🔴 RED NEWS | DEBATING LEFTIST! | AMERICAN COMMUNIST PARTY UPDATES

Get your fucking hands up. Get on out your seats. All eyes on me. All eyes on me.

Get your fucking hands up

Get on out of your seats

All eyes on me

Are you feeling nervous

Are you having fun

It's almost over.

It's just begun.

Don't over think this.

Look in my eye.

Don't be scared. Don't be shy.

Come on in the water's fine.

We're going to go where everybody knows everybody knows everybody knows everybody

We're going to go where everybody knows everybody knows everybody knows

Get your fucking hair

Get on the

You'll see

All eyes on me

Oh my

Hey Don't get your

fucking hands up

Get on out of you

See Oh my All eyes on me

All eyes on me

Yeah

It's God

pray for me

And

pray for me

Get your fucking

man out Oh now out that you'll see all Pray for me Kid don't fucking ran out

Oh now that you'll see

All eyes on me

Oh eyes on me

Are you feeling nervous

Are you having fun

It's almost over

It's just begun.

Don't overthink this.

Look in my eye.

Don't be scared.

Don't be shy.

Come on in the water's fire.

You say the ocean's rising like I give a shit.

You say the whole world's and they caught it already there.

You're not gonna slow if ever knows you try.

God it could not get inside.

We're going to go

Everybody knows

Everybody knows everybody

We're going to go

Everybody knows everybody

knows everybody knows Don't get wrong everybody no everybody no

so I'm

for getting fell in love

I'm sorry

oh my

oh my so so

I'm going to I feel like

there's

I'm there's I'm Come on, get your fucking hands up. You know how to see

All right for me,

All right for me

Yeah

It's now

praying for me

Head now

Pray for me I'll say get your fucking hand up get up get up talking to you get the fuck out get your fucking

love get your look at all eyes on me oh eyes on me oh my and all right all that's all

my soul oh my

and

you're

and

hold of

and

hands on

and

all that country

oh my

my soul my

my son

and my my and I'm a Pesta and you see and Pesta Yeah, come Hey, it's not

Dragon's all me

That's all right

Time's all

I guess

I get your

love and say

I'm always

Oh my

I'm going Oh my I'm Oh, oh, oh, oh, all the eyes, Oh, uh, The To do it around, I will know that I get a little bit lonely, I can never come around.

To do you know, I've been not again and I can never be able to stop the best of all the years and come out. I'm not give a little bit nervous I'm gonna best of all the years

come out

And I need you now

tonight

And I need you more together

And if you'll only hold me

tight

We'll're holding on

for a

I totally

clips on It's totally clips So on the time I was falling in love

Now I'm only falling apart

There's nothing I can do

It's suddenly clips of life

I'm following the I'm sorry

You always You always wear me up you're too much can we turn the page we're connecting in the end of it both of us again Tonight Come on

Goal

Don't slip away

Turned tonight

I'm Turned

I'm

Don't Up

tonight

Don't

up

afraid Maybe

I'm

make a make a play

Oh

I did turn all night baby pray oh and I need you now

tonight

and I need you

more on whenever

and if you're holding

time

we'll be holding on forever

I'm Oh I'll be holding on forever.

I wasn't for the time I was falling in love, now I'm only falling apart. There's nothing I can do.

I saw the clips of night.

I'm going to be. Silent nights full of downs

Lonely hearts

Lonely hearts get off the crowds

You never thought that you reversed a coin

You're fired, fire, you're up and ups and downs, and suddenly it just all walks out, and you wonder where your foots came up know and you realize that you let

all get falling and you're like you're just too far The I'm and you realize that you're in a true at all.

Yeah. I realize that you let all.

Oh, on me need to see the light.

All of your fears are you take the hide You never thought to cute you

And now you buy it straight in time

And now you buy it straight in time

You taste a good part who needs your mind oh now you know from where you're

for a little bit and you're in life true at all you're realizing that you fall.

And you realize that you fall.

Yeah. When you realized that you were for When you realized that you were for you. I'm I'm Thank you. I don't know. Sarah, I don't know To do you know and then I get a little bit alone and you never come around

To do you know and then I get a little bit more than I've got to something best for all the years and come out

Oh I'm on you now and night.

And I need you more than ever.

And if you're only holding tight, we'll be holding on forever. Holding on to I'm I'm only

Clips on a heart

I'm totally

clips in a

time

I was falling in love

Now I'm only falling apart

There's nothing I can do

A star Eclipse

alive

I'm

I'm

The clips of life Oh You always wear me up. You always wear me up. You're too much, can we turn the page?

We're connecting in the end of it, both of us again.

Tonight come on, don a slip away

tonight's trying to keep in the night

trying to keep you've been

don't you brave

tonight

take it out the frame

never

to say

Oh

I don't

know night Oh I need you know tonight

I need you

know

never And if you're

holding

I'm holding on

forever

I'm

Oh

I'm Yeah forever I was falling in love now I'm only falling apart there's nothing I can do a

so have the clips of the life I'm starting to be able to be. The I don't know and I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm not

I'm

I'm

I'm a I'm The

I'm not going to be.

I'm I'm

I'm

I'm and the no

I'm

Oh

I'm not

I'm

I'm I'm I'm and and the I'm not

a

I'm I'm I'm going to

I'm

I'm

I'm not

I'm

I'm I'm

I'm I'm I'm not

a lot of

I'm Yo, shout out PJ for the 5.

Thank you so much, brother.

I saw it in the offline you gifted 30 when I wasn't even providing any content on the stream.

Thank you so much, brother.

Appreciate you.

Cress, what's going on?

What's up, y'all?

How you doing?

How you doing?

It's another stream of the infrared webcast, as you can see.

I'm back, and i have a lot and i'm not even bluffing this time i actually have a lot to debrief and talk to you about from the fresh and fit stuff to the whole

controversy and keith woods being a fucking tether and all these things happening.

And we got a lot to catch up on.

Definitely a lot.

But in the meantime, I had agreed to a debate.

Red Kahina, shout Red Kehina.

Shout out Red Kehina. We're going to bring her in soon.

She agreed to a debate about China, I think.

Anyway, she's a critic.

Sleeper! What's going on?

She's a critic that's coming from the leftist perspective. Usually the people who debate us come from the right wing. And I automatically I respect it. I respect the bravery. I respect the willingness to engage.

And, you know, I'm looking forward to it.

And I want everyone to show Red Kahina respect.

Because if I respect her, you should respect her too, because she had the courage to agree to this debate um anyway let me go ahead and drag

her up and we're going to start we're going to start today's stream and today's stream starts now

by the way i'm not going to stop it and stream later it's going to start now

and uh the reason we're doing it now is because um the scheduling uh she lives in the ukk so we had to schedule in a way that works.

And then, so yeah, and I'm probably going to stream tomorrow as well, but we'll see.

Anyway, let me bring her up.

Hello. Hello.

Big gorilla. Thank you so much, brother.

You have to unmute your mic.

Your mic is currently muted. If you go on the, I don't know what you're using. On the bottom, it's going to say microphone.

There's going to be an icon.

Okay, I had the, but I'm on Discord.

Right.

Ah, hey.

There's a very strange lag now maybe that's from my end let me lower my volume is everything good now

well it's like there's a delay ah you probably have my stream up you need to turn the stream off

i need to turn the stream off okay that's what's going on okay good sorry

okay everything good yeah everything's good i was just talking to people who can't decide whether

they're in your party or not oh well everyone who's a member of our party has an objective verification that there is.

So there's no confusion on my end.

So that's.

Okay.

Okay.

So these guys, I don't know who they are.

Your fans, you can't decide whether they're in your party.

They like Heidegger,

although some of them

haven't read it, and then

they couldn't decide

whether you, so let's clear

this up, whether you represent,

it was my understanding that you're the chief

ideologists of the ACP

and they were saying no no you speak

only for yourself oh okay I

see the confusion so I'm definitely

the chief

ideologist the face of infrared right I'm the the chief ideologist, the face of infrared, right?

I'm the host of the infrared show.

And I'm the chairman of the ACP.

But in terms of the ACP's official ideology that it formally espouses as like a necessary prerequisite to agree with to join the party

that's just um that's we would call it multipolar orthodox Marxism Leninism. So all that means is

basically it's Orthodox Marxism Leninismism we accept the synthesis of marxism

leninism up to gizien ping today and uh we reject the view it's on our questionnaire if

you join the party that russia is imperialist and China we reject that

China's imperialist so that's the official it's just Marxism Leninism plus the pro-Multipolarity

everything else is a matter of the individual conscience.

Okay, so basically it's like PR for those

governments.

No, it's a specific...

Any way you want.

It's not PR, but it's a position according to which we view China as a socialist country

and we also view Russia as an anti-imperialist country.

And we view BRICS as a progressive development.

Right, but do you have a literature explaining?

I mean, I know there's been a debate.

I'm familiar with this from the Magma magazine, you know, the KKE's position about you.

I'm familiar with all of this.

But, you know, my understanding was to actually figure out what you guys are selling,

if you don't mind my, I don't think you will mind that term to figure it out. I went to the

infrared website and I saw Heidegger and I saw Schmidt and I saw that the ACP

is taking the position of the partisan

in Schmidt's piece, which was

very popular with ultra-lefts

you know 20 years ago.

But, you know, I can't find,

then these guys are telling me, oh, that's not American Communist Party literature.

They can't be held responsible.

Yeah.

So to be clear, the ACP, it's the executive board is made up of people who have a range of different views and perspectives

on things carlos is currently the uh the secretary of education and we work closely to come to an

agreement about what we what we consider what kinds of publications we endorse the reading

lists so our uh reading list in our magazine hasn't been published yet also our manifesto

was in finney yet finished yet that's going to be finished before our first convention which is

going to be in October.

So the party's outlook can be roughly confined for now to the declaration, what we write in the Declaration, about Marxism, Leninism and its historical significance.

But more specifically, the views of the party in particular will be, you know, worked out in the manifesto and in our upcoming magazine. Now, but here's the thing.

Because that's ambiguous, you know, I want to give's the thing. Yeah, sorry.

Because that's ambiguous, you know, I want to give you the opportunity to fully scrutinize Haas of infrared.

You don't have to worry about ACP.

Just me in terms of my views, in terms of infrared's views, I'm completely open to whatever criticism.

That's what I think I've done my homework on a little bit.

Yeah, yeah.

So we could just...

That's you.

That's you.

And also I...

Carlos is Midwestern Marx, right?

Right, correct.

So I saw him do this hydrater talk with your friend Daniel Tutt and Gabriel Rockhill.

So I sat through that.

That's probably kind of old, right, a few years ago?

It's kind of old, but, you know,

how much could their views on Heidegger

change, you know,

unless the Paymaster changes.

Unless the Paymaster changes.

Unless they get a new joke.

I don't think any paymaster would care about our views on Heidegger, but I think Carlos...

Well, like, Raquel is a professor. They do care.

Rock Hill's not in our party. Carlos is, and I've talked to Carlos in person a lot about Heidegger, and if not anything else, I think he's very understanding of my perspective and he knows where I'm coming from.

Okay, so let's start, you want to start? We're going to talk about China.

First of all, this talk was proposed to me by someone representing themselves as belonging to your party, James Graham.

Okay, sure.

Okay.

So now these other guys representing that they're in your party, but then they're not sure because they don't know what they have to be responsible for, saying the party cannot yet be criticized because it actually hasn't produced any positions and doesn't have any that are known.

No, I think our declaration is a pretty, it's a relative, it's four pages long.

And we do make some statements about our views about what actually Marxism, Leninism is.

And it's significant. And it's not much yet. But, you know, we, we can be criticized for the paradigm of what we consider a party to be, a communist party to be, and how a communist party can begin and all these kinds of things.

There's also been some degree of scandal, I think, as far as our, what we consider praxis to be. And there's a lot of people trying to accuse us of being a multi-level marketing scheme and all this other kind of stuff. So there's plenty to try and criticize us about that I'm open to responding to. And as far as our positions

are concerned as a party, you know, there's also the fact that we regard, we have specific

views about America as a nation. You know, Carlos, I think, has written an article about the launch of the American Communist Party and the significance of our views on the national question in this country, which I think differ considerably from those of others.

I think there's a popular current among some radicals who

identify as ML that, you know, America right now is not a nation at all. It's just a, it's amalgamation of

different nations. You know, there's a white nation, a black nation,

you know, Latino nation, yada, yada. So we disagree with that and we have our own view.

So, but I agree. There isn't like a clear doctrine right now because all the party has

done is declare itself. It hasn't

it hasn't launched

its journal yet. You know, it hasn't

launched a manifesto yet.

But

it needs to be understood this is a years-long process that we've been building this party in private.

And there's a lot of people that have been...

Let's pretend it doesn't exist because so far it doesn't.

So let's just talk about the topic, the thing that does exist, which is your media presence and your operation.

Okay, so I, you know, and of course I know you're familiar with the KKE's position on you, which is very influential among people, the last remnants of communist parties in Europe, in the Middle East.

Some of them, definitely.

Well, it's influential even

among those who

reject

yeah yeah you're right you're right

parties say because it's the last

party with a lot of members

in Europe

it's definitely has their attention, I agree.

Anyway,

and also because they've,

they have made their,

they reiterate their

pyramid theory,

clearly

and defend it.

So anyway,

and they have a lockstep defense of it. So anyway, and they have

a lockstep defense of it. So anyway,

you're familiar with that. But I think I'm

looking at what you guys are doing.

This is why James

Graham proposed that I

speak directly to you,

is that what it seems to me

you're doing and I'm not

I am sure I'm not the first person who said it because I'm

coming late to being aware of you guys

is that you are hanging

up a Marxist shingle that you

you're the main Marxist-Leninist

thing you say is I'm a Marxist-Leninist thing you say

is I'm a Marxist-Leninist,

which is not something that a Marxist-Leninist

typically has to say,

because everybody knows based on what they do

and think about other things,

that you identify as this,

and then you are delivering your ideological authorities on the infrared website for example you start reading it you get Heidegger you get Schmidt you get

a parade of famous Nazis who are not only famous

personal Nazis because I'm not, you know, I don't like this cliche that, oh, just because someone a Nazi doesn't mean they're stupid. Well, it doesn't mean they're smart either.

Like, just because someone is a Nazi

and they say something that's incorrect,

it doesn't make that thing more respectable,

what they said are more valid.

Now, what Schmidt and Heidegger do is

a, you know, famously

is in take

you know, Marxism

celebrated

critiques in the case

of Schmidt, also critiques by other socialists like Maurice Jolie, but mainly

the 18th Premier, and transformed them into fascist mystifications and

Heidegger did the same thing. I mean,

Heidegger read

Lukach's book, which was one of the

few Marxists that he could actually understand

because it's in philosophical

language. Well, not really. He tried

to write more clearly,

but he's writing about Hegel,

and he took his two ideas,

and he took

Lukatch's notion

of history and, you know,

totality, and that things are either moving progressively or regressively.

You know, how Higalian, how too Higalian this is is a famous question in Marxism, but regardless...

I mean, too Kantian, right? Not Hegelian.

No, to Hegelian,

I mean, his...

He replied to the

neo-Cantians who thought, well, you're one

of us because you have a transatlental

subject and... But he

couldn't identify with them for political reasons, but that was his background as neo-continism.

Even before, before he adopted, you know, some discipline.

He still said, no, I'm trying not to be a content.

There's elements of Kant in every philosopher including.

Well,

I would say as far as metaphysical commitments are concerned,

his limit is Kant,

definitely,

because his rejection of dialectics of nature.

He rejects dialectics of nature. He rejects dialectics of nature because he...

He's a Kantian, that's why.

No, because he says it doesn't address subject object.

That's his main subject.

Yeah, yeah, I know.

But already with Hegel, that kind of distinction between the external nature and the kind of interior reality of the subject is sublated.

Right?

Hegel already puts that to work

in a way that does have speculative...

Unity of subject and object,

where it's like a Marxism.

Marxism is like, well, actually what we have here

is two subjects.

That's the topic.

Well, we don't have to get too much

into Lou Cox, but basically

Hegel... Let me have to finish about

Lukach. So, Lukach, so you're familiar

with the essay that we're talking about

history of class consciousness and main at point

that, you know, he has a totality

that people, that totality you know he has a totality that people

that totality you know

each subject is

completely embedded in and produced

by the totality but also

producing the totality

and that in general history

so everything is historical.

