quite a new party.

It had a

a foreign policy stance that concretely was beneficial to the Soviet Union.

It was actually a progressive party relative to the conservatives in terms of you know the labor movement and imperialism, marginally more progressive.

So the today's equivalent of the Labor Party would not be the Democratic Party, it would be Thomas Massey, it would be Tucker Carlson, it would be Major Taylor Greene or something.

Again, the only thing that makes people associate them with the right now

Is there stance on, I dunno, transgenders or something?

But what are our priorities here?

Why is that the decisive thing?

You know, the Labor Party in the 1920s was a new party, not something, not an old establishment, it was a new party.

There's no equivalence whatsoever between that and the Democratic Party.

Project 2036, thank you so much for the five.

So the boring part is over, I guess.

And let's talk about our way forward.

What is our way forward?

What's our vision forward?

So we cannot

We cannot tie ourselves down to elections and participating in elections and canvassing.

It's a waste of resources, it's a waste of money, we don't have it, we don't have the ability to plan anything like that out.

City councils I think are doable.

We should where we can.

I'm going to very strongly emphasize where we can.

Because I am extremely conservative when it comes to what this actually fucking means.

In our party, we cannot afford risky gambits when it comes to politics.

None of this bullshit of oh, I have a dream I could do.

I don't give a fuck.

Tie yourself down to what is concretely realistic and doable.

Not don't make everything an opportunity to fulfill the American dream.

It's a cancerous.

type of derangement all Americans seem to have, don't use our party as a platform to realize your retarded American dream, 'cause it's not going to happen.

We're not here dreaming.

We are very concretely rooted in what is realistic and possible based on what we can uh appraise in a in a scientific and grounded way.

Okay?

I just want to say that.

No long shots.

But

If there is a possibility for winning an election anywhere for our party, I don't give a fuck what the office or what the post is.

I mean, Chris Halali won high bailiff.

Obviously, we should do it.

Should you spend tens of thousands of dollars on it?

No.

Should you expend so much resources beyond our means?

No.

Let's not spend beyond our means.

Let's not expend beyond our means.

But if and where it is possible, we should absolutely be doing it.

City councils.

Even if it's, I don't know if it's possible for mayorships.

I don't, I don't know.

Draw up what's possible.

What we can do, we should take.

I will say that.

Some yeah, some some elections are uncontested.

So what we can do, we should do.

What we can take, we should take.

I want to strongly emphasize that.

No long shots.

I'm not talking about long shots.

There's no room for long shots in our party here, right?

But where it's possible, let's actually get our people in elected in positions of power and in office.

It builds our party up.

It's for our party.

And uh that's something so so you know at the chapter level, you should be analyzing this.

If you've gotten the impression that I think that our party can simply desist from established politics, electoral politics altogether I've never said that.

I've simply said that we have to reject being tied to the established parties.

But we still need to recognize where the masses are at, obviously, and we need to be very realistic, very sober, not get ahead of ourselves, not get excited in a frenzy thinking that we're on the cusp.

You know of uh

Look, I want to tell you something.

A third party is almost impossible to build up.

Right now, um, because it's it would be domineered by personalities, potentially wealthy people that have the money to do it, but personalities.

And Americans don't know how to form movements, everything is a cybernetic system.

Americans aren't mature enough to form alternative parties or movements, by and large, and they don't do so in the Democratic and Republican Party consciously.

They acquiesce to impersonal systems that have been established by convention and by habit and other things.

Usually, whenever there has been an attempt to put together some kind of third party or

Alternative coalition, it's just it was just marked by the path psychopathologies of specific personalities and individuals and conflicts in between them and pettiness and nonsense and smallness.

And that's why we should not

Overestimate

We should not overestimate.

How the anti-Epstein popular momentum is actually going to translate into politics concretely.

The way we translate it is by having a political strategy that is based

In asymmetrical

Um electoral politics where you're not doing it on the basis of there's one third party versus the two parties.

You're doing it on the basis of everywhere you can centralize and coordinate a single strategy to to um

To assist in the supremacy of forces that disrupt the two-party system.

And it can be very maybe here it can be the Green Party, maybe there it can be something else, and there it can be independent or whatever.

It's not so important.

The important thing is you have your own independent political strategy and outlook where on a case by case basis we can decide who is actually the best.

And um w our resour I mean, w how can we be decisive in the outcome of those elections?

No.

But we can use that as a platform for our party to acquire more relevance and more power.

At every local actually in a local election, there's this like based mayor who's running, right?

If our party kind of starts getting involved in that, in the discourse surrounding it, in the propaganda, and the debates, and the arguments, it's actually going to grow our party's standing.

It's going to create the concrete and material conditions for us to acquire political relevancy.

And that's kind of what I mean when it comes to this.

And I've talked about this before on previous streams, by the way.

This asymmetrical political strategy that I've been talking about, right?

So, um

Yeah.

So uh

Which is quite interesting.

Quite interesting indeed.

Um yes.

Okay, so

So, uh I want us to be on the same page when it comes to

The asymmetrical political strategy.

And we absolutely do need to take elections seriously because even if that's not the case for us, for the American people still,

That is politics.

That is what politics is concretely and materially.

And we have to in if we want to be a political party, we have to acknowledge that fact.

And we have to acknowledge it.

Uh we have to acknowledge it in a practical way.

So, I want there's a lot else I want to talk about, but it looks like.

We really gotta go back to YouTube.

This is fucking crazy.

Um

Yeah, anyway, um

I was going to talk about the Dan Bilzerian run and Nick Fuentes accusing him of, you know, some kind of crime or something like that.

Really, and by the way, like, I don't know Dan Bilzerian at all.

I'm just going to be completely honest.

I don't know him at all.

And I have no familiarity with him whatsoever, but I know for a fact Nick Fuentes is lying because he made another weird lie about me when he said I killed Charlie Kirk.

So that immediately led me thinking about, okay, why is Nick Fuentes lying about Dan Bilzerian in the way that he is?

And the reason is obvious to me because I do actually think the feds or the controllers or the people in power in some kind of way do think that what Dan Bozerian is trying to do is very dangerous.

Running a meme campaign against Randy Fine, using your social media influence as a vehicle to disrupt the political system.

Think about this: like Randy Fine is living in a low-energy district full of a bunch of boomers and pensioners.

who just vote for him out of habit and convention.

There's not a single sentient person in this country who prefers Randy Fine over anyone.

And so if Dan Bulzerian can bring energy into that district and use some of his social media pull to mobilize people to unseat Randy Fine and like imagine if that actually happened, right?

I think that actually I think that would be the regime does consider that a threat.

Just because of how disruptive it would be.

It doesn't matter if you agree with Dan.

I mean Dan Bulzerian says a lot of crazy things about the Bolsheviks and whatever, but

It doesn't change the fact that if he was elected into Congress it would cause a stir, objectively, and it would be extremely disruptive.

Right.

So I think Nick Fuentes is being mobilized.

Maybe he's an asset because of January sixth or something.

But it just seems completely obvious to me that he's being mobilized to uh to do that, to dis to, you know, discredit or attack or malign

Dan Bulzarian with respect to that election.

And it goes to show that I think that the system is clocking the fact there is an anti Epstein popular momentum.

A lot of that is being translated in the form of eclectic social media influencers

using their social media poll to disrupt

Electoral precedent and basically the political establishment as such.

And I think on some fundamental, they do clock that as a threat.

And so we need to keep in mind

The fact that, what did they say?

The dam is about to break, so to speak, I think.

It's pretty clear to me.

The dam is really about to break.

When it comes to the future of US politics,

And um

We're getting to a uh a point where there's just a change in generations, the boomers are dying off.

But the way that's going to affect US politics is going to be extremely disruptive, and I think they're very carefully maneuvering to contain it.

With everything they have, they're trying to contain it, right?

Um okay, well we're just gonna begin our TikTok debates.

We're going to begin our TikTok debates.

Because uh

Gotta bring some content in here.

I have not been streaming for weeks, and I gotta build it up again.

Probably gotta.

Probably get gotta get back on YouTube, to be honest.

What does that even mean?

Like, you know, you're fucking doing bad.

Sorry, I was on the kick home page.

Comrade Thomas with the ten, appreciate you.

Yeah, slowly but surely, we're gonna be um we're gonna for sure

Get to that one thousand mark.

Slowly but surely we will get back there.

Okay, so I have to turn on this virtual camera.

I'm gonna go here, the settings.

Alright, perfect.

Alright.

So we're starting the debate right now.

Jesus fucking Christ.

So we are beginning our debates, our TikTok debates.

And we are going to see

Ah we're gonna see who's going to join, so.

I think a lot of these libertarian types, I have to say something, a lot of these libertarian types.

I don't know I don't know if you have to divide the libertarians between the Thomas Masseys, the Ron Pauls, but then you have the ANCAPs.

And that British guy that I debated weeks ago, I noticed that while I was in Russia, not a day had gone by that they weren't coping and crying and completely just

Desperately attempting to change the narrative about what everyone saw with their two eyes when it came to that debate, which is that he was not able to actually present an argument or something that I couldn't just immediately shoot shoot down in response to.

He had no idea what Marxist materialism was.

Someone had told him that Marxist materialism is the same thing as an extremely crude mechanical determinism that I don't even think self-proclaimed determinists believe in.

And basically, like, he just realized that this was going to be a much more difficult argument, crashed out.

And then, um and then his like supporters or whatever, his two fans kept like spamming

Uh, coping, I don't know, saying, Oh, Haz, you got destroyed, you got destroyed.

It's like, yeah, but there's nobody who actually will watch that debate and think that who's like watching it in good faith.

I think, and you know, I actually had to think about it a little bit: like, why did he keep spamming the argument?

Where do alternatives come from?

Where do alternatives come from?

And then I thought about it and I'm like, oh, he actually thinks that the reason why there are different things in the universe is because it's somehow chosen.

Like,

If there's two rocks on the ground and one rock is shaped like um you know

I don't know.

It's shaped like a sphere, and the other one is shaped like a square.

He thinks the alternative between the two rocks comes from the choice itself, the capacity to choose between them, rather than the fact that there are different things.

So I guess that's what he got confused about.

He doesn't understand that the alternatives don't come from your will.

They come from the fact that there are different determinations within the universe.

Not even the crudest of determinists deny that there are different things in the world.

That there's Earth, there's Jupiter, there's Mars, there are different planetary bodies.

There are different chemicals, there are different compounds, there are different elements, there are different particles, there are just different things.

He was genuinely asking that.

I didn't think he was stupid enough to be asking such a ridiculous question.

Where do alternatives come from?

Like, as though even the crudest caricature of determinism would not, if you were semi-literate, would not represent it in a way that argues that they think that somehow there's only one thing that exists.

There is even one choice existing and one thing existing, right?

So, it's quite sad actually.

And then Bouncy Ben, the other guy's name is Bouncy Ben.

So Bouncy Prax Ben.

Uh bouncy ben

He is, you know, can I just say something?

That is the most mentally violated guy I've ever come across.

