🔴 RED NEWS | MASSIVE DEBATE ROYALE | AMERICAN COMMUNIST PARTY UPDATES

So we we have no interest in that.

But on the other hand, um if we were to seize power uh all unilateral uh immigration would end mass immigration would end there would be a policy of multilateral agreements between countries to negotiate uh the flows of populations in a rational and controlled way that takes into account the consequences of the power of

Um it depends on what you're talking about.

For criminals, absolutely.

For counter revolutionaries, absolutely.

Um I don't I don't actually foresee this to be a big issue for communists, and I'll tell you why, because I think that people who just come to this country purely for economic reasons or fleeing conflict

Um, wouldn't need to be deported because if there was ever a civil war here, which is what a communist

You know, event would entail, they would leave because there's gonna shit is gonna pop off here.

And they're not gonna, if they're not willing to d I think that Americans will be defined by the next revolution.

Whoever is willing to actually stay here and fight for this country, and when I say fight for the country, I mean fight for the revolutionary forces.

Yeah, they will be true Americans, and those who leave will.

will, you know, have proven that they're not really committed to the history of this nation.

And and, you know, and with regard to that, it who knows who will stay and who will leave.

But do you think immigration, like you said, uh, like it leads to like all of these like social problems?

Like, I'm not denying that at all.

But do you think it leads us further to like this moment in history?

Do I think what?

Immigration leads us to what?

Like to a pinnacle moment of history of where like the conditions for evolution are there.

No, I don't think I think it's a symptom of neoliberalism.

It's a symptom of the breakdown of the integrity of the welfare state and the labor movement.

And it's really a type of chaos.

The phenomena of mass immigration serves the purpose of weakening the cause of labor and the movement of labor.

Not even just the organized labor movement, but even the unorganized and implicit standards of living that is expected by the American worker.

And it's an economic weapon with regard to that.

But wouldn't the way capitalism unfolds also lead to the conditions of revolution at some point?

I think the era of revolutions in the sense of what happened in the October Revolution and the French Revolution, I don't think we live in that era anymore.

I think we live in an era of civil wars.

I think we live in an era where states will break down in an operational capacity.

And Suez, what's up, bro?

States will break down in an operational capacity.

And, you know, more countries will probably look like Haiti, where there will be warlords and gangs that just fill the vacuum.

I had a Mexican communist tell me this recently.

It was a good critique that he made.

I was glad I got to talk to this guy.

But he said, he made the point that there's only been one revolution that really started with a Communist Party setting out to create revolution.

It always comes from some kind of societal breakup.

What revolution was that?

Even I...

I think it was China or Russia.

Because even that's not really true.

Because in China, there was the warlord era, where there was practically no central state.

And then there was the war with Japan, which severely...

So even then it wasn't true, you know?

Did this not also happen in Cuba?

Like creating the conditions?

No, because they didn't start out as communists.

The communists in Cuba actually hated Che.

They thought he was adventuristic.

They thought he was egotistical and individualistic.

And they didn't believe that the peasants could constitute a revolutionary force.

Yeah, okay.

So, sorry, just to get back to immigration.

So there was this really interesting letter written by Lenin.

I forget the exact title of it, but I'm sure it's pretty much.

Yeah, yeah, where he says that immigration accelerates the breaking down of national differences.

Yeah, yeah, well, yes, yes, yes.

And so would you say that the conditions have changed?

Yeah, they definitely have.

I can explain precisely how they have, too.

So Lenin was writing at the time of the Second International and then later the breakdown of the Second International, respectively.

Because I think he commented on the issue twice, if I'm correct.

First time is when he was reflecting on.

The specific Congress of the Second International, I forget.

Well, anyway, the Second International more or less believed that the proletarian revolution would come as an international and simultaneous movement of the entire global proletariat, which will, in one swoop, overthrow global capitalism and establish a kind of new, you know, global proletarian dictatorship that is centered in the advanced capitalist countries, which is Western Europe.

So there is this expectation that, you know, there's going to be this imminent world revolution.

Not necessarily imminent in the sense it's just about to happen, but that's what's on the horizon, more or less.

That's what is to be anticipated, right?

And that nations, you know, they're going to be a thing of the past.

And, you know, the events of the First Imperialist War.

The breakdown of the Second International, it disproved this thesis.

The experience of the October Revolution, it disproved this thesis.

The proletarian revolution did happen.

It happened in Russia.

It didn't spread to the whole world, let alone Europe and Germany and England, where they thought it would.

Well, it kind of did spread to Germany, but it ultimately failed.

It spread to Bavaria specifically, and that was a very.

That had no chance of, you know, becoming a

Uh something that could, you know, take over the whole German state.

But in any case, yeah, and Hungary and whatever, but those the see th th even those were like made on the expectation that, yeah, the Red Army's gonna get here soon and it's gonna and it never happened, right?

And so there was a lot of hype, and the hype, you know, when there's hype, people take risks more.

But then it sh it was shown that this was uh a folly.

So um that thesis was disproven by practice.