There's no, there's no, I've heard the theory that Heidegger basically read this and

was responding to it.

But no, Heidegger transforms it.

He makes a euphemesis discourse.

I mean, this is partly Bordeaux. I'm talking from, but other writers, that he takes totality and he turns it into being and he takes, you know, the subject and he transforms this. And we're talking about the collective subject of all of humanity and he transforms this and we're talking about the

collective subject of all of humanity

and he transforms it into the being

there which is just the only people

who live

authentically. He

transforms the categories into...

I don't think I would agree with that theory.

Authenticity or in authenticity, which is...

Now, the thing...

The objection to this is it's taking something intelligible and Marxist and making it

into mystifying bullshit.

That is worthless. It's

worthless. There is no authenticity.

There's no inauthenticity.

But wait, here's my punchline.

I know why you like this

because it will allow you to say that prostitution

is an is an authentic way for Chinese people to live and that's why the thing is a good thing.

I'm not sure if I completely understand where you're coming from there.

But I'd like to respond to a few things you said.

Okay, go ahead.

So firstly, from right out the door, I think there's a big misunderstanding.

You said that for me, Heidegger and Schmidt are authorities.

That is an extremely presumptuous claim, I think.

That's not justifiable.

The only authorities, and let's clarify what we mean here, these are thinkers that have

political authority. They have a level of credibility and legitimacy that goes far beyond the merits

of directly what they're trying to think about and say and whatever, but this is what we call thinkers that are part of the synthesis of Marxism, Leninism, right? The five heads. So that is not a rank or a status. I'm elevating Heidegger or Schmidt or any other one of these thinkers from the German conservative revolution. I'm not elevating them to that status. I'm not elevating them to the status of Marx and Lenin. And the reason I'm not doing that, by the way, is because Marx and Lenin don't just have the status that they do because they had good thoughts or they had interesting thoughts or they were maybe coming from somewhere, because they accomplished a synthesis, a unity of thought and practice, which had an immortal historical contribution.

Regardless of whether you think Lenin or Marx were correct or not, it's immaterial.

The correctness of their thinking is reflected in something objective and indisputable contribution to history itself.

So I definitely... Curious because you talk about, you talk at length

about the Schnitz and you talk

at length about Heidegger and Lecon

is curiously for someone who has your gender ideas.

Lacan was the first one to say, you know, that the woman doesn't exist.

And then, you know, and that...

I think we're going in too many directions, and I'd kind of just like to...

These authorities, I'm coming back to the question of authority.

You treat, I should say, you may declare that you consider Mao to be an authority and not Heidegger. Yet it's Heidegger's thoughts we hear from you

and not Mao's who paid no attention to Heidegger. Right, but think about why that is. Think about what

that is because Mao's historical achievement and contribution is not discursively negotiable.

There's not much I can interpret Mao, and I do this in, for example, small writings like the Brahmins of democracy, but ultimately, I am not here to critique Mao.

I am definitely responding to Heidegger, though,

because I don't think Heidegger accomplished directly any kind of synthesis.

And you attach too much significance to the extent to which I name these figures,

and I name them, and I engage with their ideas. Marxism needs them and Marxism never needed them. Well, let me ask you the question. What

is my actual argument? Since you are so familiar with my views about how Marxism... I'm not that

familiar. I'm not that familiar. So you don't actually know what I say about any of these thinkers. You just know that I mention them.

Yeah, no, I know what you say about fascists that you talk about a lot.

Okay, what, what, according, why do I say, why is it that I say that Marxism in the West,

you're kind of getting sloppy as far as the facts here because I said in the West

thanks for the grading and the bill to my office but why is it that I say that in the West

Marxism requires the aid of Heidegger's thinking why do I say that that? What's the argument I use? Your argument is that

the, um, the, uh, his resolution of the subject object, I mean, I heard this with Tutt, right? Is that,

is that the line that you take all the time? That your, that his resolution of the subject and object

allows people to love America effectively is what you said. Not quite.

Well, that was it.

You said the problem is that people can't people identify with America, the working class, a working class that you envision.

I know these people too.

I mean, I have friends here.

I'm not...

Well, look, I think we're over-complicating this.

So for me...

You know, let's...

Don't dodge this.

This is what you said.

Okay.

You can retract it if you want,

but this is what I...

Sure.

The reason I'm...

Please explain

to me my thoughts.

No, I'm not going to

tell, I don't know what you think.

I only know what you said.

Explain to me what I've said, sure.

You said that the problem is there

are these people, what are we going to do with these how do you approach the proletarian that you right but khano this is kind of a separate america yeah yeah i i am totally open to going down the path of exploring look i'm totally open to going down the path of exploring. Look, I'm totally open to going down the path of going down that topic of America and the American working class and whatever. But right now, you know, it's kind of like crazy because you've said some crazy stuff about how I'm adopting Nazi thought and all these guys. And I want to

focus on that. I want to focus on what the claims you're making about my relationship to Heidegger and

Schmidt and so on. So what is what are your claims? Well, uh, please don't interrupt me.

I've been really careful to try and not interrupt you, so I'd like to not be interrupted as far as responding to your view.

So, let's begin with Heidegger, and then we can go to Schmidt, right? And we can go one by one.

For me, I think that in the West, the reason, part of the reason at least, that the synthesis of Marxism, Leninism, and notice that I say the synthesis of Marxism, Leninism, because I consider that to be a

qualitative change in Marxism. I think that the West kind of grasped to some extent a view of Marxism,

the so-called Orthodox Marxism that was kind of canonized by the Second

International, and that was its limit. And my critique of Lukox is that he never actually goes

beyond this limit. This limit could also be understood as precisely as another word for the

Kantian sublime

which is

totality

and Lukox

never goes

beyond the

kind of

conceptual

and institutional

purport

of Marxism

into the

real,

into some

kind of

actual understanding and comprehension of historical

praxis. And I consider that to be a big problem as far as the development of Marxism and the West is

concerned. So I'm not here to, you know, throw Heidegger in the face of successful Marxism-Leninism.

We have to engage with creepy guys like Heidegger in the West because our Marxism in the West has been a total failure since 1917, a complete and total failure. Very, very few successes.

And those successes that we can attach to the history of Western Marxism and Western communism,

we seem to not understand the essence of those successes, which is why they were always short-lived and they were almost immediately squashed. They were transient.

So for me, where am I coming from with the Heidegger stuff? I think there was a lot of baggage from the second international of social democracy,

according to which Marxism became a doctrine whose method could be reduced to the form of

conceptual thinking, to concepts. And that

corresponded to institutions, right? To institutions. So the proletariat was one specific kind of

subject that was interpolated by one specific kind of institution. Now, the awkward thing is that this correlate, this conceptual

correlate of the proletariat eventually reveals itself to have opportunistic tendencies with the

rise of the first imperialist war. That no longer seems to be the proletariat, right, at a certain point, at least the

upper sections of it, the bribed so-called labor aristocracy. So social democracy had a problem

precisely with the subject-object distinction. What is the proletariat? What is proletarian

consciousness? And what is the relationship between the two? And I think that the strict

distinction between subject and object, which was an undialectical distinction,

contributed, at least if we render this in philosophical terms to that problem.

Now, I think that Heidegger makes a good step in terms of his way of problematizing that distinction of subject and object

in the notion of da sign which situates it in a much broader historical context that's actually specific to the West.

And I think that's a useful step.

I think that's a useful beginning.

I think it's useful to regard the problems of Western Marxism

as part and parcel of problems of the West in general.

And I'm open to alternative views, of course.

There's always going to be the third worldist view, according to which, well, the problem

with the West is it's just too privileged and it's just too rich and they don't have enough

to lose.

But I think we've come to a point where strategically speaking it's not very it's hard to conceive of a success of worldwide communism without the

toppling of the u.s empire and you could say that's going to happen inevitably

because of contradictions, but we could have a third world war before that happens, right?

And even then. So, I know I'm not really getting into the specifics of Heidegger yet, but, you know, I'm not, it's not that I'm not aware that the German conservative revolution thinkers, with the onset of the rise of the Nazis, did in large part regard the Nazis as the zeitgeist of their thinking, which of course I don't agree with.

But I think this is just reducing them to political agents and political ideologists.

One, okay, that's kind of ridiculous, because one, they were never officially canonized as official ideologists of the Nazi party, so they've never had that significance.

Two, the actual official ideologists of the Nazi party, there's not really much theory going on there if you actually look at it.

I know a lot of Western intellectuals are really trying hard to find the intellectual basis of Nazism.

But if you're honest about this inquiry, you'll find there is no, there is no such basis. There is no intellectual

foundation of Nazism. Nazism was the opposite of anything that was mediated by the rational

intellect, right? Nazism was the pure brute force violence of the terroristic dictatorship of monopoly capital that there's no need for any

kind of intellectual legitimation and justification beyond the kind of barbaric philistinism

of imperialism in general so the nazi views on race and all these eugenics, that was all shared already by the upper

echelons of the British ruling classes and the American ruling classes. It was just a completely

unreflexive importation of their instincts and their assumptions and presumptions.

There wasn't any need for Heidegger's, you know, reading, being in time, or even Carl Schmit's

notion of the partisan. Now, I'd like to get to Carl Schmidt for a second, because I don't want to respond too long, but when you, I mentioned Carl Schmidt, so this is why you're mentioning this, because I mentioned him a lot in the rise of Maga communism, right?

But what you don't pay attention to is that I precisely critique Schmidt for his commitment to the kind of the same Anglo-Saxon metaphysical foundations as Hobbesianism.

And Schmidt is just kind of attempting to update Hobbes, right, in the 20th century.

Now, to me, the contradictions between Schmidt and Hobbs are contradictions Schmidt himself is unable to account for.

So I actually want to move beyond Carl Schmidt.

And I do do that in that rise of Maga Communism.

How do I do it?

Because Schmidt reduces politics only to pure difference.

And never is there the moment of sublation which accounts for the difference.

So when I speak of the moment of sublation which accounts for the difference so when i speak of um the kind of notion of the partisan empire or the proletarian dictatorship which is the same thing i'm drawing out

conclusions from schmidt that schmidt's thinking itself would not permit. And I'd like to

leave this on a final note, and then I'll let you respond. I am kind of baffled by how many

of my critics try to associate me with fascism because of the extent to which I engage with thinkers like Heidegger and Schmidt, because of this superficial fact that those people politically speaking, politically speaking in Germany, you know, were conciliatory toward the Nazi regime, and some of them even joined the Nazi party.

But if I took as much liberties with Marx or Lenin as I take with Heidegger and Schmidt in terms of how I critique them, in terms of how I interpret them in ways they would never have approved of, in terms of how I completely deviate from them. If I took those same liberties with Marx or Lenin or Stalin or Mao, I would be called a revisionist and, of course, you're not a Marxist, of course you're not a Marxist, Leninist.

You're totally butchering them. This isn't what Marx meant. This isn't what Lenin meant.

But how come when I engage with Heidegger completely critiquing him and responding to him and going far beyond anything Heidegger himself would permit me,

I am somehow an orthodox dogmatic Heidegarian.

I think this should be thought about, you know?

But anyway, I'll let you go ahead and respond.

I've taken notes here because it's a lot to respond to.

Okay, first of all, I don't see your critique of Heidegger as being that harsh because one of the things is you take it seriously, which just doesn't deserve.

And then the other thing is like Heidegger,

you say you find in Heidegger something

that is like

some small step on the way

to a question, to the answer

to a question that was settled

by Marx,

even in his very early writings. Like it doesn't even, it's done, we know it,

it's 100 years old. You know, he's still wondering about a subject-to-object, you know, in a

this philosophical, idealist fashion that... object, you know, in a this

philosophical idealist

fashion that is a pseudo

materialism and this is all

settled. It was settled in German

ideologies, even settled in the

communist manifesto.

The point of Marxism is, you know,

a perspectival multi-subject universe,

and, you know, the notion of the object is,

and Lukatch tried to

also had this problem of

complicating it with his

deciding that we should call this

ratification and that we should see more of it

in capitalism than prior

you know this is this kind of stuff that

marks would have that is obvious to Marx and to Marxism

there are things that they bother to say that are just not explicitly said in Marx because

they were too obvious and then okay another thing about Heidegger you say well

Heidegger is trying to bring something against Lecoch and

there are problems with the Koch. But yeah, why is Heidegger trying to masperize, excuse me, to imitate

and vitiate Lucch of all people.

It's not like the Kach

was the prime

center of Marxist

Sudd. I mean, from his very

first publications, as

a Marxist, he's being criticized

by Marxist as being too egalian.

He is one of many, but in, you know, I'm very, very, sorry, I don't mean to know.

Yeah, but all over, you know, even, like, you know, even in the 1980s in high school, you know,

you know, that Lukatch is, the problems with Lukatch and the way he deviates, you know,

or what, that he tries to re-philosifies, re-idealize through the back door.

Marxism is, you know, a subject to debate, but it's like a well-known subject.

Why is Heidegger then decides he's going to imitate Lecoch?

Because the Koch was, you know, more well-known than I ever then decides he's going to imitate Lacoch because the Kach was

more well known

than I ever suspected actually.

I only learned this kind of recently

in life. But, you

know, so he's imitating it and making

it worse. And you're saying, well, this is better

because he has the

subject, he wants to deal with the subject

object in a completely western

context. So there, you've

lit up

one of the motifs, one of the

Nazi motifs that, you know,

and it's true that Nazism is syncretic, that it doesn't have any philosophy, that it doesn't have really hardly any ideology, that even its racism has various, had quite a lot of dissent from the biologism within the Nazi party movement.

But nonetheless, this is one of the topics.

The West as a subject, which is complete fiction.

That's a complete imperialist fiction as, you know, in its, inauthenticity, in its bad state, we have to get back to the authenticity.

These kinds of giant myths that Heidegger is trying to translate

a much more compelling

piece of work by

Lukach about

historical developments, actually

capitalism modernity.

Heidegger is translating it into

something that should be, you know, crawling up the screen in Star Wars, in bright green letters. So then, you know, not for adults. Okay, Schmidt, Schmidt, yes, is Hobbesian, also Machiavelli, obviously,

is most important to him, but more importantly,

the thing that he translated

into this seemingly

respectable genre was

the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

It's practically plagiarized by Schmidt.

And he named his house after Machiavelli

because the character,

after Maccabelli's house, because the character

in the original book,

Dialogue in Hell between

Montesquieu and Maciveli, that winds up

in the protocols, is Machiavelli as the Satanist, the point of view that Schmidt takes up toward, you know, Montescue, the spirit of the laws, liberalism, et cetera, et cetera.

So your interest in these two thinkers, these two thinkers take you back before Marxism.

Like, why not Marx? Why not just have these problems with Marx?

And then when you're talking about that,

the reason that now didn't need

to read Heidegger and Schmidt

or was not interested in them

is because they're trivial.

No, I think...

So I think

at the current format,

we're just going to be both going on monologues for a long time.

I'll self-criticize and say I did this too.

So let's make it more of a dialogue and just kind of let's try to narrow it.

So I think we should begin there probably.

So I think what you're missing though is that mao was

deeply informed and entrenched in the literature of chinese literature classical chinese

literature that's a missing context uh mao didn't just have only marks

no we didn't have

only marks, but he was

devoted to the

revelation that Marx brought him.

Right, but he was applying that to a specific

against

Confucianism. Sure sure but Mao was still engaging with classical Chinese literature and philosophy in ways that

criticizing you for engaging with these things I'm criticizing you for what specifically you say about them.

Okay. You know, sure. Obviously, I've read them too. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Well, I think I'd like to

start with Lucox, and we can kind of narrow it on that topic. So I disagree with the view

that Heidegger is just kind of ripping off

Lukacs and adding a mystique to

Lukaks. Because

firstly, I think that

Lukaks's notion of

totality

is a contiant sublime. You could maybe make this similar argument for, I mean, I don't, first of all, we would probably have to begin there is that is Lukox's totality the same as being for heidegger or is it uh is it a stand in for uh da sign i

think it's ambiguous because totality is not just a passive one-sided object or pure stillness of being

right totality is something that is supposedly imbued object or pure stillness of being, right?

Totality is something that is supposedly imbued with the subject.