And it's crazy that I was in, like, I, that that person, I didn't meet him in person per se.

I was in the same room as him in person.

I would have never, I didn't even know who that was.

I would have never expected that guy to be so mentally scarred and like violated for the rest of his life to the point where anytime I'm on X and I see anything related to me whatsoever, I'll click it and in the replies, there is Bouncy Ben making AI doodles of himself that looking superior and stronger than me.

He needs AI to pull that off, by the way.

And he's just so violated.

Like he's just I keep getting it seeing him get smacked around by the gorillas and by the people in our community.

And I'm just like, wow, this is really sad actually.

This is super sad.

Um, because I was like I I thought this guy had clout and maybe had their own career or something, but no, they're just like a mental they're mentally scarred by me forever and I just it's kind of awkward to me.

Like, I don't know what to do, like

I agreed to debate him.

I won I per the Oxford rules or whatever, I triumphed in the debate and he lost and I destroyed his whole life.

He can't like there's nothing he can do except think about me for the rest of his life.

I just literally live rent free in his mind forever.

And I kinda feel bad for him.

I I'm just kidding, I don't feel bad for him at all.

But uh, yeah, he's um bouncy ben.

Bouncy Ben.

Yeah, I'm talking about the he called himself Prax Ben, which is such a cringy name, by the way.

But uh Bouncy Ben, it's like he is like I I honestly, I imagine him crying every night about me, like going to bed crying, like shaking angrily in tears and crying about me.

And then he goes to bed involuntarily just because he exhausted all of his energy.

Uh coping and crying about me.

So that's Bouncy Ben.

And um

So let's um

Let's see who's going to request to debate me.

No requests yet.

There are no requests.

I'm a terrible live streamer.

I don't even know if I should be a live streamer.

I'm not good at live streaming, guys.

I just.

Actually, I am.

But.

I dunno.

I don't know how much I love the live streaming.

Medium.

I don't know how much I used to love it, I used to be so good at it and now I just kinda just like I just

I just kind of feel like it's just kind of

I don't know.

I feel like it's not real when I when you say like who is Haas and you're like live streamer it's like it's not really accurate it's not really enough to capture

What I become

Yeah, I've gotten too old and shit and it's like uh I'll still do debates and stuff, but I don't know about the whole

Huh.

The whole live streaming thing, it's like I don't know.

I took a two-week break.

Took a two week break.

And uh I kinda got used to it a little.

I don't know.

Uh genuinely though, if you guys wanna see the streams continue.

Support the streams, 'cause otherwise I gotta find a different way to

I gotta find a different way to support myself.

Which I can, you know.

Uh no problem.

Let me bring this person on.

What the heck?

No way.

Pause.

Yeah, what the what's going on?

I've been following you for so long, bro.

I don't know what to say.

I I can't believe you let me up.

Uh.

Amilo, what's up?

Appreciate you.

Thank you so much with the 10.

Thank you so much.

Texas star with the five.

What's up, man?

Phil Foe, what's up, bro?

I appreciate you.

That's awesome, bro.

Quick, yo, what do you what do you want?

What do you want?

What do you want?

Oh, I didn't know if you heard me.

I'm sorry.

Um American Communist Party, right?

Alright, well I I'm bringing on people to debate me.

You wanna debate me, you can debate me.

If you want to waste time and gibber, I don't know what

I can tell you.

Sunset with the one.

Appreciate you, bro.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sunset.

Alright, there's someone else requesting uh let's see

It's just Uno.

Uno is the only person who wants to debate me.

Like I said, the ANCAPs, they, you know, it's the thing about ANCAPs, they have no idea about Marxism.

Not a single one of them can produce a single argument against Marxism.

They have no understanding about the labor theory of value.

They somehow think Marxist materialism means mechanical determinism.

Not only mechanical determinism, but a mechanical determinism according to which there aren't different things.

As in, there's like only one identifiable thing in the universe and nothing else.

And then they also have this idea called the economic calculation problem, which was literally discredited like within the same year that it was proposed.

And then they shifted the argument to something else, which is even more laughably a non-problem.

And so, you know, we just kind of get to the point where they just have no arguments against Marxism, no arguments against communism at all.

Hello.

Hello, how you doing?

I'm fine.

Hey, I got a question.

American Communist Party, that's that's like a political party in the States, right?

Yeah.

Okay, so

For example, what kind of transition would it be like if that party were to be were to take power in the States?

And what would that look like for the big American companies and other entities down there?

Do you have any idea of that?

Yeah, have you read the program of the party?

No I haven't.

You haven't?

Well

Uh well, we would basically embark on a massive process of reindustrialization, unleashing the productive forces, transitioning into a new uh mode of production more or less that is primarily based on um

The rise of unleashing cybernetics, basically.

We would unleash the power and potential of socialist planning through AI.

We would convert most of the existing corporations into state-owned enterprises, which because they already owe the public since they've been bailed out so many times, since they only exist on the public's dime anyway.

We would destroy the Federal Reserve banking system and implement a national state bank in its place.

We would eliminate the real estate industry entirely and um.

Embark on a campaign of ensuring there's affordable housing and that construction and housing is based on a principle of.

People living in homes and not speculation?

So there's all sorts of things.

We would the really important thing that we would accelerate technology, the transition into the fourth industrial revolution.

You know, we would really, really strongly emphasize just expediting the acceleration of that transition.

And uh, you know, to completely eliminate government bureaucracies based on old systems and old technologies.

And uh you would see a measurable

A dist a a very stark difference in everyday life based on this.

All the vestiges of the old all the vestiges of the old system in the old era would be destroyed.

Um they would just be y gotten rid of.

Is the AI thing a big part of the policy for uh ACP?

Yeah, it is.

And would they be entrusting like uh governance to any part of AI?

I don't know what I don't know I don't know how that could be po I mean, y you c governance can't be artificial intelligence.

What can be given to AI are the various bureaucratic institutions and systems that implement governance or participate in governance.

And

What would be the reasoning behind doing that?

Well the reasoning behind doing freeing up people's time.

There's an immense waste of our time that's happening because of how outdated these systems are.

So much time could simply be saved.

That's a big I mean, we only have about, what, eighty years to live?

Yeah.

Saving ourselves time means a lot.

So what about big, huge industries like, let's say, Chevron and stuff like that, these huge oil companies?

Those would all become nationalized?

Immediately, immediately nationalized.

I mean, we're talking about a level of nationalization for them.

I mean, it's like it would be such an overnight seizure.

It would be just like an immediate takeover, total arrest of the shareholders and the board of whatever, the people who sit on the board of trustees or whatever.

It'd be like a complete...

We would send in the Revolutionary Army busting through the skyscraper on the top floor where the board of trustees is.

They'd have the rope.

They'd be like in Call of Duty Ghost.

They'd be busting right in.

They would just be taking that shit.

They would just be taking that shit right away.

All the oil rigs would be secure.

I mean, that's the first thing.

We're just going to take that shit.

We're taking it.

We would seize that.

We would seize that.

It would be seized.

It would just be taken without a question.

Immediately.

Chevron.

Even whatever BP has here, like we would take it all.

We would take it.

ExxonMobil would be taken.

There wouldn't be a transition.

It would not be a trans it would immediate overnight in one night it would happen.

In one night.

I'm not saying two nights.

No, no, no, it's not two nights.

I'm not saying three.

I'm not saying one and a half.

I'm not saying one and a half.

I'm saying in one single night, it would be taken.

Probably less.

Actually, the minute the revolution happens or whatever, the minute we're in power,

The second after, like after a millisecond, it's being taken.

Yeah, I'm just using those big uh industries as an example for

Every big industry is just going to be taken.

Even Apple's going to be taken.

I don't know what we're going to do with Apple.

We probably turn Apple into a military company for the Red Army.

The Red Army needs a special, you know, I don't know.

We would take everything.

We would use Apple's technology to persecute the enemies of the revolution.

Siri.

Siri is going to be tracking down and identifying reactionaries for us.

I don't know how it's going to happen.

It'll happen.

And I suppose you would be normalized in relations with Cuba?

Immediately.

Not just normalizing.

Immediately, we're going to.

We would probably ask the Cubans, Hey, do you want to just join together?

And we would ask them and they maybe would do a referendum and

We would talk about how we would want that to work and we would probably immediately just join with Cuba.

And how would you envision this style of government spreading to other countries around the world once uh the States has it?

Well I mean the the when the US Civil War happens it's gonna cause a global civil war and uh th the whole world's gonna be knee-deep in trouble.

So if the Communist Party can arise from that civil war and provide an example of a way out of the dark ages to come, I think a lot of people are gonna follow suit by that example.

So you don't think your party will be elected uh except after a civil w war, like not through an election?

Not through an election.

Okay man, that's all I got.

Thanks for answering my questions.

Alright, but that wasn't a debate.

It's like this is literally the the the British guy all over again.

You just keep asking me questions instead of actually debating me about anything.

Oh, what where do the alternatives come from?

Cause I think that, you know, the re the the distinction between Coke and it's just 'cause people choose.

Yeah, the fucking giant corporations, Coke and Pepsi, exist because of people's choices and they don't exist because they get all these institutional government backing, control of supply chains, yada yada.

Like

Wh where did the alternatives come from between uh you know, between living on Earth and living on Mars?

Yeah, we we just chose Mars to exist.

We chose Earth to exist.

Before we were born, we chose that's where it comes from.

The distinction between planets is a consequence of our will.

That's that's where it came from, right?

Uh Diego.

Diego, go ahead.

What's up, yo, the fucking ACP, you guys are just a revisionist species shit, not gonna lie.

Not not a single communist has ever been like, Oh, you know the ACP, I love those guys.

Not a single actual communist has said that ever.

Ex except the largest non-governing one in the world, right?

Which one?

The KPRF?

Oh, sure, sure, but you guys are just LARPers.

'Cause, um so first of all, um so I'm Hispanic and I know this guy who went to the Soviet intern that it was called and he talked about how he went, right?

And he said that you people were saying, oh, we need communism, but we also need to preserve the traditional family.

Yeah, a based guy from the Moldovan Socialist Party said that.

He was a based guy.

That's based to you people?

He was a based guy.

He had the based credentials, so I don't know what to tell you.

And he was upset about something that guy said, apparently, about traditional values.

And what is your argument here?

Because the Moldovan guy is literally a generational communist, comes from a former communist state.

He knows what communism is.

He knows what socialism is.

He lived through it.

He breathed it.

His whole civilization and upbringing is downstream from that.

Everyone that was in attendance who came from the socialist world did not find what he said to be contentious at all.

The Sandinistas were there.

They had no complaints.

So some random guy from where?

Argentina or Chile or something?

Mexico.

Yeah, from Mexico.

had a problem with it, well, okay, maybe he should humble himself.

Maybe he doesn't know a lot about what communism or socialism is compared to the community.

You like that?

You you think that we must preserve the traditional family in traditional values?

I think that's a very acceptable opinion for a socialist or communist to have.

Acceptable.