And uh and and s and uh then in the nineteen thirties we had the rise of uh fascism.

And the rise of fascism forced communists around the world to take a more realistic appraisal uh about the relationship communist parties will have

To um

To the nations they're working within, where you're not necessarily just.

permanently occupying a position of you know uh complete antagonism and hostility to the entirety of society and trying to overthrow it at any given moment.

There's also this kind of emergence of the idea of the Popular Front, where the Communists need to unite with the labor movement and they need to unite with even to some extent those who are willing, the Social Democratic Movement, and more or less create a kind of bulwark of hegemony within civil society.

uh to defend the you know the gains of the workers and consolidate them and and launch and from that basis you know create the context for the eventual victory of communism.

Not to mention to fight the rise of fascism.

So that was a kind of successful strategy and it and it led to, you know, uh very powerful labor movements across the world, even in Europe as well.

And um, you know, the uh

At that point, it was clear that within the class war, when it came to the strategy of immigration, the idea that immigration is going to hasten this kind of simultaneous global revolution.

It just became not it wasn't it wasn't something people were anticipating anymore.

It was more kind of like this is a specific tactic within the class struggle and we need to fight it on our own as well.

And there isn't going to be this imminent simultaneous world revolution that is on the horizon that's going to erase.

Put it this way: communists eventually realize they have a lot of work to do when it comes to developing leadership over their nations, respectively.

They can't leapfrog this process and just kind of jump into a melting pot of all nations mixing together.

There's going to be a long process of assuming leadership of your nation, defending its history, and developing that history, and the process of.

you know, the dissolution of national antagonisms will be a very, very long one.

So such is what experience has shown us, at least.

Okay, but would you say that these like immigrants coming over to the United States that do cause like you said like like cultural lack of like cultural cohesion like do you think the do you think immigrants play like a crucial role in the revolution or just like organizing?

No, no, no, and by the way, we're talking about mass immigration.

In the case of mass immigration, people are coming here to live a better life.

They're not coming here to you know die for the cause of the proletariat.

They're coming here for opportunities.

But in a lot of ways, they live in very precarious situations.

Like I'm sure you would agree with that.

Right, which is why, you know, uh but at the same time they still re regard it as worth it to stay because and send money home even sometimes because uh they're making more here relative to the purchasing power.

I think if they want to they can.

I mean if they there are people who like come from Cuba thinking America's the freaking land of the free and manned up on the streets and if they want to dedicate their life to fighting to change this country that's fine.

But what Haas is saying is true.

Most of them come here looking for a better life, come here 'cause they don't see any hope in their own country and just are trying to find a better place for their family, which isn't the best consciousness for communists.

I mean yeah yeah like you're absolutely true but like um like a lot of people come to like the United States and they're like severely disappointed and they continue to like live in poverty and very like precarious situations.

And like obviously like uh if you're like undocumented you would have like less of a voice, right?

Like you re I'm gonna ask a stupid question though, but like then why don't they go back home?

Sorry?

Then why wouldn't they go back home?

I mean um I mean like I guess like relatively it might be better but I mean like al are like are you denying that like a lot of like immigrants do live in poverty?

No they do but it's still better than they still consider it better than what they had back home probably.

Or maybe I'm wrong about this.

I'm just assuming.

I mean okay so like I I come from Canada.

I I think like like whether you want to consider what's happening in Canada like mass immigration like a lot of people would but uh like a lot of people come here and they're like kind of like stuck I guess like they don't like have like the resources to go back or whatever but obviously obviously yes like you are right in that a lot of people do find better jobs.

But what I'm saying, sorry, is that obviously undocumented immigrants have a lot less of a voice in like civil society.

So I think it would be a particularly good opportunity for the ACP to like focus on empowering like undocumented immigrants.

They can't be empowered because they don't have leverage.

I mean what's c stop the state from just deporting them?

I mean like absolutely nothing.

But uh like you're right, they have no leverage but like the the A C P is looking to like build like a mass movement, is it not?

Yeah, a mass movement of the actual national majority who has a stake in the country.

But people who have no rights and who are n you know, not recognized as citizens, how could we defend them?

On what basis?

We'd have to go to war, we'd have to we'd have to start an armed struggle and overthrow the state or something.

Like immediately.

And then we'd fail, by the way.

So like uh on what basis could we defend them?

We couldn't.

I mean uh like uh say what you want, but the working class of uh the American working class, the native one or whatever, they can't just be deported.

If even a single one of them was deported, uh it would cause social instability.

They'd say, Well, if this is a violation of our rights, you can't do this.

You know, we have it would ca it would it would stir the pot, so to speak.

But if uh undocumented immigrant is just deported, it's will you know But does this not go backwards from what you were saying earlier, that like if undocumented immigrants wanted to contribute to like uh like revolutionary struggle, they'd be like welcome to?

Yeah, I don't see why not, but I'm just saying like why uh we uh we ha we have no reason to count on that.

is what I'm saying.

Right, it's not gonna be like a strong basis that where we should look for support, whereas the