It's a kind of absolute of the unity of subject and object.

So is that more like Dacine?

Because Dacine is also kind of something that is neither just subject, neither just object, but a kind of concept, if you can call it that, which draws from both, right? So it's precisely that rigidness of Lukax, right? It's kind of a mechanical

rigidity, I would say, undilectical

mechanical rigidity, that I think

leaves not as much room for

development as

the step that Heidegger makes.

Well, this is what I think. I think that

Heidegger, what you call

the step, is a lot of

jargon that actually at bottom doesn't really

make any sense. Whereas the Koch is

trying to be clear. He is trying to be clear.

He's trying to be clear that totality is a,

it grasped reality.

You know, that it has some,

but you could see this, this is clearly kind of, in the bad sense,

undialectical and metaphysical language,

because what could we do with a totality?

What is a particular example of a totality?

What insight could we possibly yield from this notion of totality that is

particular and is applicable?

His idea of totality, I mean, it would be knowing all the particulars of reality. Is that possible?

Is it possible even for Marx to know...

Is it possible for a single individual to know all of the particulars of a given...

No, it's not a single individual. There is no...

There is no...

Lucchia's not interested in single individuals

and the consciousness

of totality is

the whole of humanity.

Yeah,

but that,

that's just as meaningless

though,

because it could never be

something particular.

Never does Lukaks develop a particular kind of, let's call, I know it's a ridiculous contradiction in terms, a social subject, let's say.

For him, obviously, it's baked into the very notion of what a subject is.

Subject is an individual.

It's an individual thinking

consciousness or a thinking being, right? Lukox tries to, Lukox affords us the liberty of

acquiring a social existence only at this, only beyond the threshold of a sublime limit where we've all all of our individual

subjectivities have meshed together all of them simultaneously but in such a way that renders

that particular totality unintelligible in particular. It never requires

a concrete and particular existence

as a social being. It's just

this kind of impossible

and possibly infinite threshold of

the total amalgamation of all

individual subjectivities and possibilities.

Well, it's assumed that you're the product of it, the subject.

But how do we yield scientific insights from that, though?

I mean, how do we yield particular knowledge from that insight?

Well, he doesn't have, I mean, you know, he takes aim

at the, at the empiricism for

not, for non-consciousness of the, you know,

for not being critical enough. Yeah, but it's just, it's just Kantianism.

It's just a Neocontian.

It's not.

It's Marxism.

I mean, there are flaws in this Marxism.

So you're aware that in, um, neocontianism, specifically in Germany, drew from the context of the breakdown of social democracy, that all of these revisionist social democrats eventually, openly I start adopting neocontianism because it was a better explanatory paradigm that fit the development

of social democracy itself, this institutional mediation of reality without regard for the kind of,

what Lenin would call the lower and deeper material material reality that's this kind of unnameable basis

material basis and premise of uh the party the social democratic party uh which it tries to forget

and premise in a purely rationalistic

kind of way.

Well, there's a nice

cohesion there, but obviously

these thinkers are writing

in the wake of major

two

major things of

1917 you know

yeah I agree and but I think

yeah but also relativity

you know they're right yeah yeah you're right

in a new scientific

things where they're being asked, especially after, you know, with the growth of quantum physics, they're being asked if a new formal logic is necessary.

So, you know, they all reject this idea as did Einstein.

But they're being asked if there is, you know,

if all of what is thought of as metaphysics or theory or whatever

has to be thrown out because of quantum mechanics.

And if, and then they they so they want to take refuge in a more you know in a safe

Anglo-American empiricism that they think will be, you know, I think the Neocontians in particular, you know, you have a kind of, you have, it's Neo-Contian because there's an explicit understanding of the role of society right in um in the uh the construction of the kind of uh let's say politicize the transcendental subject yeah yeah precisely in the construction of the transcendental subject. Yeah, yeah, precisely.

In the construction of the transcendental subject, there's a mediation by the institutions of society.

So rather than reliance upon the kind of time and space as a synthetic a priori, you can have as a synthetic a priori the kind of institutions that

mediate our relationship to the world, which are social, right? But regardless, without going down

that rabbit hole, I think the reason to answer the question you asked earlier about why is it that Heidegger is reducing Marxism to Lukacs, which I think it would be fair to say he was. Well, here's why in my view. So, Orthodox Marxism breaks down and fully just turns into neocontontinism. The Social Democrats lose their avowedly and specifically Marxist commitments such that they can no longer be called Marxists in particular, right? They maybe are influenced by Marx,

but they're not the epitome of Marx.

They're not the epitome of Marxism.

That is something,

that zeitgeist is 1917,

the October Revolution.

That's what gives Marxism new significance.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong,

but in Germany,

the only philosopher that is trying to draw out the significance of the October Revolution and therefore maintain at least a pretense to some kind of commitment to Marxism, that's Lukaks.

Lukaks, who in my view is just a spicy neocontian

a neocontian who's writing apologetics

for the October Revolution

rather than a thinker of the October

Revolution you know

itself

he is the one that is trying to

kind of rationalize

and philosophically explain

this event.

In the genre of philosophy.

And the reason that Marxists

gave up on the genre of philosophy

is they think that it's outmoded,

especially after the scientific discoveries

the beginning of the 20th century.

Like you can't talk about ontology.

Sound like a moron compared, you know,

if you're going to be talking to students.

Well, I think there's...

But to be fair, though, I mean, I roughly agree that philosophy is...

Is dead, you know, after Hegel.

I mean, I am actually a dogmatic...

Not dogmatic, sorry, I am an actual Orthodox Marxist

Leninist. I think Hegel was the last philosopher. I don't really necessarily think, at least the last Western philosopher. I don't necessarily think that Heidegger or Lukacs are really philosophers. I think that, but I think that the, the significance and necessity of their thinking

is emerging in this kind of, um, new opening of reality that Marxism as it was traditionally

understood in Germany and the West at least, couldn't actually

automatically make sense of her address. Now, you say, why not just Marx? Well, we all know that

Marx's thinking was clear. It was in the books. It was already written, right? But why wasn't

it self-evident to Western Marxists as far as, first of all, drawing out the implications of that

thinking, and second of all, applying it in a Marxist way. Why was that so impossible for them? Because the exegis, I don't know how to say it, the interpretation was contentious because social democracy reduced and straight-jacketed Marx's insights into the form of purely

conceptual thinking. It turned all of Marx's... Sorry? Yeah. Sorry, but you're ignoring the class struggle

within Marxism itself

I don't think I am I think that in

my writing the Brahmins of democracy

I kind of talk about

how this the class

struggle within Marxism

we could, it probably has an earlier

basis but at least within social democracy, we have an institutionalized dogmatic Marxism that roughly corresponds to the rise of a more skilled and technical, you know, labor. You're talking about the United States

no no all of your all of Western Europe

the kind of imperialist labor aristocracy

right the institutionalized

and professional leaders

of the social democratic movement

that is the kind of institutionalized Marxism of pure concepts, right, with pure correlates. Then we have another kind of history of Marxism, which collapses the distinction between conceptual subject and object in other words

by radically imperiling institutional conventions in um in in in uh popular and national reality.

So Lenin does this, for example,

in his unique application of Marxism

to the context of the Russian countryside.

And then the way Mao does this, of course,

is self-evident, right?

The way Mao is cynicizing Marxism and applying Marxism in such a way that

unleashes the energies and the kind of revolutionary potentials within the Chinese peasantry in ways that would not be considered acceptable

from the Orthodox Marxist perspective

Well, first of all, okay, so Orthodox Marxists,

you're saying Orthodox Marxism,

most people when they say this,

they're either talking about a very Hegelian Marxism that's like stageism and all that stuff. Or they're talking about economism, vulgar Marxism. No, no, no, I'm talking specifically about the project of Orthodox Marxism within social democracy to iron out Marxism, to make it conceptually intelligible in a very simplistic kind of way, such that, you know, all of its ambiguities and of its kind of, um, the things that weren't exactly clear could just kind of acquire, acquire, uh, such a level of not just implicitly, but, but concrete, uh, conceptual status that it was

worthy of the

actual institutions

that the

social democratic

movement was able

to produce

so that

these could be

working concepts

they could actually

be integrated within a practical language of like building movements and

popularizing it and applying it and so on. The surrender of bourgeois institutions to the hegemony

by the first imperialist war.

It had to split because of the

class war within

the communist movement.

Congrats on the ACP laws.

I mean, so you're talking about someone

American comrades. What is it?

If any theoretical element

Sorry, there's a, there's a, there's a, sorry, there's a, contact me.

Thank you, Grunvig, I appreciate you.

Nordic Union 2036.

Okay, thank you, Grunvig.

Guys, sorry, I hate to say this.

Let's pause the donations until after after the uh debate sorry go ahead

can you know so anyway um so when you're talking about i mean you know i i know these are

a cliche uh these are a cliche.

These are well, you know, these are frequently used terms outside of Marxism for what's happening in Marxism.

But I think you're talking about in terms of the actual theoretical content, someone like Labriola or the very Hegelian Germans, you know, I don't know that literature very well.

I don't read German.

I think, you know, my problem is that Hegel is a thinker whose philosophy is totally inclusive in terms of its metaphysical commitments.

I mean, Hegel, when he's talking about nature, for example, when he's talking about being, he's really talking about it.

He's really talking about the thing.

He's really including the kind of Newman. Ahegel makes

he makes statements

about nature. He makes statements about the cosmos,

the nature of it itself, and not just simply some kind of

something that confines itself to the limits of a transcendental subject. But I think with the rise of

neocontianism, there's an attempt to contianize Hegel, right? To remove from Hegel all of these problematic, speculative commitments, and kind of confined the logic of Hegel to the narrow, more narrow and more safe,

uh,

safe parameters of a transcendental subject that doesn't have to actually make any empirical,

uh,

commitment. Doesn't have to have any skin in the game as far as the nature of actual reality is

concerned.

And...

Sorry, go ahead.

So I think that

Lukaks is a good example

of a

of a Kantian who's trying to appropriate

Hegel's logic within an ultimately Kantian outlook and view.

You are aware that Mark said the exact opposite about Hegel, that the problem with Hegel was that he turns every discussion on his head to make it the proof of his logic that he's in the the critique of philosophy of trade he talked about.

Yeah, I mean, but yeah, yeah, Marx, marks.

By the end, the mind becomes the predicate of its predicate.

Right, but for Marx, yeah, but for Marx, the problem wasn't that Hegel wasn't making any commitments to actual reality or actual external being.

The problem was that, as you said, he's beginning from the

universal and ending with the particular, meaning that he is trying to make false. That's why Hegel

makes many unscientific false

claims about reality, because for him

the integrity of this kind

of conceit of the mind

as the metaphysical absolute

comes first, reality

be damned, more or less, right? But that's still, but in the process

of damning reality, Hegel is still including it. He's still making claims about it. He's still

involving it in the process by which the mind, you know, is realizing itself and

reflecting itself back upon itself. So I don't know if that's such a big claim. I mean, I think this

you're, except for pure logicians and mathematicians, I don't

think there's anyone who doesn't.

Well, for example,

Hegel,

didn't Hegel say something along

the lines of, he

confined the possibility of the number

of heavenly bodies, the planets.

And I think it was in such a way that excluded Pluto.

I don't remember. I remember he said that lightning can't be electricity.

He makes actual

claims about reality. That's what I'm trying to say.

And he makes these claims because

they are necessary for the rational integrity

of the mind.

They're necessary for as

far as he can think

but he's only interested

in proving this

logic which is not just

the mind it's that

there's a residue of

17th century rationalism

of you know that it has to have this harmony resists of 17th century rationalism,

of, you know,

that it has to have this harmony resonance with the reality. Yeah, yeah.

So, but,

so here's the thing.

So that's an aspect of Hegel that you can at least respect,

I can at least respect it a little because,

and this is just the examples we're talking

about of nature. Hegel also makes these claims about history. He makes also false claims about

history sometimes, but it shows his commitment to what the Kantians call a kind of speculative

enthusiasm, a willingness

to draw

definite and concrete conclusions

about

something that goes far beyond

the parameters of the

individual thinking

being. Hegel's mind is not

an individual mind. Hegel's

reason is not a reason that

can confine itself to the mind or the

thoughts of a single individual.

It's a supra individual kind of

it's a supra individual kind of, it's definitely the repository of an individual conceit, as Marx tells us and points out. But in terms of its pretension's it's not something that can be reduced to any kind of

procedure of thinking uh of the individual so this is a very important thing to note, which is that this kind of willingness to include all of reality, the whole of reality, is not something that Marx and Engel is abandoned.

On the contrary, this is the foundation actually of the

materialist method for them. This is the square one of that. We actually can know reality. We

can have a relationship with the actual world that involves knowledge. So Engels in his

dialectics of nature is clear that nature itself is dialectical.

And the historical and materialist method, they're not referring to a purely social, transcendental

horizon that is unaffected or uninvolved with external being in the natural world. On the contrary, there is a process of actual objective transformation of nature and of humanity itself, therefore, through the development of the productive forces and the rise of new

relations of production, which are not just

this is not the

Lukakshian totality,

these are specific thresholds

of the actual objective existence

of mankind that are particular.

The division of labor... This is what Lukash existence of mankind that are particular.

The division of labor... This is what Lukach meant by totality.

But the Lukashian totality precisely cannot acquire particularity.

It precisely cannot acquire historicity as a kind of

it's another word for history

he just he's just saying but it

but it has no but it has

yeah because it is include like you know

when you have a contract or you say

I'm going to pay you

for every time this is on television, but also

in all future media,

that's all it is. It's including

an all future media and all

future developments.

So we have this very generous

kind of all-inclusive,

totally collective, totally historical concept called totality.

But wherever we're called upon to draw out tangible and concrete forms of conclusions and analysis from it,

we are stuck with a methodological individualism of the subject. The only time Lukaks allows us to regard humanity as social

is precisely when it is beyond the threshold of the sublime. So there's no way to draw any working conclusions.

There's no way to regard a given people, a given country, a given nation, or civilization, or even stage of history as a particular social existence.

We are all individuals until we become amalgamated into the kind

of Lukachshian borg, which is the totality. So you're okay. I see where you're going. You're,

you're rejecting the fundamental cosmophon. Sorry, one second.

There's a problem with my camera.

I don't know what the hell.

Okay. This is ridiculous.

If my camera broke, that's another

disaster on my hands.

Give me one second.

I'm so sorry.

Okay.

All right.

Well, we're back for now, but that was a really spooky thing, guys.

Anyway, sorry.

Go ahead.

It happened.

Okay.

So are you there?

Yeah, yeah. I'm back. I'm back. Sorry, the camera.

Oh, okay.

So what was I going to say?

Oh, yeah. So I can see where you're going because this is really rhetorical.

I mean, the caricature that you're making of Lukach

is to isolate the cosmopolitanism and then say, well, we have in in Heidegger, we have this improved thing, which is good that we're going to have races, basically. We're going to have race.

No, precisely, no, actually. I think I've heard the platypus.

I've heard, I've heard...

You know, there's, I don't know, you know,

nobody is beyond the pale, in my opinion,

but you're going to argue

with them? They're a Zionist

organization that claims

they're trying to destroy the left?

I

want to talk about

the Heidegarian racism notion, but I've heard

Race, not racism.

I'm talking about the race.

The race.

Yeah, the reality as media.

Okay, okay.

Speaking of American communism communism have you read

Qie Newton did you pay attention to his critique of

nationalism well I'd like to

I actually like to talk about this because I think it's a big

misconception I think a lot of people in attempting to find out

exactly what was Nazi about Heidegger's thinking, they'll say, well, Dacine, it's implied by Dacine that this is a collective subject such as a race, or this is a kind of nation even, or a kind of super individual subject of some kind. And I've heard the platypus

people make the argument actually that this is, yes, this is the tribally mediated,

you know, horizon of being and reality

that's what da sign is

but actually if you read

Heidegger

the opposite is actually true

now da sign is neither an individual

and neither a collective subject.

It's a rather intangible

kind of

kind of thing

or whatever we can call it, right? We can't call

it a subject.

Incompatible with Marxism.

Okay, hold on, hold on.

But you have to let me explain.

Sorry, go ahead.

So we just have a very vague presence, right?

We have a very vague thinking presence.