Yeah, it's acceptable.

Okay, so when we say to keep traditional values, you we mean to, you know, keep the patriarchy, stuff like that.

Do you agree with that?

But that's not what he said.

As a communist, no, because when you say traditional family, what does it mean?

Oh, the the the father goes out there to work and bring money to the to the family.

You know, you have such a lack of self-awareness.

If a if a guy if a Gen Xer or a guy from Moldova is talking about the traditional family, he's probably talking about the family structure that that he experienced under socialism itself, which for him is the traditional family structure.

So like, what are you talking about?

No, 'cause he said like, oh, we must preserve those values.

And those values are, you know, keep the white.

He literally lived under socialism in the USSR.

You know that, right?

That was where what he lived under.

That's what how he was raised under.

Yes.

That's where his father came from.

That's where his parents came from, his grandparents.

So it's like.

Why are you lying about this?

Also, just because the guy was born in the fucking uses or that means that whatever he says is right.

You know, there's some people who there was a member of the fucking Russian Communist Party who said like, Oh, the USSR was revisionist and the USSR was a bad thing.

Member of the fucking Communist Party of the USSR.

Which one?

What do you mean?

Um, I I had a name.

Hold on, let me think what's spirit or something like that.

Um in my version of the Communist Manifesto you brought the intro.

So hold on.

Okay, so you wait, hold on.

I you know what I want to understand?

You used a specific word.

You said that we're revisionists.

How are we revisionists if we're talking you realize th the traditional communist view, the traditional Marxist-Leninist view

Has been the monogamous family structure between a man and a woman, as that the normal and healthy thing.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Under Enver Hoxha's Albania, under Chairman Mao, under Stalin, that's what was promoted.

So if you're accusing me of defending the traditional family, I'm not the most I didn't even give that speech, by the way, why are you calling me a revisionist when you're the revisionist, you're the one that's trying to revise and change what socialist countries under Marxist Leninists have already established as the norm?

Well, one, you must understand that communism evolves in a way, right?

Why?

How am I?

There's something, but there's some things that have to say for communism to be communism.

So, how do you do that?

You cannot have communism with traditional values.

That is, how are you supposed to liberate the working class without liberating women?

How are you supposed to do that?

Why is liberating women incompatible with?

Preserve it with the ACP.

Why is that incompatible with the Moldovan guy's argument or what he said that, you know, the family structure in which men and women find purpose and mutual whatever, like, why is why is that why is liberation always freedom from determination?

That's what I don't understand.

Because, you know, in the liberal view, to be liberated means to just have no form.

And in the Marxist view or the materialist view, liberation means insight into necessity.

It doesn't mean you're just becoming a free-floating, you know, Cartesian subject that's abstracted from all determinations, norms, and conventions.

So I just find your logic to be completely twisted and warped, you know?

Well we must understand that why the patriarchy is a thing, right?

Well why why is it a thing?

Because of capitalism.

All those bad things like racism, sexism, um um what was it called for can i ask you a question how old are you tell me i'm nineteen oh you're eighteen years old nineteen oh you're nineteen okay i'm uh twenty nine years old and i started doing the communist at twelve.

So let me ask you a question.

Do you think at any point in my life I might have thought about all these things you're talking about?

Like do you think I'm not familiar with this and I haven't thought about it or had a lot of time to think about it?

Yeah, of course.

Okay.

Yeah, I really have actually.

So, what you're telling me.

Is maybe new to you.

It's not new to me.

And you need to actually think critically about the words you're using and what they mean to you.

Okay?

The Patriarchy

can mean a lot of things.

It's not a word that Marxists have conventionally used.

It's not something that is conventional within the language of people who have actually built socialist states and communist states.

I don't see a use for such a word at all.

But if by the patriarchy you simply mean what?

Um, by oppress the oppression of women that that prioritizes the system that prioritises men over women.

Things like that.

I think that's really vague and ambiguous, but I definitely agree that, you know, women have been oppressed historically.

And I think that the but I we probably completely disagree about okay, if women are oppressed today, what form does that take?

For example, I think the form of women's oppression today is the sex industry.

I think that's the principal and fundamental form of oppression of women today.

The commodification of women's sexuality, the commodification of their bodies, their physical form, so to speak, the way in which their existence is constrained.

Yeah, that is all that is true, that is all part of the patriarchy.

Yeah, but what is the fundamental form of that?

Because some people would say, well, the fundamental form is that women are, you know, in this superficial way being put down.

That's not true.

The media is all about the girl power stuff.

I mean, none of that is the whole girl bossing, girl power stuff.

That is just some liberal shit.

Okay, but that's actually been the norm for a long time now.

So I don't think that the patriarchy or whatever you're talking about or women's oppression takes the form of, you know, a lack of women's representation in movies.

And that's not...

I'm not talking about that.

I would go so far to say is that women's oppression today is definitely something that...

Is at least partially a consequence or partially correspond I don't know why they left partially corresponds to bourgeois feminism itself.

Feminism or bourgeois feminism is an integral part of the oppression of women today.

It's a fundamental part of the architecture by which

The existence of women is uh turned into something accursed.

Their health is under attack.

You know, I'm not for banning birth control, but I just want to go ahead and say

Birth control is very bad for women's health, by the way.

I'm not saying like, you know, it should be banned.

I just think that the health significance of it there should be more

It should be more known, right?

Um

So women's health, I think, is under assault.

Their psychological health from the time that their little girls is under assault.

Um

You know, the socialist attitude is that women women's liberation doesn't mean women have to abandon womanhood.

It means that they can have the room to freely be women while simultaneously not being constrained.

By a specific commodified form of what that is, and allow the free development of their personality to occur based on their real inner abilities, like their capabilities.

They want to be engineers and mechanics and soldiers and doctors and whatever.

I mean, like, those doors are open to them.

Um

So that's what liberation means.

You know, it doesn't mean you just become completely abstracted.

From the determination of being a woman itself.

And it doesn't mean you go out of your way to, you know.

uh denigrate men and put men down and say, Oh, this

Yeah, this

It's not about res re resent uh resentfulness toward men.

Because men and women both resent each other 'cause it's sexual resentment, right?

Jealousy and all these things.

They're like a huge factor in human relationships.

Yoan.

So, uh, someone in chat was saying you support a multi-polarity, is that true?

It's not that I support it, it's that I recognize it.

Like, uh, in what way?

'Cause I don't think multi-polarity is an objective fact.

Okay, so they took out a context then.

Well, multipolarity is a fact, okay?

Oh yeah, yeah, I understand.

It's a material fact because under the Bretton Woods system, there's a single developmental paradigm based on the simultaneous import and export of capital based on

The overall development of the economy.

And that has kind of

decentralized in a lot of ways in the sense that there are parallel and emerging alternative systems of polarity, kind of creditor, debtor, syzygy as a developmental paradigm.

You know, alternatives to the IMF and so on and so on, they're emerging.

In opposition to the unipolar system.

So poles are emerging that are regionally based and more concretely grounded.

In the various geographies, supply chains, trade routes.

China's Belt and Road Initiative is a fundamental example of this 'cause it's like what is the basis by which you are

Issuing out these loans to develop economies.

And well, the direct corra there's a direct participation in the creation of those collaterals in the form of the creation of infrastructure, the securing of supply chains, the kind of geographic orientation rather than this abstract global orientation.

So Russia has a poll.

There's a poll emerging in um other parts of the world.

But it's impossible without political independence, of course, to fully take fruition.

Nothing nothing you say is crazy, so I don't get why people will say, like, oh, you like uh are un Marxist or revisionist, 'cause everything you say is to be written in like every like in the books.

Yeah, well um

Like, what's the logic behind that?

Like, why do people think that?

Like, what do you think is the main contention?

I think some of the Greek, the Communist Party of Greece, adjacent people and parties, take issue with me because I think what the Communist Party of Greece has created is a LARP prison they call Marxism, where basically they're just kind of dogmatically reenacting and rehearsing.

A theory that was meant to correctly describe the world at a different time than now.

And they have no interest in actually applying Marxism to the world today.

They just want to correctly rehearse and respond to something that was true in the past for sure.

But, you know, the problem is Marxism is always incomplete.

Whatever era you live in, you have to see it as incomplete.

It's not complete.

It's not a complete theory yet.

To make it a complete theory, you have to actually apply it to the world successfully.

So revolutionaries in their time and place completed Marxism.

But we can't just rest on their shoulders and claim we've completed Marxism.

We have to complete Marxism in our own way.

Well one thing I did notice is the ACP is very good at that because you've been uh using social media very well.

Same with Midwestern marks.

Like yeah, I mean, it's what Lenin said in What is to be done.

You know, you have to maximize media presence.

One thing that annoyed me though is that when I see other Communist parties they're using like uh newspapers or they're doing things that are very inefficient.

Because in What is to be done and in Lenin's early writings

He writes about how his central argument was the creation of an all Russian newspaper.

Yeah.

But it doesn't apply to the Marxists.

He was polemicizing with all the rival Marxists about that.

Like he was ma painstakingly

Arguing for an all-Russia newspaper.

So that has led an entire generation of self-proclaimed Leninists to think that newspapers are central to party building.

Yeah, if I'm not very stupid, because I was like, but they never actually cared to pay attention to Lenin's argument.

Because Lenin's argument.

Was that uh

The reason we needed an all Russian newspaper is because we need an information system that centralizes and consolidates everything that's going on in the country at the scale of an entire nation, capable of reaching as many people as possible.

You want to do that today, you don't want a newspaper, you want to be on social media.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

Okay.

That's all I I didn't really have any like debates.

I I agree with most of your things.

I was just very confused on why people were so

For sure.

Bye bye.

Yeah, I wanted to say that Bouncy Ben and all these self-proclaimed ANCAPs or whatever who have smoked with me, they're very l they're they're fantasizing with AI on X about how they think they can defeat me and all this stuff.

Can a single one of them request and join and and debate me about any topic they want?

Where do alternatives come from?

But where do the alternatives come from?

The alternatives they come from our choices.

For example,

When I go to the store and I choose between Coca Cola and Pepsi, the alternative comes from my choice.

Yes, when I was born

Coca-Cola and Pepsi didn't like already exist.

I created the distinction between those choices.

through my free will.

Different things exist in the universe.

Because of choices.

The moon and the earth are different because of choices.

Difference is because of choice.

Where do the alternatives come from?

Hi, I'm Bouncy Ben.

I have the face of a.

Bouncy Ben has.

You know, he has the face of he has the face of a fucking Pixar character.

Once you see it, you can't unsee it.

Bouncy Ben looks like a Pixar character.

He looks like a character from a Pixar movie.

Once you see it, you can't unsee it.

And he has the most soy, like, express it's such an emotive and expressive face.

He has a very expressive face.

Like the slightest movement in his face conveys such a world of difference of emotion.

And that's how you're you're dealing with an extremely feminine, estrogenic male.

Because that's a quality that we we it's women have this quality.

You know, a slight change in a woman's face, it's a world of difference in emotion.