A being that is at odds with the question of what it is, with what it

itself is, right? So, wherever Heidegger writes about the ability for the existential kind of challenge of Dazine, if you read him carefully, he makes the assumption that this is a this is something this is something only the individual can

accomplish through their relationship toward death and even the way in which Heidegger

attempts to justify the view, in his view, that Nazism was somehow the zeitgeist of a new possibility to reacquire meaning in the age of nihilism and for a new know, a new awakening of Dacine and so on and so on.

It's not that Heidegger regards the German nation or the German people as an actual collective subject or a social being.

He rather regards, you know, individual, maybe Hitler or something, taking this initiative and inspiring others to take the initiative, right? So it's always, Heidegger actually is too into, far too individualistic. He never makes the step of actually regarding

Dasain as anything more than something whose existential irrelevance can only be drawn out by the individual.

It's a very individual kind of framework he's straightjacketing and confining Da Assign 2.

And I would actually argue if, you know, since we can kind of take turns, because it's so cheap in terms of criticism.

It's like, okay, this is the Nazi thing. No, this is the Nazi thing. And it's just a way of

discrediting an idea without actually having to engage in it. I never say that. My interest in

Han Heidegger is, but if anything, but if anything, the problem is I never say that. My interest in Haydiger is...

But if anything, the problem...

Yeah, but if anything,

the thing that

probably leads Heidegger down the

path, the false path,

which is of

regarding Nazism

as the zeitgeist of

his thought, his own thinking, the

first step that he makes,

is that kind of, I don't know if I'd

call it a methodological individualism,

but I would say the assumption

that Dossine corresponds to the individualism, but I would say the assumption that

the sign corresponds to the individual. I think

that is more responsible for any kind of flirtation with Nazism

than the view that he's talking about a collective subject of some

kind.

Right, because basically you're saying that he was a bourgeois

professor who was

writing his own Michigas, which

there's no doubt of that. But the question

is, like, why would

any Marxist care about this guy, Heidegger?

Like, I'm not related to him.

I don't give a shit what he thought about his own fantasies.

Dassein, all this stuff.

I mean, it's only interesting for its propaganda effects, which were significant.

I'll tell you why.

I...

Well, it's for the same reason

Lacan finds Heidi...

and Kojev regard Heidegger as such a fundamental.

Because of...

Because what Heidegger accomplishes,

and this is his real achievement, is that he ontologizes and therefore makes a regards as, opens the possibility of regarding as an actual material thing, what we would otherwise assume as the distinction between the subject and the object.

Instead of meandering and dwelling in the problematic of the subject versus the object, we can finally regard the difference, and through Heidegger's notion of the ontological

difference, right? The difference as an

actual material thing itself.

And this is a dialectical

step in my view.

No, it's just, it's just

it's already finished.

This is not a problem in Marxism.

I agree, but the problem, put it this way.

We don't have to play the baby games with Heidegger.

But also like Heidegger, this thing of, you know, is the germination given, or do we have to struggle for the Gamine Chapp?

He's not really consistent, but he's pretty consistent in that, you know, it's a Gamine Schaft.

They pick this word because it was...

That's from Weber, right? This is kind of a socioloc.

No, actually, well, both of them, the...

Borgier did this work, but the...

It was the way that Burke's critique of Jacobinism, the way he, his word partnership, class partnership, was translated into German as Geminschoft. And that's where they got that this is the opposite of liberal individualism, but also Jacobinism.

That is, Jacobinism, a petty bourgeois movement that for most of its achievements,

is actually being driven by the Paris Popular Movement.

So that it's the it's, uh, it's the opposite of,

you know, 1799. But that this is at, for all the critiques of liberalism, this is where

Marxism belongs. If you're going to abandon that and you're going to be like, no, we need.

So here's, here's the thing the thing i want to i want to

make this simple all right i agree that all we need is marxism too but guess what the interpretation

of what marks meant and how to read marks and how to understand him is contentious.

It's contentious in a new age where phenomenology acquires a new significance because of the way reality is now not given to us anymore because of mass media.

It's increasingly artificial.

So how do we actually understand what Marx actually

because we can't just read his words because his words are clearly

being interpreted in ways that are contrary to the spirit

of what he was trying to say in practice.

The opportunism of social democracy, I should like to remind

you, came from the

dogmatic

presumptions about the

interpretation of what Marx meant. Marx wrote

that Revolutionary England would be the first

in the series of revolutions

around the world.

Marx wrote, he had a very, he began with, he wrote, you can read in his words, this assumption

of stages of development, where Western Europe was more developed and so on and so on.

So, so just by reading Marx and not having any kind of way of reading more into it, right?

You can draw an assortment of conclusions, which are in complete contradiction to Marxism.

Well, not if you really read the whole text

and the major work. And yes,

of course, we're talking about the early 20th century.

Not everything was available. Not everything

was translated. People were working from the

Communist manifesto and capital,

mostly reading the first and second volume, et cetera, et cetera.

That's all understood, but the politics of the social democratic parties is the petty bourgeois politics.

It was a different...

So here's what I'd like to say.

And in this same period, you have Gramsci, you have a, you know, having enormous influence

later, you know.

Yeah.

But I'm also, I draw from Gramsci a lot as well.

It's just that nobody pays attention to the Marxists I draw from.

They only pay attention to the problematic people I read.

But anyway, look, here's what I'd like to say.

When we're talking about why we need Heidegger to understand Marx in the West, because that's what I say.

I don't just say we need Marx and Heidegger.

It's that in order to understand Marxism, we need Heidegger, right?

So it's a very important distinction that I make in terms of the claim.

Oh, okay.

So here's why.

With the development of history, with the rise of new ways of experiencing reality, aspects of being and aspects of reality became, were called into question in ways that they were not before.

There were a lot of things Marx and Engels were able to

take for granted because, for example, mass media did not render fundamental aspects of reality

as contentious as they became in the early 20th century.

Psychologism was something they didn't have to deal with

because the psychological could be stoically kind of taken for granted

in this impartial inquiry into the nature of reality and being and so on and so on.

They didn't need any kind of existential...

I mean, who of their contemporaries is initiating this process of of you know

this emo

need to draw out the existential and emotional

it's uh it's uh

it's uh schopenhauer right

chopenhauer and then from schopenhauer

Nietzsche and then from

Nietzsche we get...

Kierkegaard and then we can get

from finally we get Freud and

Heidegger and so on and so on. Now we could

do one of two things. We could say okay

Freud Heidegger, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, it's all one big reactionary disaster, totally exterminate it, and we can just optimistically, kind of naively, adopt the optimistic, rationalistic outlook that is totally oblivious

to the deeper and more unconscious realities of mankind and so on, existential questions faced by them

I think

I think there was a response

within Europe

which did in fact

pose this alternative and it's called

positivism

right? It's called what?

Positiveism.

So should Marxism be positivistic?

So you see there's a fork in the road.

There's a fork in the road as far as

different ways of responding

to new questions

facing mankind, which Marx and Engels did not really have to write about

or care about or give attention to, right? Is it, is it, is it, probably cold for Pepsi now, you know,

look, just because these guys got famous, they got famous

because they were convenient to the

bourgeoisie who were able to

reward and promote text in

universities.

But you know something

how, it's empirically

false. It's empirically false.

It's empirically false.

For example, among the working class of Western Europe,

now correct me if I'm wrong, I may be wrong in saying this.

I remember reading that Nietzsche was among the most popular authors

among the German working class in the early 20th century.

That too, but I don't

really know if it's true. I'm sure that

serial novels were more successful.

I think what people liked was

the Count of Monte Cristo, which

is

the same as the Communist Manifesto, actually.

So they liked Dickens, you know.

Yeah.

People may read Nietzsche, but Nietzsche's been in context.

I think, well, look, I think, I think the, the, the, the problem was not Marxism. The problem was, in what, what relationship to reality, how do we make sense of, there is a horizon of reality that needed to make,

there was a need to make sense of it, right? Before we could even begin with the square one of

understanding Marxism significance there. You could be a Marxist in Germany

in the 20th century, a so-called Marxist, and yet in terms of your relationship, let's say, to the

totality of reality, to use the term lucox likes right

you are actually

positioned this is true

today as well in such a way

that's the opposite as Marx was

to his his own totality right

so this is the problem with opportunism

you have Marxists today that are using Marxist language

and drawing out the implications of Marx's writings in such a way so as to support voting for Kamala Harris.

This is what the CPUSA does even with Lenin. So clearly

we cannot just say all we need

is the text. I would love

it for all, I would

love it for us only to need

the canonical texts of Marxism

Leninism in order

to actually build

But you have a canon

I would love it for that

That is ignoring

Like for example, you went to

your thinkers that you think are important

Schopenhauer, you didn't mention Berksson

but Schopenhauer

Freud Right Schopenhauer, he didn't mention Berkson, but Schopenhauer, Freud, who's missing here?

Like Einstein? I mean, aren't there things that were much more significant and also correct?

You know, you're talking about things that were in

Nordstein.

Einstein isn't,

but Einstein isn't, I agree with,

I agree that we need to understand.

Einstein's talking about reality.

I fundamentally agree, but the problem is,

if I say we need to read Einstein, it won't be contentious.

It's only when I mention these other thinkers that I'm somehow accused of being a proto-fascist, and that's the problem.

That's why this needs to be litigated.

They're so important.

Not because they were fascists, like Freud was

not a fascist. He was pretty persecuted.

His work is

erroneous, it's flawed,

it's anti-Marxist, it

is bourgeois and it's bad.

And we can talk about why, but

we're going to wind up.

You're going to bring it back to,

but don't you have a right to read him,

but just because he was bourgeois,

but just because he spent his life

treating boress run erotics.

So let me,

let me ask you the question.

I think we could go,

I want to ask you, how do you think the problem of subject and object is resolved in Marxism?

How would you resolve it?

The problem is that there are many subjects, and that's the issue, and that's

the issue and that

objectivity is

a

belated

fix that comes out of

idealism that it's

you know we know we know what we are.

So you think objectivity is an idealistic notion?

Certainly. I mean, we are, we are a chemical process that consumes things outside.

We are, we make pumpkins into carriages, right?

That's what we are.

That's what's subject.

So let me, let me simplify so it's less metaphysical.

Marxism says there's a proletarian class

okay.

Yeah.

But simultaneously

and it makes

claims about

how the proletarian

class through the

class struggle

is going to be

resolved into the

development of a

new mode of

production, at

least politically

speaking,

and that, you know, this is, that this is going to be a process that reflects objective law, or at least we don't like to use the word objective, laws of history, right? Laws of history that are not reducible.

Marx said, you read the first

line of the Communist manifesto,

you know, I mean, with the beginning,

I mean, he says, or the

All right, let me simplify the question for you.

Is Marxism a purely voluntary

project of people coming together

and saying we want to do this

because it's the correct idea

or is it something that

is impersonal that is

material and is going to happen regardless

of anyone's ideas so which one is it

well the

Marxism

as a commitment is

a project of people

together, yes. But the

Marxist view

of

history

or the totality is that the conditions that we make our history in that we inherit

really determine the odds.

How do we, how does this determination, how does this determination happen in a way that is independent from people's ideas, for example?

The determinations, well, things like someone's idea and might be interrupted by their death, for example.

So assuming that thinking beings are living, you think that history is fully determined by thought?

No, it's not determined by thought.

It's a project of praxis.

Okay, so you're saying it's thought...

It has the happening conditions.

So what are the ingredients in the praxis?

Is it theory and practice?

Is that what you're referring to?

How is practice anything?

This is how Marxism...

I know what practice means, but I'm asking you because practice, let's be very careful

about what we're, the assumptions we're making here. What independence in your view or difference

is there between practice and theory? Because it isn't practice just the realization of the of a theory in your view

where's the way to what extent is practice something that isn't directly a reflection of theory

in your view well there's compelled kinds of practices such as what the kind of work you do when you're a slave so so i don't want to i don't want to make a huge leap but what's ringing off in my brain right now when you say that is that

if the only way we can understand material

reality, independent from ideas,

our relationships of power,

it's kind of like we're getting into Foucault territory

here, right?

Certainly not.

Certainly not. And no, I'm not saying that's the only way so you're asking me a question

about politics then you bring it back let me ask you this question to what extent to what extent

is a given mode of production or a society

material.

To what extent is it material?

Everything is material.

There's no supernatural realm at all.

Okay.

Everything is material.

So why do you need...

Why is there a necessity of... Okay, of okay okay sure so what's the point of

but i think you're talking about i think you're talking about thoughts now thoughts are material also

these things are all made and and we know that's one of the beauties of the 20th century

is that we start to understand

that there isn't any spirit that's outside the material cosmos.

Yeah, but even...

But if we're talking, if you're talking basically about will, right?

You're talking about, you know, kind of back to a Kantian idea

of us belonging to the Kingdom of Ends and have some project. I mean, Marks talks about that.

What you have to, he talks about the world.

And Lukach found this

statement very important when he talks

about how reality, he says

the theory has to change reality, but

reality also has to come and meet

theory. And then he says

you know, reality

has a dream

that can eventually be

realized as reality.

That's what Mark says.

And Marx says, it uses romantic

language and he's being a little poetic there, but I think

then Lukach found that to be a great way. Yeah, Lukacs attempted to superimpose his idealist

Kantian view on what Marx was trying to say there. And that's why I think Heidegger is necessary, because without him, we kind of, seems like we're regressing into idealism.

Seems like we're, we're unable, we're unable to comprehend precisely what materiality is in such a way that

isn't the repository of a dogmatic

conceptual

view standpoint.

I agree is going to say that the reality

that in order to match your

the dream, the dream

of reality, the reality has, you know, which is, he's, it's a little

bit of a wise crack, right, about, about, but I don't, but I don't, I don't think that means

reality, I don't think that's referring to a thought or an idea. I think it's referring to a

development reality is tending toward.

Well, it's referring to what human beings are already creating within the constraints that they're trying to destroy.

But for Marx, the process by which mankind makes history is independent of their will.

No, it's not.

But he says it. He says it.

Mankind creates history, but not according to their will, not But he says it. He says it. Mankind creates history,

but not according to their will. Not as

they wish it, not as they want it.

He says, yeah, you make it

not from scratch. You don't

Worldville. No, no, no, he's very clear.

Men and women make history,

but not as they please.

This is directly what he says.

And the next line is they make it in conditions handed down from the past.

That's the constraint.

So how is it that these conditions acquire such a status that it is irreducible to their will and their thoughts and their ideas.

Where is the room for the material?

What status does the material have?

Because it's really harmful because it was too obvious for him to say he's he's writing to

people who read so and stuff like that there's a there's a human being and our environment we have

certain capacities and certain needs.

Those are already the givens.

You know, you have to have air

in your lungs, you have to have water.

So those are constraints.

It doesn't matter if you will...

But you're ignoring a key inside of Marx.

You're ignoring a key insight.

Marx isn't simply saying that we're constrained by our physical existence.

No, I was using that as the most basic example.

We're constrained by everything, every...

We're constrained by relations of production that we enter into regardless of our will.

And I find it very difficult, for example, for that to make sense without us committing to a notion, for example, to an, to an unconscious that we are unconsciously embedded in these relations, which still exert an influence upon us, but not according to the dictates, directly at least, of our consciousness.

And to what extent...

Unconscious, if you mean just things of which you are...

No, no, because the unconscious, as Lacan puts,

is structured like a language in that language.

The Lacanian idea of unconscious is not necessary for this. I think it is because, look, just in as much as Lacan has this notion of the unconscious is structured like a language. So the unconscious actually has determination. Well, that's actually the same thing Marx is saying in different words in terms of its logic, right?

He's saying material reality is not just a Kantian sublime beyond which nothing can be known or yada, it's just a totality.

He's saying it's structured in a very specific way.

It's structured in a determinate way.

It has determinations, despite that it's not reducible to any kind of concept or any kind of conceit of thought.

And that mirrors Lacan's notion

of the unconscious as structured as a language.

There's a homology

there, but I wouldn't say it's the same thing.

I mean, Lecon gets... Yeah, yeah.

I'm saying the logic is the same, though.

Yeah, but LeCond gets this

idea from his American friend who did the game theory, right?

That he decides that, you know, baby is involved in game theory and attributes a hostile and gambling

consciousness to

infants.

Well, okay, look, look, regardless.

But let's say it's true. Let's say it's

true. But that's not the, those are not

the, that's not the totality of the

constraints. That's not, that's not, you know, the baby, the baby doesn't go out and, you know, I take issue with the notion that material reality is a, because you're describing it as a sublime, purely as a constraint upon the activity of consciousness and thought.

And I take issue with that.

It produces the thought.

You're basically saying, you're saying material being cannot, you're saying material being cannot, you're saying material being cannot exert any significance upon thinking beings beyond the constraint imposes rather than recognizing material being as as determinations as uh as uh determinations as

structure as determinations

each re-inscribing this medieval sort of mind

body division it's it's not

Marxism you know it's okay you want to play that game that's fine but it's

not for marks the human being like he talked about this that we are so for you marks marks

marxism says so marxism according to you for Marx, thought is directly the same thing as reality.

No.

The content of thought and the...

So the thinking beings and the thinking consciousness, let's say,

the content of the determinations born out of that specific type of activity

are directly the content of material reality.

No, I mean, he talks about...

How is this not the same thing as a...

How does this not end with solipsicism and a subjectivism, though?

Well, it doesn't, for a lot of reasons.

But one...

Okay, I'll go through some of them.

So, Marks talks about subjects and objects, the grasping of what thinking is, you know, as a grasping of reality, but forming it.

And he's in the very early stage of, you know, this is, there isn't phenomenology yet.

There isn't that as a scientific, I mean, he's phenomenological, of course, in, in that, in the common sense of the word,

but in terms of the genre of phenomenology

as an investigation,

how we assemble the reality is not,

there's no bibliography of this

except for like the Stude Tracy and people the economists.

Now what he finds in Hegel that he finds so exciting is that there's an object that he's super concerned with that is a tricky one, which is capital, right? He wants to, and in Hegel, he finds

a way to explain how this subject. Why is Marx concerned with capital? Because he is, thinks it's the enemy of humanity and he wants us to abolish it.

But why?

Where's Marx beginning from to draw these conclusions about capital?

What is the fundamental beginning that Marx, what's his first step that leads him to inquire upon political economy, for example?

Well, I think he's concerned about property before he is interested in political economy.

Sure, but why? Because human beings

are in chains

Again, I think

there's an

implicit

idealistic liberalism

There's not a

No, no

I think

There's a

It's almost

It's almost

It's almost It's almost

Seems to me Like a Gnosticism where for you, Marx is a liberal who wants the, the thinking consciousness to purely kind of overwhelm all of reality and it's an infinite reality and so on. But, but, so we are, we are liberal subjects, but we're constrained by capital.

We're constrained by property.

We're constrained.

And that we need to abolish these things that constrain our subjectivities

so that we can be finally

pure ethereal subjects

that are, you know, I guess, in

the clouds or something.

We want to be free of exploitation

by ruling class. That's what he's interested

in. But what? Okay, okay, let's, let's begin, because I think there's a lot of assumptions you're making here.

Why does Marks begin with a critique? Why does, okay, he doesn't begin there, but what leads Marks to engage in the critique of property? What leads in there. But what leads Marx to engage in the critique of property?

What leads him there?

What leads him to engage? You think

it's some kind of something

he read? No, I think there's a line of development of

Marxist thinking that leads him to the critique of private property.

You know, he's, he's like the only thing he thinks about.

He's, he's, he's, because he wants justice.

Okay, hold on. I'm sorry, this cameras. He wants justice. Okay, hold on. I'm sorry.

This camera is...

He wants justice.

All right.

Fuck.

Hold on.

Give me a second.

Okay.

I'll let you think about that more while I get this camera

I mean

he wants justice

hold on

all right we're back all right so

must be per free about liberalismism, he begins to understand.

So hold on.

You're saying it's because Marx wants justice, right?

He wants human freedom.

What is freedom for Marx?

What is that?

Self-determination.

Okay. So for Marx, human freedom is self-determination.

What, what, what...

In the beginning. Yeah.

Yeah.

So what does self-determination mean for Marx?

What does self-determination mean for Marx?

Well, as a young man, it is the sufficient leisure and access to your need to the substance that satisfies your basic needs and your superfluous needs.

And how does Marx

conclude or

how does he begin with this notion

of self-determination from

his Hegelian background?

No, he hated Hegel.

And then one day he writes to his father and says,

oh my God, I was so wrong.

I was running down the street full of joy.

I finally found the answer.

And it's Hegel.

And this is quite the you know he's already

in his 20s

the he wasn't

he didn't

he found Hago's foolish

I mean he was more interested in

you don't think Marx's notion of

self-determination or

are you referring to species being

you don't think his notion of

species being has any Higalian

import?

Later, but I'm talking about Marx as

a kid, his initial

interest, I mean, he

read Aristotle, he was interested

in, you know,

the...

The atomus.

Yeah, yes, he was interested

in, and he had a big revelation

about, you know, know the nature of the

universe as you know for his

dissertation that

you know everything is interconnected

um

Marx is let me find

the exact date of his doctoral dissertation

1841

yeah okay so you're saying marks did not engage with hagel before 1841

no it's about that because listen i'm going to risk myself sounding stupid, but I've read Marx's doctoral dissertation and his description of the atomists and the development of the, what do you call it, the repulsion of the atoms and the decline of the atoms and so on and so on.

It's one for one from Hegel's seems like it's from Hegel's logic.

Well, that could be because, you know,

he hated Hegel.

He certainly had to be familiar.

But then there's a letter that he

wrote to his father that's actually quite

funny where he's elated and he's

like I've converted

to Hegelism.

Hegel has the answer.

And of course, what he's

what is so excited. I think you're getting the

order of things a little, the

chronology here is not exactly

correct.

Well, that could be.

What was Mark's birth?

Yeah, maybe it was a little earlier than the dissertation.

So, but yeah, no, probably, because, yes, it has this bent of the of dialectics right um so that's probably true but um so i think it's

definitely clear that marks wanted people to be free he wanted to to free everyone, slaves. But I think I think what you're not

understanding is that Marx's, no, Marx's notion of freedom is drawn from Hegel.

Initially, but then you know, of course, he makes fun of him for quite a long time.

So what's the distinction between Marx's notion of freedom and Hegel's in your view?

Well, Hegel's notion of freedom is reserved for...

Look, I'll just make it simple.

Mark shares in common the view with Hegel that freedom is not the arbitrary freedom to do what you want, like liberalism, just freedom to make as many choices as you can. That's not his notion of freedom.

For Mark's, freedom is not to be unconstrained by something in order to

be unbounded and fly into the sky.

For Mark's,

freedom is the freedom

to be something in particular. Freedom is related to the freedom to be something in particular.

Freedom is related to something already inscribed in one's being for that determination.

You said it before.

Self-determination is, I guess, it's getting there, at least, in terms of what Marx means by freedom.

And he shares that in common with Hegel, as freedom as insight into necessity, right?

So Marx is not, Marx is drawing from hagel as a similar logic of what freedom is now the

question i wanted to ask you though is that what in your view was decisive for marx's step into

materialism. Sorry.

Sorry?

Hello?

Yeah, I think she might be lagging.

Yeah, hello? We'll wait. It's a technical error on her end.

Yeah, maybe disconnect and reconnect.

Let me see.

Hello?

Yeah, I did the up and down.

Yeah, there's a user may have trouble connecting to the call.

Yeah.

If there's a way maybe she's if anyone is in contact with her, please just tell her to restart the Discord.

Hello? Thank you. Thank you. uh go ahead on mute your mic if you can hello thank you dito appreciate your brother anyone if anyone if anyone's in

contact with her. Hello?

Wow. Yeah, I can hear you know. Okay.

Yeah, yeah, I can hear you now.

I can hear you now.

Okay.

I re-blooded or whatever.

All right.

So where were we?

We can just, I guess we can take it back to.

I remember what you were saying.

You said the last thing I heard was freedom

is not like having wings

that you could fly into this guy.

Yeah, freedom is not the unconstraining

one's will, because one's will is constrained

by some kind of antecedent

material being.

That one is thrusted into

regardless of their

preconceptions

and regardless of their intentions.

This is a little mystical.

I mean...

Really, is it mystical that man is thrusted into is a little mystical. I mean, really,

is it mystical that man is thrusted into conditions independently of their will?

In the Hegelian sense,

that there's something prior to these conditions?

Yes,

it's a fantasy.

There's nothing prior. Marx makes a joke about it. He's like,

you want to ask how you came into being, and yet at the same time, you still want to exist.

There's nothing prior to the existence of thinking beings?

No, but the thinking being doesn't exist prior.

We're not, there's nothing to be thrown.

Yeah, you said, isn't it true that man is thrust into, you know, reality and a reality independently of their thoughts

where the thoughts are

one of the many things that are the

reality that this is not there isn't

we're not a soul that gets

sent down from heaven and then it's stuck in matter and all

whatever i mean maybe we are but it's not um it's certainly not a marxist way of thinking

so before so before a subject you were your mother before a subject... You were your mother.

Before a subject acquires self-consciousness, they don't exist at all.

Self-consciousness.

No, they exist.

But, you know, there isn't a subject.

That's the whole thing about the

subject object in Marxism is that

we're processes we're also object

Why are we arguing about this when

Marx directly says that men and

women are thrusted into conditions

independently of their will?

Yeah, but this is not,

he's talking about men and women,

whereas you're doing the Heideggering thing

that there's a being that is in no conditions.

Are men and women not beings?

Yeah, but they're not new.

So men and women have always existed.

No, but to be men and women, they had to first be children, and before that, they had to be

another adult woman.

Is that the same as themselves or what?

Their parents?

Well, you know, the...

Are those different beings or are those the same as themselves?

The separation of a mother from a fetus is a long process.

So there's a period when there is two people and one

at the same time. You know, liberalism, please don't give me the liberal answer of individualism

that they're either two or one because you're not recognizing that.

I think there's a lot of confusion here.

So I think the reason you're taking issue with what I'm saying is because there seems to be a great deal of similarity between Heidegger's notion of throneness

and Marx's notion of

the way...

Oh, but Heidegger is the joke- Idiot imitation

of what Marx is saying. He's trying

to attract people to his fucked-up

and evil and selfish, bourgeois liberal shit but you notice how you're just calling him names and you're not engaging with the content in any kind of way i'm open to a critique of heidegger i'm open to a critique of heidegger. I'm open to a critique of Heidegger, but all you're doing is calling him names.

I don't think that's a critique.

You just skip that part of the decision tree, please, because it's a bore.

Because I want to defend my claim

that Heidegger is necessary

for Marxism to be understood correctly

in the West.

So Mao didn't, oh, because he's not

in the West. Correct.

So Fidel didn't understand,

so Huey Newton didn't understand.

Well, here's what I'll say.

I'll say that, first of all, whether Fidel is a Western, Fidel is not a Western Marxist, let's be clear.

The West is referring to a specific civilizational problem with Western

Europe and North America, right?

But anyway, look...

What language does the Fidel speak?

What did he read? Where did he go to university?

Cuba... what did he read where did he go to university Cuba Cuba's the context of Cuba and Latin America differs from

differs from that of Europe at least

in the sense that Fidel could take for granted, for example, a clear revolutionary tradition and civilizational sphere, I would argue, with Latin America, which was substantive and which could have been taken for granted. Fidel did not have

to litigate and create from scratch the very context in which his revolution was carried out,

whereas Western Marxists seem to be faced with that precise problem. And that's exactly why I think Heidegger is needed for Western thinking, or at least the same thing Heidegger was onto or trying to point at as in problematize, I think Western Marxists need to take that seriously.

They need to take seriously the fact that we lack any kind of substantive civilizational context in which Marxism automatically has a given meaning.

And why is that? Because think about it. In China, in China, we have Marxism. You know, we have, this is not, I don't know what you're talking about. If not, to talk about Heidegger as this.

Perfect.

You know what?

You know what, Kihina?

We have Marxism.

The West is infamous for having a flourishing and very successful communist tradition.

So what are we even debating about?

Not America, but as you say,

and not the United States.

Okay.

I think Britain is definitely has a very

successful up-and-coming communist movement then, right?

Is that what you're saying?

No, but the America...

Where?

I mean, look, where?

I mean, the history in the Americas...

Okay, the Americas.

So you think you regard the global south portion of the Americas

as part of the West

because it's in the Western Hemisphere. Is that what you're saying?

I'm questioning this

imperial idea, fantasy that's the West

which became a polite

euphemism for...

Is it an imperialist fantasy?

Is it an imperialist fantasy

to regard the West

as the center of world imperialism today?

But... the West as the center of world imperialism today? But, you know, when you say the West, how you're trying to claim...

I'm trying to claim the West lacks something that other civilizations have.

But what are you talking about the West?

You're talking about the U.K. and the U.S.?

No, I'm talking about Europe.

I'm talking about Europe and the United States.

I mean, you know, the thing is I know what you're talking about Europe and the United States. I mean, you know, the thing is, I know what you're talking about.

This term is used in bourgeois.

But you don't think there's any import to the term of the West, that there's nothing?

I mean, you're going to, we're just, we're somehow supposed to

ignore the fact that Western countries have completely failed to produce anything revolutionary,

whereas the rest of the world seems to be able to do that? I mean, we're going to ignore

the peculiarities of Marxism in the West

versus the rest of the world.

The revolutionary tradition

has stopped talking about the

West, which belongs to academics,

and usually talks about the global

South. So do you think Germany's, do you think Marxism in academics and usually talks about the global south.

So do you think Germany's,

do you think Marxism

in Germany

is comparable

to a Nicaragua?

You think Marxists

in Germany

are on the same page

as Marxists

in Nicaragua?

Are Marxists in Germany on the same page as likeists in Nicaragua? Are Marxists in Germany

on the same page as like Marxists

and Lebanon? Are they

even close?

There's no question that

Marxism in the

imperial core is

an immediate periphery

has been completely defeated.

There's no question that there's any

remnant. Do you think that there's any implications

from the

development of Western

modern Western history,

colonialism and imperialism.

Do you think that there are any implications

that development has as far as

our more fundamental

understanding of reality itself?

Are we, is it just that the,

is it just that the malign influence? Is the malign influence of

colonialism and imperialism confined just to the fact that we're misinterpreting Marxism? Or do you think,

or do you suspect there might be a more fundamental problem of the way we relate to reality itself

that is downstream from this status the West has, which you admit as the imperial core of the world?

I don't think there's any way to understand this except Marxism, not high degree.

Really? Really? Then why was Lenin necessary then? Why was Lenin necessary? If if Marxism automatically was able to open our eyes to the problems of the Imperial Corps, why was it that, why was Lenin necessary to do

the scandalous thing, which was to say that revolutions don't have to actually begin in the

same imperial core, even though they're more developed and more advanced?

In the later part of his life in a letter.

But, you know, he said...

I think you're really ignoring that before Lenin,

Marxism was extremely Eurocentric.

Social democracy was Eurocentric. It was a European. It was a European movement.

It was Lenin who opened the doors, it was Lenin who opened the doors as far as Marxism's importation to non-Western countries.

Well... Marxism's importation to non-Western countries? Well, yes.

I think that I'm going to say that I will kind of agree that anything, that everything being written in the...

I think, look, with all due respect...

I think I'm trying... I'm trying to... I'm trying to talk about...

You're trying to not help me answer your question.

Okay. So your... but your answer to the question

seems to be that I'm trying to

say that Mao could

work with the classics of Chinese literature

and... Wow, okay.

So, do you not

want me to say anything at all?

Are you got to be kidding?

People are listening to this.

You're not going to fool anyone.

You're giving my answers and your question.

I just want to clarify that we're on the same page going forward.

So there's no ambiguity.

As far as my understanding of what you're saying, when I try to say that Mao was working with this deeper pattern of Chinese civilization and the classics of literature and so on and so on, which created a coherent context for the application of Marxism, where the social existence of a Chinese people and their underlying civilization did not have to be fundamentally created from scratch, but could be implicitly understood as something that exists.

And that the West, because its history seems to be, according to Marx and Engels, the history of private property, which is a history of alienation, and the destruction and severance of all social bonds, such that they constantly have to be relitigated and called into question by thought, you think that my very notion of their

existing West, characterized by the development of private property, is an imperialist myth, right?

Oh, I think that the framing of the the catchphrase of the west is an imperialist myth and i prefer if we talk about the empire and the class because this is a class

project. Also in

China you keep mentioning

Mao's the important contributions

of traditional Chinese

literature to Mao's Marxism

and you don't mention

what those contributions are or what those texts were.