See, th there's a these are the different this is the range of emotion on my face.

You see, it's just like um it's very small range of of difference, but

His face, it's like every time he talks, he's like

It's like such a fruity thing he does.

He said he has such an emotive, emotive, Pixar-like face, Bouncy Ben.

It's so emotive.

It's like a Pixar character.

For sure he's autistic, for sure, I mean I'm just saying, for sure.

Um

But he's so obsessed with me it's crazy.

It's like you think this guy wants to fight me or something.

Which begs the question why hasn't he?

In person when he sees me.

He's like, oh, you know, can I tell you the truth?

He's like at he keeps saying at the de Haas wouldn't look me in the eye, Haas wouldn't look me in the eye.

Because during the debate I'd be like this, I'd be looking away from him.

And I'd be like, well, the thing about China is that actually, in the People's Republic of China, this is the way it is.

And he doesn't und he's autistic, so he doesn't understand the the body language or the the meaning of this.

I'm not gonna look at this.

He's looking at me the whole time like this.

Like begging for my attention, begging for my recognition.

And I'm not giving him recognition.

I don't recognize him.

I don't respect him.

Mm.

But he's like begging for the, it's like, it's like he's giving me these puppy eyes, begging for my recognition.

So once in a while, I'll be like.

I'll be like, uh but when shit gets real.

You're really gonna get fucked up.

Like, you know what I mean?

Like, every once in a while, you just gotta, like, Matt, you're in the court of Genghis Khan.

He's not gonna look at you.

You're beneath, he's not gonna look at you.

But maybe when he wants to threaten you, he'll look at you and he'll say.

We have enough horses to stomp your bitch ass.

Like, you know what I mean?

Like...

He, when you this continuous eye contact he was trying to make with me was not an example, it was not like some masculine type of dominance.

It was a little puppy trying to feign approval and recognition from me, which I would not reciprocate.

Honest to God, by the way.

He wasn't trying to be alpha.

No, he wasn't.

He was trying to gain my recognition.

Like, Haz, look at me and speak to me.

I'm here.

Haz, look at me.

Like, I'm not even kidding.

I was uncomfortable during that debate because these are the vibes he's giving me.

Like, Haz, I'm here, please.

Like

And uh I mean it though.

You don't you think I'm uh you think I'm just trying to make fun of him and no, that that's actually how I felt.

How his stares, like he's like begging for my approval.

No, I'm not gonna give you my fucking recognition, you little bitch.

Like, um

Yes, it's a form of disrespect.

To selectively

You know.

Like every once in a while I'd be like

I'd be I would check him basically.

I'd be like

It's like, I am Paul Pot.

You know what I mean?

Like that type of shit.

Just to remind them.

That uh the reason I'm looking away from it is ain't nobody scared of you.

Nobody respects you.

You're nothing.

I'm talking about uh prac bouncy bouncy ben, of course.

I'm talking about bouncy ben.

Bouncy Ben was shaking and bouncing the whole time.

Why do I call him bouncy ben?

You wanna know why I call him bouncy ben?

I'm not just doing this shit to be mean.

I clock people.

I clock people.

I clock their temperament.

I clock their personality, their archetype, what kind of person they are.

Bouncy Ben.

He is autistic for sure, but he's one of those autists who don't know how to stand or walk.

So he's just like really awkward in person, and he's kind of like.

Like that's his archetype.

That's his like his his his body language is like

I'm in public for the first time in my life.

I've never lived my computer in my life.

Now I'm in public and I'm nervous and I don't I'm it's awkward.

Like that's his whole thing, you know?

He's like a shaky, bouncy

Artist

I didn't have the patience.

The whole time, I'm just like, I'm going to get this shit over with.

He has the Nick Fuente.

No, he doesn't.

Nick Fuentes is quite different, actually.

Nick Fuentes is more like.

Uh say what you want about Nick Fuentes, but he is more focused than Bouncy Ben.

He is more focused for sure.

I mean, he's a little weasel.

He's a weasel.

He has a weasel archetype.

Fuentes has a weasel archetype.

You understand?

He doesn't have this bouncy autistic ar archetype that, uh

That that bouncy bent has.

Dude, you're be you're definitely on the spectrum, so why would you use autist as an insult?

Um

Mm-hmm.

Maybe I'm a high functioning one, you know?

I definitely don't have this thing where I don't know how to stand or walk, I'll tell you that.

I definitely can be social.

I definitely can put myself in an environment where I could be very able to just kind of

Chill.

And he doesn't.

And it's not maybe it's just 'cause he's terminally online for the rest of his life.

Tesla, go ahead.

Uh where has communism worked?

Everywhere.

Okay.

So like why isn't Russia still communism?

Everything about Russia now that works is from communism.

But why aren't they communists right now?

Because they ideologically don't have a ruling Communist party, but the system that they have and the institutions that keep Russia together now are inherited from the Communist era.

They were built by Communists and are Communists materially.

So they're your position's like they're Communists, except they're not.

They materially, the system, all of it was built by communism.

I get what you're saying.

Yeah.

But they're not currently communist.

So they're objectively communist, but they're not subjectively communist.

And the reason they're not subjectively communist is for philosophical and ideological confusion.

Okay, so you're you're basically saying they're not communist 'cause they're confused?

Absolutely.

Who's they, the electorate or like Russia the Russia as a nation is confused.

Okay.

So, are the people in Russia like inherently wrong or not wrong?

Just confused.

Not wrong.

Just confused.

I feel like that's kind of a weak argument, though, because how do you articulate confused?

Like, confuse what?

Like, do they think they're not communist, but they are?

Or do they really want to be communist, but they're afraid of the community?

They don't know how to reconcile the material fact of communism.

And this subjective crisis began during the Soviet Union, under Brezhnev.

They don't know how to existentially make sense of what is the meaning of life, what is purpose, what is principle, what decisive significance do these things have, ideas, when our system has already consolidated as a socialist or communist system.

Even our political logic is communist.

So what is left of the spirit?

What is left of belief?

And the Chinese had a similar crisis, which they articulated through the Cultural Revolution.

And they went through that experience.

And it's because they gained wisdom from that experience that China is still ruled by a Communist Party today.

I would say that they're not really communists.

I'll give you an example they are, so d does China have classism?

Did China under Mao have classism?

Not really.

Not to the coefficient that they have today.

So is it a quantitative or is it a qualitative difference?

And how do you discern the difference?

Easy.

You can quantify it by looking at the population itself.

We know that there's a working class.

We also know that there's an elite class.

There were elites under Mao as well.

Sure.

Then I would say Mao probably isn't a pure communist then.

But then there's never been pure communism.

So then how is it great and how does it work if it's never been executed in like a perfect form?

But that's what you're saying, not me.

Well, no, I'm trying to seek to understand because if communism is great and like one of the core, this isn't like a...

To save yourself from confusion, let's not define communism on the basis of some nebulous abstract theory of equality, which is...

Classism?

That's like the number one thing that communism fights for is to know where you're getting this, where you got that from.

You got that from Wikipedia or something.

No, communism is not defined by some nebulous abstraction.

Communism is defined by what it actually was materially and the experience of communism.

Yeah, the experience is not having an elite group in your society.

Yeah.

Like everybody is equal.

No, it's not.

There is an elite group in communism.

There's nothing wrong with that.

Really?

Did Marx talk about that or Lenin?

Yeah, they did.

Where is that written?

Do you have any sources?

Do you have any quotes from either of them saying that there's classism that makes its way into communism?

Classism classes are based on different relationships to the means of produ to the mode of production.

Okay.

So there are different relationships of production.

Thorpe, you said that like Marx and Lenin though, like embrace this.

I'm asking you.

No, they didn't.

What do you mean embrace it?

Embrace the idea that there is class.

The idea that they're either going to embrace or reject classes depends upon the view that classes are a consequence of some kind of normative position or some kind of subjective decision that we make in our consciousness.

But they didn't understand that's not historical materialism doesn't regard the determination of history to be a consequence of the whims and fancies of our consciousness.

I mean, that's a long way to say, though, that communism in its pure form.

Okay, you know what?

I'll just speak like a dumb guy for the dumb people.

It's not dumb.

No, no, I'm going to speak dumb for you because you don't want to hear the smart response.

Because you can't quote Lenin or Marxists.

So quote where it says class is allowed in communism.

There's a difference between classes and elites.

They're not the same thing.

Well, in China, it's not elites.

There is classism.

There is wealth inequality in China.

Absolutely.

If you want to make the argument that there are classes in China.

That's not because Communists decided it should be so.

It's because the material conditions have not yet gotten to a point where class distinctions have been eliminated entirely.

Well why not?

Lenin and every Marxist-Leninist, everyone in the Marxist canon understood that classes will continue to exist for a considerable period.

After the Revolution and the seizure of political power.

and that they cannot be abolished by fiat or subjectively.

Only the logic of production could lead to the dissolution of classes, only insofar as it develops

But that's too it's too like complicated for you.

So I'm just going to tell you.

No, no, no, he's going to tell me Google what are the basic principles of communism.

Yeah, I'm literally the dumb guy.

I know you want a dumb guy response.

I'm trying to give you the dumb guy response.

The official principle is to create a classless society.

It's the whole point of communism.

It's not the principle.

No, the principle is not to create a classless society.

The principle is to unleash the fetters of the productive forces via politics, via our response to the history and world that we live in, to allow reality to develop in the way that it is already developing with the fetters upon that development removed.

Anyway, I'll give you the dumb guy response because this is all too complicated for you.

It's not.

Instead of thinking about communism as everyone being equal and being hippies, think about it in terms of like big tanks and missiles being used to destroy the entrenched opposition to the regime and to the imperialists.

Like communism is like big, powerful tanks that are used for the creation of a political dictatorship that completely crushes the power of capital.

That's communism.

Don't worry about this stuff about equality.

You just learned that.

You got confused.

I don't know.

You learned it in high school or something or Wikipedia.

Just go with your gut instinct and your own.

Did you play the game Red Alert or something?

Like, that's closer to communism.

Whatever.

Like, if you actually just like.

Okay, trust me.

What you can't do, though, is say that somehow me saying that a classless society is like some foreign ideology within communism because it's not.

It's not foreign, but it's been so twisted.

I know it's not foreign.

That's why I said it.

That is one of the pillars.

Do you acknowledge that the principle is it shouldn't exist, but it takes time to get rid of it?

That is what you just told me.

It's not about should.

It's not normal.

There's no normative dimension.

Sorry.

There is.

You just said that a classless society takes time to get rid of it.

Eventually, classes will disappear in the Marxist sense of classes.

So there you go.

So it shouldn't exist.

No, but it does.

So, if I say eventually talking about dumbing it down for me, you need to dumb it down for yourself.

Yeah, I need to give you a logic course on logic 101.

It's not logic.

No, I know you're getting triggered, dude.

I know you're getting triggered.

You don't understand what you're saying, and you're contradicting your own words.

Can you calm down for one second?

And uh, I know.

So, this is one having a terrific thing.