We know he's extremely, I mean, he fought a lifetime war against the classics.

He was extremely well read as far as the classics of Chinese literature. He was extremely well read, but he was extremely well read as far as the classics of chinese literature but he was extremely hostile to well

Confucianism above all and this was but he he opposed the extent to which he criticized Confucianism

was from the perspective

of classical Chinese literature.

For example, he drew from the legalistic

traditions.

He framed the very

nature of his criticism within

the context and the terms

of this tradition.

Well, I've read a lot of what Mao wrote,

and I don't really know any...

I know Chinese 18th century novels.

That's about all I know.

Well, there's a very rich and ancient tradition

of Chinese classical literature. Well, of course, there's a very rich and ancient tradition of Chinese

classical literature.

Well, of course, it's impossible

to become knowledgeable in it

and the peasants weren't knowledgeable

in it.

But Mao was.

But Mao very much was.

But Mao was, but you don't

see him advancing

this as a corrective to Marxism.

Marx is applying Marxism, sorry, Mao is applying Marxism to that given context, though.

Well, give me an example. Well, to the context, yes, of course. But he was, you know, very, if anything, a bit, you know, he was a get, well, one of his big slogans is against book worship, right?

That was one of the projects.

It's a, it's a demand that you're not allowed to argue from authority at all.

And you're not allowed, you know,

Adras couldn't.

Couldn't.

Isn't that so?

Do you think that he was talking about classical Chinese literature,

or do you think he was talking about? Or do you think he was talking about or do you think he was talking about

people attempting to dogmatize make render dogmatic Marxism what do you think he was talking about

I mean I think he was of course he wanted people to critique Marxism as well, but he was

worried, he was talking about, of course, the habits that a lot of the cadres who were not

necessarily... You think Mao was raining down on the cadre's over-enthusiasm for ancient

Chinese literature when he talked about opposed book worship?

The habits of argument that they had learned in school, yeah.

I think he was talking about dogmatic interpretations of Marxist texts because those were the source of legitimation and authority of the Communist Party.

He was trying to say, don't worship the books just because there are sources of political authority for us.

Well, he was not saying, don't take this attitude toward these, toward any book.

Look, I'm mentioning books, but I need, look, I'm, I'm mentioning books, but what we're really talking about is a cultural context within China, even for the cultural revolution right that they had they have this context

which they that could form the context for the application of Marxism that Western

thinkers because that's really where Marxism is for a long time seem to not have

and why is that?

We are, to an insufficient extent,

probably engaging with the canon of Western literature, maybe.

I think that's true.

I think Heidegger forms a part of that canon.

I think Heidegger is raising questions and calling into question and drawing

attention to existential problems, which if they're not unique to the West, maybe they're not, but they're definitely relevant to us, I think.

I think that the way in which Heidegger, for example, accomplishes the critique of metaphysics.

He accomplishes the critique of this idealistic presumption, I would argue, my interpretation is, in terms of how we relate to the world and reality.

We, for example, Heidegger critiques utilitarianism.

He critiques the notion of reducing all determinations within reality, all beings to mere utilities

and things that are used to accomplish some kind of fixed goal, for example. The strict subject

object distinction itself

is something Heidegger

decides to problematize.

Heidegger critiques Descartes,

Descartes,

reduction of being

to the conceits

and the purport

of the thinking consciousness.

Heidegger goes all the way

as far back

as antiquity, right? With Plato's step that he takes from Heraclitus, which totally renders impossible, the more ambiguous reading into Logos and its identity with thesis and so on and and so on as something purely estranged and detached

from reality, from being, in other words, and the reduction of all being to the idea, right,

to the concept, beginning with Plato.

And so Heidegger identifies this as a spiral into oblivion.

Now, that's an idealistic reading, I agree.

But you see, Heidegger allows us to understand examples and expressions of what I would argue

is the history of private

property in terms of the history

of philosophy itself and of Western

thinking at large.

And it's very easy to read this

through a materialistic

paradigm.

Would Heidegger approve of that?

No.

I take many liberties with Heidegger.

Yeah, but what's needed for?

Sorry?

If you already know better, seriously seriously this is like if you

I may know better but the problem is that

Western Marxists don't know better

so they need to read Heidegger to understand

what Marx originally meant

Mexico Marxist as you say

there's only in action listen

with all due respect, Cahina,

if all it took

was for people to just read Marx,

where is our communist movement?

No, it doesn't take for just people

to just read. So what else do they need to read?

Well, to be

like, um, to to be a vanguard? I mean, you'd need...

What do we need? Yeah. Clearly, we've been doing something wrong for decades and decades and decades. So what do we need to do that's new?

Marxists in America today need to read Huey Newton's critique of your multipolarity,

nationalism.

Perfect.

Perfect.

So according to you, Marxists in America are deficient.

Their chief defect is they're not reading Huey Newton enough. Do you seriously believe that?

Yes. Have you gone to, have you ever visited an American college campus? Do you think they read Huey Newton's, they don't

read Hewey Newton. I think

all young Marxists

in America do is read

Huey Newton. No, they read

maybe revolutionary suicide, but they read

the expelled panthers.

Okay, so we just

need to read more of Huey Newn and then the

kingdom of...

Let me ask you a question. Let me ask

you a question then. Why did

Huey Newton fail? Why did

Hughie Newton not usher in

the communist movement that we lack today?

The reason that you're doing a podcast now.

This was a...

Because podcast stopped him from accomplishing the revolution?

What are you saying?

He came up against

a hostile

and more powerful force

which was ruling class

and defeated them.

But you see how that has no

explanatory value?

Was Mao not coming up against a powerful ruling class?

Was Lenin not coming up against a powerful ruling class?

Well, if you really want to know, like, why did Mao win and why was...

Let's start with Lenin.

Why did Lenin win?

Why was Chavez assassinated?

Why was...

Chavez?

Hugo Chavez?

Or you mean Che Guevara?

Chavez was assassinated with some kind of plutonium or something.

He was giving cancer with all these other guys at that at a conference.

They all got cancer.

So did Kershner.

Okay.

Why were they killed?

Why were they killed? Why were they killed?

Why were revolutions defeated?

Why was the revolution?

Why was their counter-revolution in Russia, et cetera?

You know, yeah, each one has a specific thing.

You're talking about the global class war. you know, yeah, each one has this specific thing.

You're talking about the global class war.

And Huey Newton, you know, is one of the most important American communists.

I thought you were into. But you're saying that the problem with Western Marxism or American Marxism is that we're not reading Huey Newton enough.

But are you including Hewing? Is he a Western Marxist, Hugh?

He's from America, right?

Okay, so it's everyone in america and not and not a tradition of not this this

what you call cultural marxism that's okay so clearly clearly it's not enough to read you even if i

accepted that the black panthers contributed to the history of...

I don't know, but now I'm talking about a specific argument about what the ruling class accomplished in the period of revisionism after the Soviet split,

the Sino-Soviet split,

what they accomplished in terms of the conditions

that disable national independence. disabled national

independence

and it's very important

What do we do?

What do you're what's your

What do we do now?

What do you know?

That's not my

fort.

I don't really know what to do.

I think right now, I mean, we've had this whole conversation.

So you don't know what to do, but it's just very important to establish that we don't even think about anything I'm talking about.

Well, what I mean? Because the alternative, which is doing nothing, is at least better.

What we have to think about now is what can we do to assist the resistance in Palestine?

Can I ask you a question? Why is it that for you there is no ability to rationally engage with anything i

have to say about heidegger every time i try to say anything you just it's an irrational response

and i want to know where that's coming from. Every time I bring up

a salient point that

Heidegger might be raising, that we should

engage with at least, you say, well,

Marx already said that. I mean, look, I don't

even necessarily disagree, but

clearly something is lost.

If this is an aspect of Marxist thinking, we've all forgotten, people have forgotten to understand.

Wait, wait, okay, so don't interrupt me now.

Okay.

That's why I'm not answering that there aren't any answers in the transcript because at some point you interrupt me when I start to answer.

So the thing that you're saying, Heidegger, that we're missing from Heidegger, is this subject object thing, which you then elied into a romantic, a sort of mystical vision of what these

determinations are that are going to define our will. And it's very clear where you're going,

the thing that Heidegger could possibly be bringing to this basic idea,

which is more like Marshall McLuhan than it is like Marx.

But I get what you're saying is the connection that there's a sort of...

I think Heidegger...

And there you go

Yeah

There okay so that what you're bringing

Into it and you just cut me off

Because you know I'm about to say

What you're trying to assert

Is a national destiny

This is what Heidegger is famous for. Yes, every paragraph doesn't

reiterate it, but by the end of the page, you get to him saying, but, and this is about national

destiny. You remember the discussion of Antichione or Antigone or however you want to say it.

This is what it's about. It's about German destiny, Geminshaft, separate destinies.

And the reason you're saying this is because you want to make an argument that the

policies of the Chinese Communist Party,

the billionaires who run China

and who employ people all over

the world, including in the United

States, and have now

seized

that run the Haifa port and also have seized Piraeus, etc.

That there, that the reason that this is some kind of pure better Marxism is something that Heidegger will help us understand because of this national destiny, which is a complete...

I think there's a staggering degree of imprecision as far as your analysis is concerned. It has no explanatory value. Ask the audience. Well, look, okay, you're... Ask them. Don't you want to know how you're doing? I'm talking to you right now. Okay. You place a strong degree of emphasis on national destiny for Heidegger,

but you're ignoring the inherent ambiguity within Heidegger's thinking, which doesn't

allow the nation to acquire any real degree of

tangibility as a

being beyond

an amalgamation and collection of

individuals dealing with their own existential

existential

problematic or whatever

and I think that's

I think you're ignoring that as much as

as much as Heidegger

might allude to that

he's still operating within the framework

of a kind of hierarchy of individual wills, hierarchy of individual beings.

Never is he giving us any kind of integral social being that pre-exist the individual itself.

You can maybe interpret it that way,

but you could also interpret it in the opposite way.

And this is an inherent ambiguity within Heidegger,

which I problematize, you know, which I critique him for

and eating his cake

and eating it too he's he wants

a nation he defines it

he read the black notebooks

you know who's out and then

you which is you know

how does Heidegger define a nation? Go ahead.

He doesn't define anything.

But you just said he defines the nation and he threw the black notebooks, his anti-Semitic black notebooks, he's excluding the Jews from it.

So what does he define in the first place?

Not trusted Jews, right?

Is he as a historical

being there?

Okay. How does that

acquire the status of a social being a collective being

for he talks about the german being there that this is a he talks about the german being there that

this is a yeah but for he for Heidegger, the national...

For him, the national acquires an existential status.

This is my interpretation, by the way, because it's so ambiguous.

Only insofar is it's a shared individual horizon, right?

But for me, for me, okay, go ahead.

Shared among specific people and nobody's responsible.

It's like the SS.

Nobody's responsible.

The opposite, the opposite problem is true

for Heidegger.

Heidegger never

actually

allows,

makes the fateful

step of treating

the ontological

difference as a

particular being itself.

So this is the

step, logically speaking, from Kant to Hegel that Heidegger never makes.

And that's what I critique him for. For him, the ontological difference is always confined to a specific, I would argue, individual horizon of da sign, right?

Daassine, insofar as it's a question of being.

And the question, of course, is addressed existentially to the individual.

Now, insofar as there's a national destiny for Heidegger, a paradigm of national existence,

it just seems to be one shared between individuals.

So we haven't escaped the methodological individualism yet, yet, because of Heidegger's,

Heidegger is the thinker of the individual dwelling within the stillness of a Dossain,

dwelling within its ambiguity and its, uh it's terminal uh it's existential terminology so so so so so okay go ahead what is the importance of that what is the what is the importance of that?

What is the,

what is the importance of what?

Why does anybody need to know that what you just said?

Because I think, because I think that if you understand where Hydro goes wrong,

you can actually open up this notion of da sign to a working, I wouldn't say concept, to a working notion of particular social beings, particular patterns of social existence and logics of reproduction,

which do pre-exist the individual subject, which do in fact pre-exist any specific dogmatic, or not even just dogmatic, any specific dogmatic or not even just dogmatic

any specific

exclusive repository of being

that

defines our horizon

as metaphysical

and I think

that is a much better place to start than the presumption of the subject-object

distinction, which Lukox is working with.

So for me, Heidegger provides a trap door to escape some of the dogmatic assumptions of western

metaphysical idealism he's not the end point he just provides a way out of something that marxist

seemed to be stuck in within the West?

Well, I don't know that Marxists are stuck in, you know, Marxists in the West and

everywhere else, except that their search for explanations of

social relations are

perspective,

intersubjective,

and

their two subject, you know, subject

object is

largely illusory or it's not illusory that's the thing about Marx is that

look I want to translate all this into practical I want to translate this something wait

James Graham was on the little side thing there, and he said this was supposed to be about China, and he doesn't realize that it is.

Don't worry about James.

We're just talking.

I'm just wanting to make that point that this is about China.

Sure. Sure. The end point of all this discussion is going to be some kind of justification of what you call Xi Jinping thought, what I would call Kissingerism.

Okay. And that it's that it's that it's that it's all based on this idea of um so i i like to work i like to

i i can identify some problems with western marxism which i think heidegger can help us point a way

out of you may not agree with heidegger. You may not agree with all of these

impure, tainted thinkers.

And that's fine, but I think we, I want

those problems to be recognized

so that people have an idea

of where I'm coming from. I'm saying they're

wrong. These are not the same things.

I'm challenging the claim, the claim that there is being thrown into, you know, matter essentially. This is like a platinous vision. I'm challenging the validity of that.

That we're thrown into a context.

We ultimately don't have any

antecedent control

or

ability to define by

thinking consciousness.

So the thinking consciousness determines the context into which we're

thrust it into even before we're born because of metaphysical idealism is correct, according to you.

The context creates the consciousness.

That's Marxism.

Right, but that's also kind of what Heidegger says. That's also what Heidegger says. Why not? That's what Heidegger is mimicking and vitiating because he says, because we know the allusions that he makes when he's talking.

Why don't we forget that you're clearly, there's an irrational knee-jerk response going on.

You ask me, why is it not what Heidegger says?

And it's because Heidegger says being is thrown that is something

that exists prior to you know world or reality or it creates world by being thrown into,

and everyone reading this has read their medieval thinkers.

Everyone knows what narcissism is.

They're not grappling in the dark.

These are university students in Germany. Can you finish your point though?

Because you didn't finish it.

Well, I'll finish it if you don't interrupt me.

I'm waiting for you to finish it.

So I digger is talking about something that then has to, once thrown, it can be in, it's got a zero and one choice. It can be in an authentically embedded

in the world or it can be inauthentic. This is a parody. Do you think Heidegger himself

even according to his own conclusions

do you think he resolves

the question of what an authentic

existence is or do you think he leaves it open

even after he dies?

It's already understood before he starts

to write what it is. Okay, what is it then. It's already understood before he starts to write what it is.

Okay, what is it then?

It's the existence of a nationalist warrior toward death or, you know, like a tottenkopf type you know

a Hazar riding into the battle

an SS officer

so Heidegger was not saying that the West

from the beginning of the Greeks was on a path

toward the oblivion of being?

Or did he say that?

He keeps saying the Greeks,

the Greeks, like he's a fucking uneducated

idiot. There still are Greeks.

He talks about the Greeks,

meaning some fantasy

of the past people who didn't even...

Can you please try to make the effort to understand the point I'm trying to say?

Heidegger is saying that there's a long process of the West on the path to the oblivion of being.

You're trying to say that

for Heidegger, it suffices to regard

authentic existence as just a

total state of war, and yet Western

history and the history of private property

is characterized by endless wars

and wars and wars. So clearly, Heidegger

does not regard that as a sufficient condition for the acquisition

of an authentic existence because he's writing within the context of several world wars going on,

one before him and one that's coming up, several wars going on in the 19th century.

Clearly he doesn't regard war by itself

as sufficient re-requisite

for defining what an authentic

existence actually is. The truth which

you're ignoring and you're refusing to get into

here is that Heidegger doesn't

answer the question of what constitutes an authentic existence.