Can I give you a logic 101 course that you desperately need?

If we say that something will happen, it doesn't mean it should happen.

And this pertains to class how.

If we say that the logic of history is such that it's developing toward the dissolution of classes as we understand what classes are, class distinctions and private property, that doesn't mean that if we fail to realize that fact by way of our will here and now, that means we are not living up to some kind of principles, because the whole thing doesn't depend upon our principles.

The whole thing depends upon the development of the productive forces.

So you're you're saying you can still have a communist society with the abandonment of some of the core principles because the core principles itself don't make up the okay so why are you talking about core principles?

Who like are you a robot?

Are you like are you like core principles?

Where are you getting core principles from?

Where are you getting to tell you it's not normative?

How many times have I told you it's not normative?

How many times you're literally not even human?

How do I educate someone like societies in communism?

It's not normative.

Yeah, communism is like a brochure.

It's like a handbook that says we just want no classes because we don't want them.

And if there are continue to be classes, it's because we didn't follow the brochure.

Are you like retarded?

Is that what you think?

Oh, so we're going to go there because I questioned you on classism, which is you pull something out of your dumbass.

You pulled it out of your dumbass.

You act like I dug deep into your dumb ass.

I mean a single citation by Marx that says that the dissolution of classes is normative.

That that's a normative act.

This is a normative thing that pertains to the usage of our willpower and the exercise, the conformity of our will to the whims and fancies of our moral consciousness.

Where in Marx or Lenin or any Marxist do you find that?

Please tell me.

Where they talk about how class shouldn't exist in the society.

Yeah, na name where they use that word should.

Can you please use find where they use that word should.

Okay.

I can look.

It better be should, by the way.

Should.

Classes should not exist.

Where does Mark say that?

Please find it for me.

I will.

Calm down, bro.

The deep deep breathing in the microphone's crazy, dude.

Find it for me.

Alright, let's see.

Every single person should drop twenty subs right now.

Every single person should just do it and not even think about it.

Okay, would you like to quote?

Yeah.

In a place of the old bourgeoisie society with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

Shall have.

Shall have.

Is shall the same word?

Say it with me.

Yes, it is.

Should and shall are the same word, buddy.

How do you spell it?

That's like saying is can't and cannot the same word.

Shall and should are the same word.

Are you going to argue that they are the same word?

Okay, chat, is shall and should the same word?

Or are we going to go to the semantics?

They actually really are.

They're really.

Dude, this is actually embarrassing.

This is actually embarrassing for you, buddy.

Your own chat is saying it's embarrassing.

They're really.

Shall and should are the same word.

They are.

Okay, so what does shall mean?

They're not the same word, though.

Okay, so what is the difference between them?

Marx is saying that it will be so, that in the place of the old society, there's going to be a society based on the free development of all or whatever, right?

So when he says we shall have, that somehow is saying that's not should.

He's not saying we should.

He's saying we will have it.

So that that's even more concrete than should.

He's saying that that is what will happen.

This is incredible.

No, he's saying we shall.

He is saying we shall in communism under my ideology, we shall have a classless society, is what that quote says.

Oh, yeah, when where does he say that?

Because he's talking about the society, my society.

Where does he say that?

Well, it doesn't, because it's a collective.

So it says we.

We shall, in the name of communism, in contrast to the bourgeoisie.

Okay, by we, who is he referring to?

The people.

No, he's talking about literally.

He's talking about.

Dude, you're trying so hard.

He's talking.

Okay, I pulled up the chapter right now, so I can read it to you.

Do you want me to read it to you?

Oh, my God.

Yeah, please.

When in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character.

Okay, so right at the outfit, I'll skip a few things because it's really long.

You can read them if you want.

Along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will have thereby abolished its own supremacy as a class.

So he's not talking about voluntarily affecting something in reality because he thinks it should be so.

He's talking about something that will happen as a consequence of the logic of history itself and of the development of history.

And in that sense, it's not about should, it's about it will happen according to the logic of history.

According to the logic of the development of the productive forces.

Okay, when he talks about the bourgeoisie, what is he talking about?

He's talking about a what he regarded as a outmoded class

Of a motor classes and conditions of existence have ceased to be justified.

By the material currents.

So the class where business and private property and factories and money and that exist.

And he talks about the military.

Are you human?

I am.

You are just getting dragged by this quote that literally says we shall have a lot of things.

You said you would find it should.

You didn't.

And then you went so yeah, because you went so fucking far to say shall and should are different.

They are.

Shall actually is worse for you.

They're not.

Shall is Google.

It's not worse for me because I've been making the argument.

It literally is.

The fact that you're fighting with yourself that shall and should are different.

Why?

I feel like I'm being a little gaslighted here.

Have I not been making the argument that Marx and Engels consistently said?

That Marx consistently said that it will happen.

That doesn't mean it's normative.

Just because you're saying something will happen doesn't give that a normative dimension.

Okay.

Do you know what it's like?

How is it worse for me?

How is it worse for me?

If this thing is not going to happen as a consequence of the exercise of our moral consciousness into reality, then how can you justify reducing it to some kind of normative goal or something?

Like, how is it worse for me if it's actually just inevitable?

Are shall and should synonyms, or are they not synonyms?

They're not synonyms.

Okay, so you're wrong, right?

Like a simple look into it would tell you they're the same word.

Okay.

Okay, let me ask you a question.

There's a homeless guy in the street.

He goes.

I shall have one billion dollars.

What is he saying?

He's saying I shall, like, I should have a billion dollars.

No, he's not, he's saying he's gonna have a billion dollars.

He's gonna take it or he's gonna find a way to get it.

That's the same way as should.

No, because no, because if he says, I should have a billion dollars, everyone's gonna walk past and be like, well, nobody gives a fuck.

Like, who cares what you want?

Right?

So, like, you know, you see that he feels entitled to it, in other words.

So, shall and should are not the same thing.

Okay, I'm sorry.

Are they synonyms?

No, they're not synonyms.

Okay.

So, when Mark says that there shall not be a classless society, yet there are a class society, and all the examples that we have in our current day, it goes against.

No, he's not saying there, he's saying we sh when he says we shall have an association, basically, we should expect that this will happen.

Oh, oh, you just said should.

Yeah, you just said should while trying to explain shall.

But the difference, the difference is okay.

We should said the word describes it.

Do you know the difference between the difference between we should expect, but we should expect is not the same thing.

That was bliss.

Can you calm the fuck down?

That was so funny.

Should expect and should are not the same thing.

Then why did you just say should to describe shallow?

I am going to take her and smash your head with it.

Then you should expect it will happen if I'm going to do it.

That doesn't mean I should do it.

It's about what you should expect or not.

So the thing happening is not normative.

It's not dependent upon your normative position.

How do you not understand this distinction?

You just use the word should to describe shall in your own fucking sentence, you dwee.

No, I'm not.

But I'm not using.

Okay, I'm literally.

Can you let me speak for 30 seconds?

Why maybe don't use the word should to describe shallow?

Okay, I'm going to mute you or remove you from speaker so I can speak.

Then remove me from speaker, buddy.

Okay, and then I'll bring you back on.

And if you don't come back on, you conceded the debate because you can't contain yourself.

So saying that it should happen is not the same thing as saying you should expect it to happen.

Saying it should happen means that it happening is depending on your normative position.

Saying that you should expect something to happen means you should change your expectations based on the appraisal of whether it's inevitable or not.

So in this case, the thing is going to be inevitable, and it doesn't matter whether you think it should happen or not.

So what you should do is change your expectations.

You should expect.

So I was being charitable and generous to you by trying to translate how shall could possibly be related to should in this case.

And in this case, it would be should expect.

But should expect is not the same thing as should.

Now, I'm going to let you back up and ask you if you understand that.

I was being extremely charitable by trying to explain to you, should expect.

Is not the same thing as should.

If there's any sense in which we shall could possibly mean we should, it should be we should expect.

Because it's going to happen, whether we think it should happen or not.

Whether we think it should happen or not is irrelevant.

It's going to happen.

So the thing we should do is expect it to happen.

We should expect it to happen.

We shouldn't make it happen because it's not dependent upon our will.

Is is there a single person confused about this?

Exactly.

If I say we should expect it to storm tomorrow, is that the same thing as saying it should storm tomorrow?

No.

Because saying it should storm tomorrow

Implies that, you know, in this case, like, you know, it's moral or it's more fair for it to storm tomorrow.

But storming is not dependent upon anything within our will, right?

So like how do you not understand this?

Do not understand the English language.

Nowhere does Marx write should.

He doesn't write should.

He doesn't say classes should be abolished.

He doesn't say that.

You couldn't find a single passage in which he said that.

I'll give you another example.

I'll give you another example.

If a homeless man says, I should have a billion dollars, I deserve it.

Okay, he's just being entitled.

But if he says, I shall have a billion dollars,

He's implying that he expects he's going to have a billion dollars.

So, based on the probability of whether that's going to happen or not, it would be fair to say, okay, you should expect he's going to get a billion dollars.

That is not the same thing as saying you should have a billion dollars.

Do you not understand that distinction?

Okay, I'll let you back on.

I just I literally just wanted to say that.

But you kept interrupting me.

If you don't come back on, you you've conceded the debate, I'm uh I'm afraid to tell you.

Go ahead.

Okay, so based on what I said, do you understand now?

Yeah, I understand the cope that you have to try to differentiate the words shall and should when ultimately it regards okay sure I'll go with what you're saying.

They are grammatically not the same and the definitions differ.

When somebody said it should storm tomorrow, you could say it shall storm tomorrow.

The idea is registered the same.

They don't have to be.

When Karl Marx says there shall not be a society with classes and you are in control of the government and you can control communism, then there shall not be a society with classes.

No, he's making something that, but he's saying it shall happen.

This is the cope.

He's saying, how is it anything I say, like you can't even listen to like, no, because you went on five years ago.

How are you different from a championship if you can't even participate in language without just like are you even trying to use the two words?

Are words even intelligible to you?

Of course they are.

And they are to you as well with the people.

So can you calm down?

Can you calm down for two seconds?

I'm calm.

I'm calm.

You're the one who said that.

Marx is not saying it shall happen because it should happen.

He's saying it shall happen because of an objective material logic of the development of history.

So he still said it then.

So he said it shall not have classes.

No, he didn't say it shall not have classes.

That's not what he said.

That's exactly what he said.

That is what he said.

He said.

What we shall have, we as humanity, we as history shall have, is an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

But that's not the same as saying we should.

I understand you've said this probably ten times now, that the word is shall and not should and that that is where you're like hooking the fish and setting the hook on this.

I get it.

What he is.

So okay, if there's no passage or passage that said that there should be no class list.

Yeah, there is no.

So okay, there there's not.

So does that mean communism somehow doesn't believe like classism isn't a thing?

Are you going to sit up here as this ACP, whatever you're a part of, and say that communism has this caveat where classism can exist?

We don't use the term classism.

We would use the term the exploitation of man by man or a class society defined by exploitation or something.