He only begins by defining the parameters and opening the conversation as far as the inauthentic existence that has thus far defined the history and current trajectory of the west he never actually solves

the question of what an authentic existence is so let's be clear about what we're talking about

he gives examples and you have a brain yeah he tells you what's not authentic, which is the masses.

They can't live authentically.

No, he regards the

era of the technique and modern

technology and modernity is inauthentic.

He regards, and he traces the roots

of this.

Heidegger never, Heidegger, it's curious that you're ignoring the roots of this and the Heidi never

it's curious that you're ignoring the fact

that Heidegger never poses

a point in which

some kind of authentic relationship

toward being by Dossine

is lost he the only place that he offers room for

understanding the Edenic state before the dissent is the pre-Socratics, right? So this is before

what most thinkers traditionally regard is the beginning of western whether they're correct or not western civilization he goes to the pre-socratics to search for answers as far as where we might begin to understand

what constitutes an authentic

relationship toward being

as reflected in thought.

Dude, you're confusing

his remarks on the

bibliography of philosophy

and his remarks on the bibliography of philosophy and his remarks on the

existence in the social order.

But, Marks, sorry, but Heidegger regards

every disclosure of being

through the lens of the history of philosophy.

Right. Almost to the point where he were in an idealist fashion.

The closure of being. There you go. Right there. This is a statement.

For Heidegger, every disclosure, you don't care about Heidegger, but you're trying to cancel me for

trying, for drawing conclusions from Heidegger. Every time I try to rationally communicate to you,

every attempt I've made to rationally communicate to you the significance of Heidegger,

all you've done is talk about

how much you don't care about him or how stupid

you think he is without actually making a point.

No, that's not true.

I've made plenty of points, and I'm going to make

a point right now.

First of all, you're a little paranoid if you think I've tried to cancel you.

I'm here on your show talking to you.

But you're trying to imply that the extent to which I'm drawing from Heidegger

is some kind of proximity to Nazism and fascism.

Something you failed to...

What I'm trying to imply, what I'm not trying to imply, what I've stated very plainly, is that your aim here is to use Heidegger.

I don't need Heidegger to support China. I don't need Heidegger to support China.

I don't need Heidegger to support China.

You may not need it, but you're using it.

I don't know why.

I'm not saying that you're desperate, that you had no other choice.

But here you are talking to me about this, right?

So this is what I'm reacting to, the reality, not some counterfactual.

So the reality is you are, Pidegger.

You are, you are doing something that I find very vulgar.

You're trying to reduce, you're trying, go on, you're trying, You're trying to reduce you're trying

you're trying to reduce

you're trying to reduce any expression of the intellect

to the direct the signaling

of a political position.

You know, you're trying to reduce it today.

All this will ever amount to is supporting Xi Jinping. know, you're trying to reduce it to that. You're doing, all this will ever amount to

is supporting Xi Jinping.

Forget, you're rushing too fast

into the conclusions. Let's be

clear about what problems we...

You're talking to a vulgar Marxist.

Okay, get used to it.

But we should, but instead of doing this thing where you're like, okay, get used to it. But we should, but instead of

doing this thing where you're like

you're just trying

to kind of crucify me on the cross

of a direct vulgar political

outward superficial position,

why are you unable to engage with the deeper point about why it is maybe

necessary for Western Marxists at least to recognize some of the same problems Heidegger raised

for thought.

Well, I'll tell you why.

Sure.

Why it's not necessary?

The points are wrong.

The points are wrong.

What's wrong?

Here's the first wrong.

Disclosure of being.

It doesn't mean anything, but it implies a...

Okay.

So this is all...

I think we've reached

I think we've, no, no, no, no, no, we have

reached a discursive limit

because I'm trying to communicate something

and you're saying that it is

no, no, no, no, no, no. Here's why it's a

discursive limit and we should probably move to China

then, to the China topic directly

because you're just saying at this point that everything I'm saying and everything Heidegger is

devoid of meaning meaning you're closing your ears and you're refusing in good faith to actually

try and understand where I'm coming from you don't to actually try and understand where I'm coming from.

You don't have to try and understand where I or Hidegger are coming from.

That's fine.

But just admit you refuse to engage.

You refuse to entertain it.

You won't even, you refuse to even read into the idea that there's any meaning to be gathered here at all.

What he's saying there, what he's communicating is literally the same thing as a toddler screaming noises.

So the conclusion we can draw from that is according to you, Heidegger has never said anything at all. He has never, there's nothing meaningful he has ever communicated. All that's significant about him is that he was a Nazi and that's it. And that's the extent to which you're willing to go to actually read anything or try

to understand anything.

So that's fine.

No, wait, wait, wait.

Let's talk about a specific text.

Get it up on your scene.

The technology essay.

Now, you said a few minutes ago that Heidegger was concerned, first of all, that he gave you no idea.

You said there is no hint of what an authentic existence might be.

I didn't say hint.

I said he leaves it as an open question.

Yes, he doesn't give us...

It's an open question.

You don't know.

You have no idea what authenticity is.

I have an idea of it because I think it's the same thing Marks talked about with the species being, but

Heidegger will not go there. So go

ahead.

So you're saying you have an idea

what you think, so you have your own

idea of authenticity, but you don't

get it from Heidegger because Heidegger

doesn't actually have one. That's false advertising.

Yeah, but I do think it satisfies the criteria on Heidegger suggests as far as what constitutes an authentic existence.

I just think Heidegger himself was unable to make the fateful step of drawing that conclusion.

So he just said the word authentic a lot

with no intentions behind it. No, he said the word

authentic in relation to inauthenticity. He was very clear about what constituted an inauthentic existence.

And you're clear too and what's not into inauthentic, right, too. And you said, you've tied it to what you called the technological era.

I think Heidegger's inauthentic existence is the same thing as what Marx

describes as the alienated

alienated

essence and estranged essence of man.

I'm not convinced

that's what he's saying, but

that is certainly what he... But I think

it's easy to

draw parallels and basically

regard them as maybe talking about the same

thing. It's easy to

misread, yeah. So, the

thing is that you, you, there's

no question that Heidegger was

aware of Marx, that he was an anti-marxist that his

aim was to i think he did not engage marks really in good faith or any he didn't engage marks

beyond what his contemporary western marxist in germany were about Marx, and Heidegger took

this at face value, and didn't really

attempt to engage Marx beyond that.

Heidegger engaged

maybe with Lukacs, for example,

and then he said, okay, this is Marx,

and this is Marxism. I think that

that... See, if you want to know my scandalous view, I think the historical tragedy is that there was a current within German intellectual thinking that was definitely reactionary. There's historical reasons for that. It was associated with the decaying, Prussian

junker class, whatever. But that could have also maybe given rise to a new paradigm of thinking

that could have been the official philosophy of the October Revolution.

It's just that the October Revolution never impressed its significance upon Germany's intellectual spheres

because it was still chained by the precepts and the conceits of social democracy.

So instead of recognizing the zeitgeist of where they were trying to get at,

in Stalin, socialism, in one country, and in Marxism, Leninism,

they immediately made the false step of seeing Nazism as the zeitgeist, which was a complete disaster, is a complete mistake. And I'm not even

saying that, okay, their thought has no no nothing about their thought

can be indicted their thought

was pure and good it's just there is a misunderstanding

where they saw Nazis

no I think there is an extent to which we can even

trace in the thinking

of Schmidt and Heidegger and

Younger and all these other kinds of people, where they go wrong even in terms of their thinking. But at the same time, I think that the willingness to recognize the paradigm of social democracy and of institutional academic thinking at the time and of neocontunism and so on and so on, there needed to be a radical departure from that. Now, who does accomplish this? The closest, I think, in the

1930s, is

Kojev, right? And Kojev is someone

who's directly

understanding what I'm talking about. That

Stalin is the world spirit

on horseback, so as big. Stalin is the

zeitgeist. And Kojev

understands the

role Heidegger had played

in allowing for an insight to this from the

Western perspective. And it's Kojev,

which says that Heidegger allows

us only to understand death without struggle, right? Whereas Marxism gives us the view of struggle without death. And it's Kojev who's kind of synthesizing these perspectives and is really laying the real foundation of where I'm coming from with Heidegger in the first place.

It's Kojev, you know?

Why crucify me and not Kojev?

I don't understand it.

Nobody has to engage with that stuff.

But I think Kouchev... nobody has to engage with that stuff but i think i think cogev who is the foundation of the entire french school including lecon to what to the extent that cogev is drawing from heidegger is precisely the extent to which I think Heidegger's historical significance is objective and is valid and should be recognized. but so then you're an anti-Marxist no i think that western marxist i think i look look i'm going to simplify it

for you i think that all your authorities are like the crazy...

No, but they're not authorities, but they're not authorities.

I don't have any authorities in the West.

Okay?

They're not authorities.

They're not authorities.

Western Marxes are just...

All the people who... Keina, I'm going to make a proposition

and I'll let you work with that

all of Western Marxism

is just improvised

social democracy

and it never actually made the fateful step

into Leninism.

That's my proposition to you.

Right, and then you're going to draw a kind of genealogy to today's...

So I want to find a way for us

to import Leninism

into America and into the West.

That's my goal.

You're not talking about Leninism, but here's the thing...

And on, on, Kuhina, do you not think

that there were thinkers that tried to draw parallels between Schmidt's political theory and Leninism?

That Marxism was lacking a real political science and political theory.

And that in a lot of ways Schmidt could be read

as the logic

of class antagonism as applied

to politics, as unconditional

enmity, unconditional political

difference, irredu unconditional political difference,

irreducible political difference, and that's the form class struggle takes in politics as a struggle to the, as an absolute, isn't that

exactly the essence of Leninist politics, though? The drawing of a distinction,

absolute distinction between class enemy and, okay.

Plagism from a very, very popular book called The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

I don't understand why you're saying that.

It is. It is a plagiarism.

The political theology is a plagiarism of that book, which nobody reads.

So everything is about hating Jews.

So everything is just about making Jews. Jews were added.

Schmidt, it's not about Jews, right? It's about Democrats and socialists, right? It's not about Jews. I mean, he was about Jews. He thought Jews had a literal power of Satan.

So, no, no, you know what I just don't like? I don't like this view that many of my leftist critics are trying to do, which is trying to say, Haas is replacing the five heads of Marxism-Leninism

with Heidegger and Schmidt and Nick Land

and all these thinkers I regard is problematic.

And that's, you, and you yourself say,

these are your authorities.

And it's come,

even if it was true that I bought this delusional view that Schmidt was just the protocols of Zion. I mean, I don't even know where to begin with that. Well, because you haven't read it. You're right. I haven't read the protocols. It's popular for a reason. But the protocols was just a nonsense forgery from nonsense French literature scattered from...

The French literature that it took by Maurice Jolie, who was an associate of Blanquille, is not nonsense.

It's very good

and it's very influenced by the

18. So you can say the

protocols draws from good

literature, but I can't say that Heidegger

and Schmidt might have raised a few

interesting points that we should engage

with. Who stopped you from saying that?

But I'm just saying it's kind of incredible, a double standard.

It's like, well, so you can say the protocols has brilliance in it and stuff, but I can't say Heidegger does.

Well, it's very vitiated.

And what the important point about the protocols is that is how it vitiates this important work.

And that's the same for Heidegger.

Okay. so look.

There's a reason that you have a change. What do you think is a good political science and political theory of the state that Marxists should have?

What is our political?

Because there's already a bourgeois political theory.

What's our political theory?

Has that been developed at all?

The theory of the state.

Marxist political theory,

in terms of how we understand,

you know, are we Lockeans who just believe in the social contract of, is it methodological individualism of what's... No, but you can get your, you can, first of all, all there Marx wrote in his philosophy

of right his critique

very right it's a critique so where's our

positive political theory as Marxists

because we have the experience of

actual proletarian dictatorships

historically and I argue still you maybe disagree with that.

And we have no political theory that makes sense of it. We have no political theory in the West, or even anywhere.

We have no political science. We have no political science that is befitting of Lenin's

actual political achievements and accomplishment

in world history of creating

a new kind of state.

We have no political theory that corresponds to that.

Why is that? What do you mean?

There's no political theory. The logic of the

Leninist party and the state dictatorship

that begins with the October Revolution. Yeah. You haven't read Stalin? Stalin. Stalin is an

orthodox Marxist Leninist. He's synthesizing Marxism, Leninism.

But he is not providing us

a particular, because he's

participating in its creation in the first

place. Now we're...

There is an extent to which

the Leninist Party dictatorship state

is a new, objectively new paradigm of statehood,

which even some non-Marxist countries

in the third world, for example,

are adopting aspects of.

We have no political theory to understand this.

Why is that?

What about Camillo-Torres-Restripo?

Who? Camijo Torres, the Colombian revolutionary priest.

Okay, what is their political theory of the state? Well, you can find it in his book, A Revolutionary Priest.

And he doesn't draw from Schmidt at all?

No.

They don't draw from Schmidt.

He doesn't engage with Schmidt in any way.

Oh, I see where you're going.

You want to like Trotify.

Okay, so like Schmidt, you're like this sort of...

No, no, I'm...

I disagree with Schmidt.

I'm just saying...

I'm just saying we don't have a political...

We don't have a post-liberal political theory, and we should probably, all right, all right, listen, listen, listen. Did Marx engage with the physiocrats and the classical political economists?

Critically.

Okay.

Why can't I critically engage with Schmidt then for political theory?

Oh, where's the critique?

I already told you what the critique was. Schmidt takes from...

Schmidt is still chained by the same metaphysical commitments as Hobbes, which is a methodological individualism.

And despite his achievement and giving recognition to difference and antagonism as an objective feature of politics, he doesn't situate that in any kind, he doesn't sublade it in any kind of positive determination of state. For example, he doesn't have Zhang Wei Wei's notion of a civilization state. He doesn't have the notion of a polarity. He just has a kind

of state built upon pure antagonism

and that's it. But no

determination which

situates that antagonism

in a more kind of rational

development. That's my critique of Schmidt.

I, for me my notion uh my interpretation sorry my uh

elaboration of the concept of the partisan is that the partisan is a type of subject of a new state, of a new, of a new, how should I say, a new type of society even, right?

The partisan is the subject of a polarity, which is different from the bourgeois state, and it's a state that commits itself to specific outcomes and goals and determinations, five-year plans, the supremacy of the proletarian class. It's marked by the supremacy of a particular end goal, particular content, whereas the bourgeois state is universalistic and formalist, right? It's indifferent to the content of differences and determinations within society.

So for me, this is how I interpret Schmidt.

It's a way that's extremely critical of Schmidt, actually.

And it's the application,

Cahina, of the logic of class struggle to the realm of politics.

That's what you're missing.

Class struggle is something within civil society.

How does that directly bear out within the realm of the political?

That's not something we can take for granted.

Lenin develops that practically through the Leninist Party.

And guess who identifies that?

Schmidt.

You know, Schmidt

was involved in

counterpartisan operations when he was a Nazi

army guy

or whatever. Schmidt was writing within the

context of partisan guerrillas

during the Cold War. So he's, yes, from the enemy's

perspective, absolutely, right? But he's identifying something that we should take advantage of

recognizing, right? Which is a new type of political subject and a new type of struggle within politics.

She said she was booted. What? Hold on.

Let me... Hold on.

Let me, No, she's still in the...

Hello?

I'm here. Do you hear me?

Yeah, yeah.

That was my Discord that was...

Okay, sorry.

I stopped hearing it.

So anyway, my point about Schmidt.

Let's talk about Schmidt for a second.

Sure.

Schmidt,

Schmidt,

Schmidt did not discover antagonism in politics.

Mark, most, there's antagonism in all politics. There's

antagonism in all the 19th century

series. Yeah, but when did it...

Marxist that we prefer is

class struggle. We understand the

struggle of classes, but it's not limited to

class struggle. Hold on, class struggle is

within civil society. How does that directly...

No, but also in politics, how? How is it in politics, though? What theory do we have to render

directly transparent and clear to us in clear terms of how exactly class struggle plays out in politics.

Well, it plays out differently depending on circumstance. Okay, for example. For example,

do you think the logic of, do you think the logic of class struggle demands? Oliver Cromwell? Do you think the logic of class struggle demands?

Oliver Cromwell.

Do you think the logic of class struggle demands that we have a different concept of the political than in bourgeois political science, or the same same notion of the political

within which we are

understanding class struggle?