Or the oppression of the proletarian class.

Got it.

So China does that, right?

No, I don't think so at all.

You don't.

So people who work in sweatshops that make no money, the lowest GDP per capita, that's not exploiting labor.

No.

No.

So working in a sweatshop is not exploiting labor.

You're you're gonna die on that hill?

Uh, China's so-called sweatshops, yeah, they don't exist.

No, they existed uh during a period of the 80s through the 90s and early 2000s, and they don't exist now, is what you're saying.

They're not really that widespread in China, actually.

But for the purposes of argument, we could talk about when they existed at the time that they did, because they did exist.

No, I'm asking, do they exist now?

Just simple yes, no.

Do they do sweatshops exist in China?

They're really not widespread, but we're not asking how much.

But it's not even relevant because for the purposes of argument, we could just answer a question.

You're so bad faith.

Yeah, some probably might.

I'm not certain if any exist in China now, but we could just, for the purposes of argument, say at least so people who live at the factories that they work at, they're not being exploited.

People who live at factories well, actually, as per the Marxist definition of exploitation, no, actually.

Okay, so is that do you endorse that then for communism?

That like you should work in a factory and not really make a lot of money, but because it's pushing the means of the overall government, it's that that's okay for communism.

So, based on China's level of development at the time, you can't say people were making no money.

They were making enough to support themselves based on the level of wealth and resources the society had at the time.

In order for society to have more wealth and resources to enable a higher standard of living, it was necessary to develop and build up their industrial capacity and production.

By exploitation of labor.

Well, you're calling it the exploitation of labor, but I just disagree with that definition.

So, so you so do you acknowledge then that sweatshops did exist in a wider variety?

They did.

Okay, they did.

You could have just jumped to that argument right away.

Sure, sure, sure.

Okay, great.

So, China developed itself through sweatshops primarily, right?

They became the world's producer of all like commodity goods, right?

So, yeah, so but compared to what was before, I'm not asking compared, I'm asking about now the CCP, by your definition.

Exploited labor by utilizing the means of the people to increase the overall output of the CCP, of the Chinese Communist Party.

But you could say that happened under Stalin as well.

Sure.

You very well could.

And then I would question the validity of communism because they're doing what they preach against.

But communists never preached anything.

So communism doesn't preach about it.

So it doesn't preach about classism.

And now you're saying it doesn't work.

What communists say is that regardless of the system, people will have to work.

So the question is, what are they going to work for?

What are you working for?

I'm not saying that they're not working.

We're talking specifically about working in sweatshops where people are allowed to work.

But if the conditions of your work are poor and they're not high quality, that's because your society is poor and you haven't built up enough technology or productive forces.

Society is not poor in China.

It's not because we know there's classes in China.

We know that there are very rich billionaires in China that have yachts.

The yachts are public.

The majority of the people, if you're saying that you don't think that the wealth that China has produced has overwhelmingly gone to the betterment of the people, you're wrong.

It has.

It takes a lot of time.

I'm not saying that.

You are.

I'm not saying that at all.

How do you have Chinese billionaires with yachts?

Explain that.

How do you have billionaires with yachts in China?

But hold on.

The yachts are a drop in the puddle compared to the.

Okay, here we go.

More cope, more cope, and more like, oh, there's only like four ones.

Is this how you debate?

You just don't let the other person get a word in?

No, it's not debate.

You don't.

Why are you so afraid of me getting a sentence completed?

Completing one sentence.

Why are you afraid that I complete one sentence?

You don't answer that.

Don't answer.

But what if it's important information I'm trying to communicate?

What if there's important information I'm trying to communicate?

Is it impossible?

Because you don't answer.

What do you mean I don't answer?

I don't tell you what you want to hear.

You think that's different from not answering.

You're wrong.

I'm just telling you that.

No, I ask you.

You couldn't answer about sweatshops.

You can't I could easily answer.

There probably maybe are some sweatshops in China now, but it's not a dominant or prevalent thing in China today.

Kinda, maybe.

Can you just say yeah?

No, because you're trying to s paint you're trying to paint a picture of China.

You're trying to paint a picture of China that it's like all sweatshops and stuff and that it's the same as it was in the nineties, and that's not true.

You can't say yes.

So everything is black and white?

No, I'm asking, do sweatshops.

So if one sweatshop exists in China, that means it's characteristic of the general trend within China.

Is that what you're saying?

Is there only one?

If I concede that there are like some marginal maybe sweatshops in China, but as a minority of the overall trend, does that mean it's the dominant trend?

Because you're saying maybe.

You can't even say they're only.

Because I don't know for certain.

I don't know for certain even if they do.

Stop playing dumb.

Stop playing dumb.

Yes, they do.

Every country.

Well, does America have them?

No, not at all.

Okay, no, so I'm not going to concede it then.

If America doesn't have them by your definition, then why should I think China still has them?

Because there's proof.

You can look at where all the clothing is sourced.

You can look at where the cheapest plastic is.

Not every factory that produces clothing is a sweatshop.

Okay, explain Alibaba then and AliExpress that sell things for literally.

A lot of those are actually small businesses.

A lot of those are small businesses.

They're not.

There's no private businesses in China.

There's no small businesses in China, really?

There's no like small manufacturing companies?

Okay.

There's no small mid-sized level manufacturing companies, really.

They're not private.

Actually, there are small mid-level companies that are mainly run by people in a capacity.

They're not private.

Under your definition of private, yeah, they are actually.

No, there's not.

There's no private business in China.

Take the glasses off.

There's no private business in China.

Look in the camera and tell me that there's private businesses in China.

Go ahead, say it, ACP.

Say it.

No, I'm just going to let you say that publicly and just let it.

You say, I mean, you so there's kind of maybe sort of sweatshops.

That's your answer.

Um, there's kinda maybe sort of dogs.

There could be no nuance, kinda, maybe, sort of.

Or kind of, maybe, sort of, that.

There could be no dog, or did you not stop beating around the bush?

Did you kill your dog?

Oh, no.

This is the same situation where there could be no nuance and it has to be black and white because I know nuance.

There's kind of emotional.

The only time there's no room for nuance is when you're being emotional about the topic.

So, what about this topic makes you so emotional?

No, I want to know.

What about this?

Because, like, if I killed your dog and I was beating around the bush by not being like direct, and you were I would understand why you would like be emotional, but like, how am I?

This is a case where we do have to have nuance, and we can't just say China, China's economy is characterized by sweatshops.

Because I didn't say that could be the possibility that there are some that still exist.

You won't even say there's some.

You said there kind of there maybe is some.

Maybe some of them are.

Because I don't actually know because I really don't know.

I don't know.

How do you not know?

The one example of China is the number one example of communism in this world.

You can't tell me if there's sweatshops.

Why?

Because it's exploitation of labor.

China's a country that results in people.

I don't know if they still have them at all.

If they do, it's marginal.

That's what I can say for certain.

If they do, it's marginal.

But we both agreed, even if we don't talk about it.

Even one!

Even one exists.

No, we're talking about...

No, like, that's not how the world works.

I'm sorry.

You already conceded that the beginning of China did use sweatshops widely.

So you are saying it's okay for the exploitation of labor to uphold communism or advance it forward.

But communists have not.

No, because it's not exploitation of labor if the goal is different.

Because the goal is different.

Or they're paying people nothing to work in slum, in factories, and sweatshops.

Yeah, they're paying them nothing.

You're right.

It was basically, yeah, I mean, it is.

They live in the world.

Yeah, and they would just die because they couldn't eat and they couldn't afford food and they would just die.

I mean, in the 80s, that's what happened, right?

And the Chinese famine?

Yeah, there was a famine in the 80s.

That's right.

There was a famine in the 80s.

You're right.

Yeah.

And how many people died there?

20 trillion.

Okay.

And how many people died under the battle?

In the famous 1980s Chinese famine, trillions died.

Okay, how many people died under Mao?

More than trillions.

More than trillions.

Quadrillion.

I don't think it actually matters about how many people died.

You want to go in a boxing ring and box?

Like, why are you so mad?

Do you want to just take out the money?

I'm literally not mad, bro.

You're the only one.

No, you're like so literally chipping.

It's so that reality is more complicated.

You're just upset because you can't get true.

You can't say that there's sweatshops in China.

There you go.

No, no, no.

Either what I say is true.

You literally say the opposite is true.

Either what they say is true or the exact opposite is true.

There could be no nuance.

It's not nuance.

I asked you, is there sweatshops in China?

And you can't even say yes.

You don't know.

You can't get around the bush.

You have to.

Wait, why do you want to say that?

Why can't you work with this response?

If there are, they're marginal.

Why can't you work with that response?

Because we don't know if there's, if we know that.

You don't care if they're marginal or not.

You're saying if there are.

You're not even acknowledging there's a marginal.

You're saying there might be.

But if they're marginal, why does it matter?

Hold on.

If they're marginal, why would it even matter?

Because you can't even acknowledge they exist.

But why would that matter if they're marginal?

Of course, because they're exploiting labor.

Okay, so you're saying that their beginning was not marginal.

You already conceded that.

Okay.

Can we just say that?

They're less than marginal in the beginning.

So if they can you stop making weird noises with your throat, you fucking wild animal.

You need to be slow.

You are a wild animal.

I don't like the noises you're making.

I don't like that.

I like the noises you're making with your throat.

They're really like, you're like Pennywise the Clown.

It's really like wild and creepy.

Really weird.

I know.

Move the conversation because you can't acknowledge that China built itself off exploitation of labor.

And you can use any fucking word in the dictionary that you want.

It's not exploitation.

Okay, it's not.

It's not exploitation.

Live at a factory and work.

Not exploitation.

It's not China's fault that it was.

Yeah, China was poor.

And it's not China's fault.

The fact that China was poor doesn't mean it's exploited.

It's not China's fault.

Okay.

Yeah, you don't automatically have a good standard of living.

You have to build one up.

You don't automatically have a wealthy country.

You have to build wealth.

You don't automatically have it.

By exploitation of labor.

It's not exploitation, actually.

Why?

You're working on that.

Because you're saying it's exploitation because people were poor, but the reason why.

No, they were paid nothing by China, and they took the profits and they ran with it.

They were paid relative to what China had.

It was a fair amount.

Really?

It was a fair amount.

You're saying people in sweatshops were paid a fair amount.

Relative to the level of development.

Relative to the level of development of what China had.

To the level of development, working in a sweatshop.

Okay, and that is the...

That's just like, that's it.

So I made an argument relative to the development China had, and his response was, I heard, this was the debate.

This is how it went.

Yeah, really, due to the development.

So he just repeated what I said with a different voice.

And that was the only response he could give.

That was the only response he could give.

If you can actually make an argument, you can come back up.

Otherwise, you concede the debate.

I've given you multiple opportunities to respond to my arguments.

All you're doing is interrupting me and making weird voices.

And you're outraged by the suggestion that if a country's extremely poor

that if workers are living in conditions you would consider unacceptable as an American, that's necessarily exploitation.

That's not true.

That just reflects China's level of development.

In order to increase your productive forces,

You have to work.

Work is not inherently exploitation.

It becomes exploitation when the purpose of your labor is to valorize capital and capital alone.

But when the purpose of your labor is to build up your country's productive forces,

And contribute to the overall development of your nation, it's not exploitation.

So it's really that simple.

Now, if you can respond to what I just said, I'll let you back up.

If you can't respond to it, don't request.

But I just gave you the argument I was trying to make, but you kept interrupting me.

So if you want to come back up and try to respond to that, I'll give you that opportunity.

Mordor, what's up, man?

Barnaby with the 10.

Appreciate you, bro.

Thank you so much, guys.

Let's uh let's continue dropping the twenties.

Just for the shits and giggles, right?

So, I'll let you request again if you can actually respond.

If you can respond, yeah.

So.

So there you go.

I wasn't interrupted and was able to make my argument, so I'll give you the opportunity to respond to it.

Sure.

Uh to succinctly put this.

Your argument would make sense if the people who worked in sweatshops worked their way up and collectively China was equal and wealth was shared.

Those people's standard of living has gone up considerably.

Sure.

There's also billionaire oligarchs in China that have, again, yachts that are flown under the CCP flag, that are businessmen that have made billions of dollars off the backs of Chinese people.

If that didn't exist, I would say your argument makes sense.

But it does.

Are you prepared for me to respond or will you just interrupt me?

Well, I mean, you interrupted me as soon as I started speaking, so I don't know.

Okay, so I'll just disconnect you and bring you back up when I'm done making my argument because you're a fucking animal who can't help themselves.

So actually, yachts are a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of wealth that it takes to uplift the standard of living of over a billion people.

You just have to compare them, actually.

People don't understand scale.

A billion people having their standard of living going up is much, much more wealthy than all the wealth of the billionaires that they personally consume combined.

All the things these billionaires consume on a personal level.

Is a tiny, tiny, extremely small drop in the bucket compared to the immense amount of wealth that goes into uplifting a population at scale.

The second thing is that actually these billionaires do not control billions of dollars in liquid access and and liquid assets.

Um the you yourself said there's no private businesses, so to call them billionaires is absurd.

What you maybe can be said to be are correct about, if that's what you're trying to say, is that there are there are vast differences in the standard of living.

between the wealthy in China and the middle class and you know the average Joe, so to speak.

Yeah, there's huge disparities.

There's some people in China who can have yachts and have this crazy level of consumption on a personal level relative to others.

Sure.

I don't actually consider that outrageous and I don't care about it.

Communists don't care about that.

There were differences in lifestyles, you know, in the Soviet Union, even under Mao, to an extent.

But that's not actually decisive in terms of what defines a class.

The important thing is that the Chinese billionaires cannot assert their interests at the expense of the nation, they cannot influence politics.

At the expense of the nation.

They have no lobbying capacity or ability.

So are they organized as a class?

No.

Are there immense disparities in people's consumption and lifestyles between the top one percent and the the rest?

Yeah.

It's not the same thing as classes though.

Maybe Fox News taught you different, but I'm sorry to educate you from a Marxist perspective and rock your world.

So if you have a response, I'll let you back up.

Go in.

Yeah.

So there's five hundred and sixteen billionaires in China.

Right.

Nine hundred and two in the United States.

So if China is a communist country, why why is there a place at all for I could maybe see one or two billionaires, but five hundred?

That's that's that's not a drop in the bucket at all.

But if there's no private business in China, like you said, how are they billionaires?

Well, because they're they're CCP members, right?

Like th these are people who pioneered some of these large manufact uh manufacturing companies uh very close with CCP officials.

So you'd think they still have access to capital.

So you'd think these people would be in the standing committee of the CPC and they would enjoy disproportionate political power.

Perhaps.

I don't know.

Maybe.

How do you know?

How do you know?

Well, because, for example, Jack Ma was called a billionaire, and the minute he decided to speak out against the party, he just disappeared for a long time.

Billionaires are constantly sentenced to death in China, and they have no political advantage in China.

Are individuals who are extraordinarily skilled when it comes to business and entrepreneurship allowed to manage companies that are worth billions and billions of dollars?

Yes.

Do they own that wealth and liquid assets to do whatever they want with it?

No, not at all.

They're completely controlled by the party.

So it's really wrong to call them billionaires in the way that there's a billionaire in America.

I'm not saying that.

They're holding tremendous wealth, though, which is the whole principle.

But how are they holding it if it's not liquid?

If they can't just do whatever they want to do with it, no, it's not.

Okay, how did they buy the yacht?

Yeah, the it does billions of dollars don't go into a lifestyle.

I get it.

How did they buy a yacht?

If they don't have liquid cash, where did the yacht come from?

I'm not saying they don't have any liquid cash, I'm saying the billions are not liquid.

They might have 10 million liquid, they might have 50 million liquid, they don't have a billion liquid.

Most billionaires are not full liquid, their investments and they're valued at that shore.

That's not like this unique Chinese.

When they're being called billionaires, they don't own those billions of dollars entirely.

Some of it, and by the way, usually they're not buying a yacht directly from these assets that they are said to own.

They're doing it because banks will give them loans and trust that they'll be able to pay it back, or they're doing it because the yachts are financed.

Or they can sell stocks and so on and shares.

So they're liquidating their wealth.

I get it.

If you don't just go to the bank and buy a yacht, right?

Like you have to be extremely wealthy to have that type of luxury.

It doesn't make sense in a communist society that you can have hundreds of billionaires that have immense wealth and they're able to buy things like super yachts.

It doesn't make sense.

Well, if the yacht is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall national wealth, why does it matter?

Besides resentment and jealousy.

Like why should we care?

Well, I don't care.

I'm not a communist.

I'm trying to.

Communists don't care either.

We're not driven by resentment.

We're driven by what is necessary to uplift peoples and nations.

I don't care if some people have and by the way, Marx was clear that people are different.

Some people will be more skilled and smarter and stronger, and there's nothing wrong with that.

But he did he also doesn't say the more skilled and smart should have yachts, right?

Like, I don't think yachts existed.

I mean, it doesn't even matter because.

What is why should I be outraged by the fact that there are yachts as a communist?

Well, it's not about you don't have to be completely outraged.

Like, I don't think just I want a yacht.

Can everyone give me a yacht?

Drop 20 subs right now so I could have a fucking yacht for real.

Why don't we just prove this guy right now and show that we are pro yachting?

Everyone should fund a yacht for me right now.

Should drop twenty subs right now.

I want you to watch this.

I want you to watch this.

I want you to show.

I want to show you.

You have 30 people watching your live dude.

Um you act like you're like Joseph Goebbels having like a property that's not true but uh on this I'm looking at the the yeah, the thing right here says there's 35 people on TikTok.

Yes, on TikTok.

That's true.

Okay, is there like this like discord platform or something?

Um it's a so I don't know what the rules are, but uh it's on a it's on a green place.

But anyway, it's true though.

I'm gonna say something.

DeVitos.

My oh wow, I'm ending the stream.

Holy shit.

Emilo with the 25.

I literally scam with the generation.

Can you believe this?

Just like this.

What communists believe?

Look at this.

Apparently.

Amila, thank you so much for the 25.

Anyway, here's what I'm trying to tell you.

You're just trying to tell me that all these contradictions can exist because it's a drop in the bucket.

You've said the word drop in the bucket on it.

It's a contradiction.

I don't know what you're saying.

It is a contradiction.

That's why you're justifying it by saying it's a drop in the bucket.

Of course.

Well, it's a drop in the bucket.

It's not a contradiction.

But there's some sweatshops, but there's only a couple.

And it's not exploitation of labor because it's bringing them all up collectively.

But the billionaire class, it's not all liquid.

They may have tens of millions of dollars, but it's not all liquid.

So you sound like an angry, hysterical 50-year-old woman.

Yeah, I'm trying to mimic you.

And all the yachts are finance, apparently.

You know, they go to the banks and they ask for a loan.

Like, the fuck are you talking about, bro?

Is this stupid?

Like, just acknowledge, like, yeah, man, the CCP is like 85% communist, but there's some shit they do that's not really in the communist ideology.

Instead, you try to find a cope for all the ailments in their society that go against.

Where in Marxism does it say there can't be any?

No, where in Marxism does it say anything?

Because you just take direct quotes and you talk about it for 10 minutes about how it doesn't mean things that it absolutely is.

Because I think you were taught about communism in some ways.

I wasn't taught about communism.

No, I wasn't.

So where'd you learn this?

Where did you because I've read so much Marx and Lenin and stuff, and nowhere in their works is your perception justified?

So nowhere am I in in where I said classism, that that doesn't exist in any of the no, that's from intersectional theory made by um okay, yeah, intersectional theory which says there's racism, sexism, classism, and they're like all different forms of discrimination.

And that mainly is a kind of neoliberal theory that has nothing to do with Marxism.

Got it.

We don't say that class is like a form of discrimination we need to overcome.

We identify classes scientifically within the framework of historical materialism as distinct relationships of production.

That exist objectively.

They're not like form they're not forms of discrimination.

They're for they're objectively distinct relationships of production.

Should billionaires exist?

Should they it's not their existence doesn't depend upon our ability to decide.

So, of course it is.

You can control, you could absolutely control the amount of weld someone does.

Should the sun exist?

Well, we don't have control over that, right?

You have control over how much people make.

You could the government could easily tax and take half the wealth.

They could cap it off and say anything over one million dollars or ten million dollars is taxed at a hundred percent to give back to the collective good of the the country.

You've made enough out of a million dollars, enjoy your luxury life, but you don't need any more.

So, if you're saying that billionaires are the same level of an uncontrollable like the sun, then you're fucking crazy.

You're you really just compared a billionaire to the sun where they're that uncontrollable.

No, you could through policy you could eliminate people's ability to have access to that much wealth.

Do you think that should be part of a communist policy?

You know, it's actually a debate within China, so I'm not going to say no nest.

I'm not talking China, I'm talking about you.

I don't know what your name is.

I'll call you Infrared.

I would say I don't really care that much, but if gone to my head, I would say, yeah, we can get rid of them.

Let's get rid of them.

Gun to your head.

You really, as somebody who's like following this ACP movement, you have to be gun to the head to say that billionaire is.

It's a central contradiction to me.

Exactly, because it's not.

It doesn't have to be.

Nothing has to be a central contradiction.

You can say, like, hey, though this is a drop in the bucket, it's wrong.

I don't think billionaire should exist.

Right?

Just because there's a handful of regulate guns.

It's not as important as the question of.

Uh should they be able to actually hijack

Our sovereignty.

In the way that they do in America.

I'm not resentful and jealous of billionaires.

I'm not jealous of them.

I'm not envious of them.

I don't think anybody's MG or something.

Sure, but I don't think people are envious.

I'm trying to be jealous of the billionaire.

I think they look at the billionaire and they say, Okay, you have enough wealth.

I want to become through gifts.

I don't think there's anybody who's like, Okay, there shouldn't be rich people in the world.

Like, maybe there's some on your side, on the very far left of your side, or something.

Maybe, but like, I just think as somebody who believes in communism generally, the easy answer should be like, No, billionaires should not exist.

Like, I don't know what the cap is, but like they there should not be a billionaire in our society.

Like, where does that fit?

I I don't care.

Maybe if they were like a philanthropist, maybe, right?

But like they're not.

I don't care if they exist.

Okay, but then at that point it's like so you're okay with some people being able to just like hoard immense wealth?

Just just like the whole thing.

Well, how does one become a billionaire?

Right?

It's through some sort of some form of capitalism or some gift.

It's not capitalism, it's just given to them from the government.

So, like, they have to be what you're talking about is mainly like.

It's mainly an issue of like what kind of civilization and culture should we have.

And it's inf it's relevant to communists, but it's not like the make or break of what a communist is.

I'm not saying it is.

Like you're you're taking this question as like, okay, if I say billionaires shouldn't exist, like they should just like emphasize my whole position on communism.

It's not.

I just ask simply, and you had to be like, okay, gun to my head.

Like, just say you don't want billionaires.

I don't know.

Or if you don't really care about it, then I question like, what is your goal then with communism?

If it's not to like stop the hoarding of immense wealth, what is it?

Like I mean that's so sincere.

The goal of communism is to realize

and fulfil the conclusion of history.

I got it.

What what does that mean though for people existing today?

What what does that mean?

If I live in an a in a communist society run by infrared, what what does that look like for me?

The rapid development of the productive forces.

Okay, and what do I get out of it?

A life where the individual and collective existence are made harmonious.

Okay, harmonious in what respect?

Every respect.

Okay.

And how what what is like your general idea of harmonious?

Does that mean like working in sync or equal or what?

No, not e not necessarily equal.

It's like from each according to their ability to each according to their need.

to their needs.

So is there a need for like immense wealth?

If civilization and culture decides that some people will be more skilled and smarter and will probably be rewarded socially with more access to resources that it's like how just educate me though, like how is that in any way a communist ideology?

Why shouldn't it be?

Well, because you're you're saying that just because someone like that, for example, for example, like if we're in a tribal society where like everyone shares things generally, but like some guy's like really good at hunting and like you know, he's like super skilled at it.

He's like the LeBron of his era, and like he is like all the huz love him, and he's like people like constantly are giving him gifts, gifts, and so he just like has more.

I get the gift thing.

I made that, I made that comment earlier about he has a better life and he's more respected, and it's like things are going well for him.

Like, get that, but like, do communists deny that that's probably going to be inevitable in any society?

No, we don't deny that.

So, like, well, no, but what you're talking about is like gift giving and like this barter system where we're giving people it's kind of the same, it's like the same thing, though, because it's like, you know, in a way, you like, think about influencers, like there's they get so wealthy, and it's just because people are gifting them subs.

Just like how Amila gifted me 25 subs, DeVito gifted me five subs, Rocky Mountain Mongol gifted me five subs.

It's just has there has there ever been a billionaire that that has made a billion dollars off of like internet life?

Or gift or gifted subs.

I think under communism those will be the billionaires.

They're gonna get gifted subs.

That's how it's going to be.

In your society, people can create this amount of wealth.

Yeah, we should have a feedback system where we reward people that people want to patronize and reward for contributing to society.

And it's like a cybernetic system where it's just people decide, yeah, yeah, give that guy more, give him more, give them more so that they could continue doing great things.

And like, that's going to be the form of inequality under communism.

Like, some people are going to have that and some people won't.

But then why would the communists in your society?

Like, I show speed.

Like, I show speed deserves it.

I don't have a problem with him being.

I'm not saying he doesn't, I guess, but my question, but sure, if you talk about the internet, like you can talk about giving gifts that don't really cost people money.

I'm bored of you.

Alright, I wanna go to bed.

Um if anyone wants to continue gifting subs, I encourage it and welcome it.

But um

Super bored of that conversation.

So, first of all, guys, I gotta like find a way to build up my live streaming again because this is crazy.

This is crazy.

Like, I've been away for two weeks.

I think I gotta go back to YouTube.

I could probably gotta go back to you.

Kik is just not working out for me.

It's oh, it's just I've been away for too long and, you know.

But I need a way to make money.

That's the problem.

I need a way to make money.

Huh.

I need a way to make money

Algo doesn't like breaks.

Yeah, it really doesn't.

So I could continue being on kick.

Oh, I I could go back to Twitch.

I need money though.

How do I get money?

Aww.

There are ways.

Get a job.

I mean, I'm not like saying I need money like in the sense of like I'm gonna be

uh in a crisis which I wouldn't be.

But I'm saying like how do I stream on Twitch and make money?

I could quit if I wanted if I wanted to make money in an alternative way, I could just quit streaming altogether, straight up.

I just stopped streaming.

I could stop streaming, I could make money, no problem.

But uh if I wanna continue making content and doing this, I have to make money.

There's many ways I can make money, but that would come at the expense of my ability to do this.

So we'll see.

We'll see.

Guys, don't talk about podcasts, Mike.

Like, we're not even at that point.

I'm talking about live streams.

If I want to sustain the live streams, if I want to stream on Twitch, the only reason people stream on Twitch is 'cause they have sponsors.

I don't have any sponsors.

So I could stream on Twitch and be very good at it and successful at it, but I don't have sponsors.

And the the subs on Twitch, the amount that it would take, it's a lot actually.

It's a considerable amount.

Streaming on X makes no money.

So streaming ca you know

No, you don't need sponsors.

You do to make money.

To make money you need sponsors, for sure.

Oh my god, what happened here?

Once again, I keep getting advice about guys, I don't need advice about how to make a living.

I really don't.

I'm talking about live streaming.

If you want me to if I want to become a big streamer again,

You guys, I'm getting actually pissed off.

Like, I'm getting pissed off by these responses.

You're not even understanding what I'm saying.

If I want to go to Twitch.

Or even YouTube.

I'm not, I'm not like you're literally like that guy I was debating.

Nobody's listening.

Literally, no one's listening.

It's like fucking crazy.

Alright.

I don't need advice on how to make a living.

I can do that without any issue.

I could quit streaming and do that.

No problem.

Talking about if you want me to stream on Twitch, how do I do that?

Or YouTube, how do I stream there and grow the streams there while also paying for it?

Um

So like all this other stuff, it's not relevant.

You understand?

Uh you ne I would need a sponsor.

So

Uh I you know

I think what I'm going to do is YouTube probably.

I'll tell you what I think could work.

I'm gonna start just being on YouTube.

And posting on the infrared channel?

And making money off of uh ad revenue.

And, you know, the super chats and stuff.

Well, like all s combined with ad revenue, I could

I could stream a lot on YouTube if I do that.

I would just have to like take the streams, make videos out of them.

It'd be easy.

So that would be like that would that's probably the way forward I'm that I'm thinking about, actually.

It's more ambitious, but I think it is the time for ambition.

It's time to take a leap and bring infrared into the new era.

Which I've been s wanting to do this entire year actually.

That was the whole goal of the year.

So, yeah, what I'm thinking is I'm just gonna be going on YouTube.

Kick was a nice vacation.

Probably.

But

Kick has not gr the purpose of kick was not to grow, it was just to kind of

Continue doing what I was doing.

And after two years of being on Kik, I think I'm gonna start just fully being on YouTube and just plunging, taking the risk.

And, like, it's gonna be work, but I'm here for it.

It's gonna reinvigorate everything, gonna be a lot of work.

But uh

It can postpone those books.

I want to tell you guys the thing that I find it's bad news and it's good news.

The reason I haven't been doing that is 'cause I've been prioritizing the books.

But to be honest guys, it's not your fault.

I don't blame you, but like

One of the conclusions I've drawn from that thing I wrote, the geese response or whatever, is that books are not.

People don't fucking read.

They just don't.

So like I ke I was constantly in a internal conflict of like how much time should I be spending writing and focusing on the writing thing as my main goal versus YouTube or video essays or like something like something else like that, right?

And when I saw how the response to the book, the mini book that I put up was just kind of pretty lackluster actually.

And um it convinced me that I can put I can postpone this book and just put it off and just go on YouTube.

Should focus on YouTube.

Yeah, you know who gave me this advice?

Is Jackson?

Jackson told me that all my writing is a waste of time.

It's like what I've been focused on in terms of content for the past two years, reading and writing and preparing for this big book.

He keeps saying it's a waste of time.

It's a waste of time.

And I'm like damn.

And um

Actually, I don't know if he was talking about the book.

Or was he talking about something else?

No, he was talking about the responses.

The written responses

But uh no, I've I think I've been convinced actually, which is good, I needed to know, you know, what the way forward is.

No, I know I I'm not saying I blame you guys for not being able to read.

You know, because of the time constraints.

I just needed a clarity on the way forward, you know?

So infrared's going to be coming back on YouTube.

And uh who knows, you know, maybe I will also simultaneously churn out a book as well.

But yeah, I think that's the conclusion I'm gonna draw.

I need to get the con the content needs to be at a higher quality than what it is now.

It's just not there.

You know?

Uh I need I need my content to be good.

And uh

Yeah.

Yeah, a pump of th the quality.

Alright guys.

How many views on YouTube does it take to hit an average kickstream revenue?

S the kick kick has been like better uh for the revenue split, but it also has come at the expense of growth.

And so I need to take the plunge and just like take the whole month, just take the risk.

And I'm not going to stress about it 'cause at the end of the day, like, I'm never gonna be in I don't think I'm gonna be in a position where I'm like

you know, having to stress or worry

But uh so I'm gonna start experimenting.

I think the next stream will be on YouTube.

Next stream's gonna be on YouTube.

Why not multi-stream?

Honestly, it's the most retarded suggestion I get is multi-streaming.

It's like genuinely a retarded suggestion.

That I continuously get

It's like a really bad idea.

That's just like, yeah, let's just divide the viewership.

It's a really dumb idea.

Um

We're back to the three it's crazy how we're back to the three hundred Spartans.

Every time it's like there's always a three hundred Spartans.

You know?

So y'all are the ones I'm telling.

I'm giving you this uh four one one.

Whenever we're at the three three hundred Spartan thing, like there's a big change that's afoot, you know?

It's a big sign that there's a big change afoot.

It's a big sign that there's gonna be a.

We had some of the weak, the weaklings.

We had some of them

We've shaved off some fat, some weaklings have been shaken off of us.

We're back to our purest form.

And we will now grow.

The last time we were at three hundred Spartans.

A C P was born.

Remember that?

The last time we were reduced to the three hundred Spartans

Fucking crazy things happen, right?

I didn't never focus on growing the streams too much, but the last time we were at 300 Spartans.

We had ACP, right?

So now we're going to go back and we're going to have a content explosion of.

Infrared.

Alright guys, I'll see you uh

See you soon.

See you tomorrow, hopefully.

Tomorrow or Thursday, but hopefully tomorrow.

Bye-bye.