As a academic

abstraction

Okay

Was the Soviet

state was the Soviet state? Does the Soviet state, does the Soviet state satisfy the criterion of a, of the classical bourgeois social contract?

It sublates.

I agree.

Does that require us to have maybe a new understanding of what the political is and what political dictatorship means in relation to democracy and so on and so on or should we just should we just

continue should we just continue to pretend like proletarian dictatorships aren't

unconditional dictatorships of the party which if necessary will suspend and

circumvent all democratic formal procedures.

For example, in times of war or emergency circumstances.

Is it not important that we establish and make clear that we're not somehow compromising?

So when the Bolsheviks dissolved the constituent

assembly, what was the response

by the liberal socialists in the West?

Oh, this is the downfall of the revolution.

It's no longer legitimate.

Because they're operating within a bourgeois notion

of the political.

Is it not...

Union under Stalin was the most democratic...

I agree. I fundamentally agree.

But it was only possible for Stalin to actually...

It was only possible for Stalin to actually further and deepen real responsive democracy within the Soviet Union.

And Stalin himself would have agreed to this insofar as he consolidated a very strong dictatorship, which was an unconditional dictatorship, which was a dictatorship that didn't need to be directly legitimated by elections in order to exist.

The Soviet dictatorship pre-existed the 1936 constitution. Let's remember that.

The

revolutionary period

yeah,

but the

it was very democratic

the organization of the, even of the

Bolsheviks, even in the

worst times now. The Bolshevik

party was internally democratic, sure.

But was the Bolshevik

dictatorship? Does it

satisfy the criterion of

formal democracy in the

bourgeois view?

Why would it?

What does that have to do with anything?

Formal democracy?

Because we, because, because, because, listen, because there are clear, because there are clear contradictions in liberal political science and liberal political theory.

Contradictions, which Schmidt inadvertently at least gives expression to.

Let's even say he's a fascist thinker, right?

I don't know. He was a he's a fascist thinker, right? I don't know.

He was a he was a Higalian Catholic.

Schmidt,

even if we disagree with his thinking,

his thinking is evidence that there are contradictions

within bourgeois political theory

because he's trying to grapple with those very same contradictions,

even if he does it in a false or incomplete way.

So Schmidt is testament to the insatisfactory nature

of classical political theory

and to that extent it's worth engaging him

to understand exactly what those contradictions are.

For example, they can't they can't assail

for example. I'll give you an example.

Classical bourgeois political theory can't explain or recognize the reality of polarization within society.

Why is it that societies become polarized?

Why is that politics itself increasingly revolves around

polarization, right? And that's where the concept of the partisan acquires relevancy, too,

right? Because the partisan is not simply a position or a determination founded upon a difference of individual opinion. It's founded upon an unconditional fidelity to a difference, a struggle, or a conflict, right? And Schmidt, in his notion of his writing, the partisan,

he details this, right? He details how the partisan

is this kind of

this kind of sore thumb

in the midst of the universalism, the smooth

space of the bourgeois state,

so to speak.

It's this telluric force.

And he said, oh, this is Nazism, but what does he use as an example to describe partisanship?

Communist guerrillas and Soviet partisans that he himself was involved in fighting in World War II?

He started with the model

as the San Fidisti,

the

Spanish guerrillas who were actually

fighting under... Yeah, the reactionary

Spanish guerrillas, but then he

extends it where?

They were defending their homeland.

Yeah, yeah.

He elides the fact that they were fighting under the British command.

But don't you find it interesting that he then

extends this to the Leninist party itself? He's not a Leninist. He's not a communist,

right? So why is he doing that?

Of course he's doing that because he's, he has a master

propagandist.

You think, so you think Schmitz writing the partisan

was just written for propagandistic purposes to demonize communists?

Not to demonize communists. He's trying to, you know, the chapos would have called it steal their valor.

No, I think it's clear that what he was trying to do was that he was trying to come up with a political paradigm or a political

theory that could sufficiently

extend from his own perspective

and position the new

phenomena, this new phenomena within

modern politics, that classical

political theory couldn't seem to

account for, right?

He makes it more modern by eliding the resistance to the British invasion of Ireland and other such movements.

He doesn't, he erases the whole early modern period in order to make the Spanish resistance.

So how can I ask you a question?

How can we be Marxist Leninists?

How can we be Marxist Leninists trying to develop our own?

Or Schmidt. I'll tell you the difference here is because Schmidt will attribute...

Schmidt will attribute liberalism to a ruse of the ruling class.

He literally says it's Satan in his glossary.

He leaves a literal Satan that's creating a trap for everyone.

And Marx can explain liberalism very satisfying.

All right.

So, so I get it.

I get it.

I get it.

Okay.

Unless we completely agree with everything Schmidt ever said, we need to totally discard him.

That's where you're coming from.

You have to at least agree with one thing, he said, in order to not totally discard him.

So, but you don't see how that's undialectical?

That's that, what about the critical perspective?

What about criticism? Do you think Marx...

Okay, name one thing Marx

agreed with Adam Smith about completely,

without any qualification. Go ahead.

Did Marx agree?

He didn't agree with Adam Smith completely.

So let's discard Adam Smith from the genealogy of tracing the development of Marx's critique of political economy.

Adam Smith provided no value, no historical significance. We don't need to engage with him.

Marks didn't even need to engage with him or mention him.

He just did it for no reason.

All we need is Marks.

That's it, right?

No, but you don't have Adam Smith without Marks anymore.

It's too late for that.

Okay, so Marx did not need to draw from any thinkers at all, even critically.

No, he did a lot of thinkers, and some, maybe he should have been...

So only Marx exclusively had the liberty of being able to do this. Now we can't, right? We can't do the same thing Marx did to thinkers that came after Marx, because those thinkers committed the sin of not being Marxist when they could have been, and because they weren't Marxist, their thinking is tainted by the intention of completely repudiating Marxism in every possible way, and therefore we should completely discard them and ignore them entirely. Is that what you're saying? Yeah. Well, I thank you for the honesty. But here's why I disagree. Here's why I disagree. Because just...

It's worthless.

Okay.

But just because thinkers that came after Marx

might have had the opportunity

of reading Marx or did read Marx

and did not end up with the conclusion of being Marxist,

doesn't mean that the entirety of their thought is tainted by a fundamental intention to reject Marxism.

You can critique them and-

No, no, no, because, because, Kahina, you can critique them No, no, no, because

Kahina, you can critique them

and trace precisely

how their criticism of Marx was wrong,

how they got it wrong, right?

You can be good faith.

You can say, well, it's not that they had this pathological irrational

fixation on rejecting marxism it's that they were unable to interpret marks correctly and even

in the matter by which they reject marks you can see traces of where they go wrong, and you can interpret the

correctness of Marx himself in a new light. That's what it means to be a non-dogmatic thinker.

Is there a single, is there a single thinker, is there a single non-Marxist thinker after Marx's death that you regard as providing any valuable insights at all within the political, politically speaking?

Absolutely.

Name one.

Well, they're all Marxizant, though.

They're all somehow influenced by Marx.

Well, Schmitt was, Younger and Schmidt were influenced by Marx as well.

So which ones were not Marxists that you regard as valuable?

I would say Maria Miasis work.

Who is that?

She wrote something called Patriarchy on a World Scale

Okay, so only when it comes to feminism

Do you provide some relief as far as...

It's taking off from Samir Amin.

I don't know how

Marxist you would.

I mean,

Tebelite is basically...

So are there no

non-Marxist thinkers

that you believe

Marxist should read

and think about?

I believe Marxism is true.

I do as well, but I'm confident.

I am so, but, you know, the difference between us,

I am so confident in the truth of Marxism

that I can even derive the truth of Marxism

from non-Marxist thinkers themselves

and show how actually the only grain of truth that they were coming from actually reflects, actually reflects something that we can conclude is the truth of Marxism itself. So even in the way that they reject Marxism reflects the correctness of Marxism itself.

But besides that it's your hobby, what's the point of it? What's that?

Besides that this is your hobby to read... Because we are, because as Marxists,

we have a responsibility

to be absolutely

and ruthlessly critical

toward every conceit

and every position we claim to stand on

from the perspective of theory

and we have a responsibility and an obligation to check our blind spots.

But you're not very critical.

You're not critical.

You're actually quite naive in front of these authors.

What extra... in front of these authors. What

extra

Marxist intention

do you think I fucking have

when it comes to reading

or even thinking about Heidegger?

Why the fuck should I

ever care about Heidegger

beyond wanting to strengthen Marxism? What, what, did care about Heidegger beyond wanting to strengthen

Marxism? What? What? Do you

Heidegger is like my grandfather or something?

Like I care about him beyond

strengthening Marxism, Leninism

in the West? Why, why

should I care about anyone?

What pathological attack?

You think I'm just because this is what you think.

You think I'm a secret fascist and I'm a secret Nazi and Heidegger is the truth of my actual intention and where I'm coming from.

And that actually it's Marx that I'm trying to appropriate because I'm trying to, what, hijack the flourishing Western Marxist movement in the fascist direction. Is that what you're saying?

No, what I'm saying is you're working for the Chinese Communist Party. That's what I'm saying.

It's that simple.

But why does the Chinese Communist Party need Heidegger through me?

Why do they need me?

Why do I need to be crucified?

Why do they need it?

Oh, that you're crucified? Why do they need it?

Oh, that you're crucified? You know, you look okay. But in the

West, in the West, leftists

are a lot of Marxists in the West, they're

crucifying me on the cross of Heidegger.

Why does the Chinese Communist Party need that? I think they think it'll appeal to your

audience, you know, and they're not wrong. But I've been engaging with Heidegger's thinking at least

since 2017. Well, there you go. They found you for that reason.

The Communist Party of China found me.

Work in marketing.

Well, some underling recruited you.

That's my hunch.

There you go.

If that's true, why wouldn't I just

be like Hakeem and these other people

that's just like a social

Democrat who like praises China because

of, you know, whatever. Why am I

taking such a specific position?

You know what shelf space is?

Huh?

Shelf space?

Like, why is there a Diet Coke and a Coke zero and, you know, to get more shelves?

So I just want to drop before we get into China, because I think we should get into China.

It's too late.

It's now 12 o'clock for me.

You've been doing this for three hours.

But, and I'm happy to talk about China.

I've been trying to talk about China.

Sure.

But we can do. Yeah, I get it

It's late for you

We might have to be schedule

Yeah

All right

We can continue tomorrow

I

You know I am

It's too late for

Because the workers

They're coming to my house

Tomorrow to fix things

Yeah that's fine well look i appreciate

you coming on and making the attempt to dialogue but again you know i i don't think you've really

shown a willingness to engage with where i'm coming from when it comes to these

problematic thinkers that you're

emphasizing. You know what?

I think we should leave this to the audience.

I'm not going to even respond.

Okay. Maybe you're right. We'll see.

We'll see what they say.

Okay. Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Well, I will talk to you again.

We'll do this again when you have time.

Okay.

Bye.

Okay, great.

Bye-bye.

Good night.

Good night.

All right.

One last thing on the whole Heidegger Schmidt stuff.

It's like people think I'm stupid and I don't somehow know that these people were roped in and associated in their personal lives with Nazism.

But you're forgetting that the German communists did not succeed in Germany, and the onus is on us to be ruthlessly self-critical about how communist failure allowed for the rise of Nazism.

And that means understanding where we got things wrong potentially right every strength of the enemy

should be seized from them you know and by the way heideggergger and Schmidt were not decisive for the rise of Nazism.

But maybe if German communists in the 1920s, for example, would have adopted a new paradigm of thinking similar, not identical, but similar to the overall orientation of the German

conservative revolution in the 20s before Nazism, which was a newfound appreciation and

recognition, right, of the particularity of modern thinking drawing from leninism anticipating socialism in one country

maybe the victory of nazism could have been completely avoided maybe german communists would have

had more success finding a basis, a popular basis for communism in Germany, among the farmers and peasants who were still a sizable force within Germany.

And by the way, who the Nazis did not even really succeed in mobilizing, They got the tacit support. Sorry, the passive

support the Nazis did. But they could have been mobilized as a revolutionary subject, and fascism

itself could have been avoided, right? So, you know

it's lost on people

it's like in Russia today

they engage with all of these thinkers

it's not because they're pro-Nazi

it's the opposite it's like

you're trying to

when an enemy beats you

you should study what the enemy was doing

first of all

but even this wouldn't be completely accurate. Because again, the German conservative

revolution thinkers, though they cowardly and in a craven way, went over to Nazism, did not provide

the official political ideology or theory of Nazism.

But I have no...

I'm not trying to say that, you know, they're personal.

They had personal honor.

They were far from it, okay?

I'm also, you know, Schmidt was an enemy.

He was part of the German army during World War II.

I mean, any Nazi party member who had gotten shot in the face would have deserved it, including Heidegger.

It's like, why are people, why is are people why is this

why is this

basic

why is this like

a clear dialectical

outlook lost on people it's like

just because I think

thinkers are worth engaging and responding to and distilling, not just the rational kernel, but like, integrating their, Marxism failed in this specific niche of thought. So how can we as Marxists correctly respond to Heidegger? How can we do that? Well, the way they respond is closing their ears, not saying her in particular, but others, Nazi, Nazi, Nazi, and that's it.

That his false and problematic political commitments are somehow enough to completely discredit anything he's ever tried to say within the sphere of the intellect.

Well, sorry, this is completely betrays

the spirit of Marxist thinking.

Marx said, dare to know,

regardless of how bad

these thinkers were.

They say, well, why don't you apply that to Hitler?

Because Hitler didn't, Hitler wasn't an intellectual.

Neither was Mussolini.

Why don't you apply that to Gentile?

Well, because Gentile didn't contribute

any new insight, right?

Giovanni Gentile was just a,

he was just bastardizing

Hegel and reducing him to the kind of...

Hegel to the volunteerism of the individual, the anarchistic individual.

I don't see anything worthwhile to draw from there right but for example heidegger's ability to

broaden the the horizon of thought beyond metaphysics to understand correctly

the

beginning of

Marxism

not only phenomenolizing it

in the age of mass media and stuff

but opening up the ontological

as a new way of regarding the whole of reality

as the relevant kind of, I wouldn't say object, but the relevant kind of aim of Marxism

to understand.

Rather than just the kind of

Lukoxian totality, which is an

unworking sublime we can do nothing with.

You know, I think it's a little ridiculous.

I think it's a little ridiculous.

There's a specific way in which I regard Heidegger's thinking as relevant and significant.

And it's precisely in opposition to Lukox, you know, definitely the phenomenological and

ontological orientation of Heidegger's thinking. Definitely that.

Definitely that.

Definitely a rejection of the implicit metaphysical assumptions of Western Marxism. For example, substantialism, the identification of material being with sensuous empirical tangibility the reduction of objects to one-sided concepts right concepts. I think there's a lot of, in terms of critiquing

Western metaphysical thinking, there's a lot of other things I need to talk about, which I'll get into now.

So guys, now we're going to get into the start part of the stream that, I don't know how much I can devote to the whole controversy regarding Keith Woods being a fucking retard.

But I made a tweet which nuked the JQ. I made a tweet that nuked the JQ. I made a tweet that

nuked the JQ. It was a

nuclear fucking bomb.

Okay? The nuclear

bomb I launched

against the JQ, which

was the obvious question. Why is it

that only the West has ever had a JQ? Why is it that the only the West has ever had the Jewish question? There were Jews in Islamic civilizations, there were Jews in other civilizations, and yet the fixation and obsession on Jews was lacking.

So I just asked that question, and I provided my own explanation, and they trust me when I say from the very top

of the far right hierarchy, influencer hierarchies,

they put a fucking hit out on me because of that.

Keith Woods had to do an emergency ratio on me.

They were fucking nuked out of orbit from that fucking tweet.

Right?

Now, let me

just briefly

let me just briefly

respond to some fucking

retards who didn't

understand when I say that only

the West had a Jewish question.

They said, well, there's instances of anti-Jewish violence in the Islamic world, too.

Do you think I'm saying that Jews were never persecuted anywhere else?

But Christians were persecuted.

Muslims were persecuted.

There's nothing exceptional in the nature of the persecution.

That's what I was trying to fucking say.

Some fucking retard was like, well, there was this Egyptian Mamluk Sultan who was going to burn all of the Jews in Cairo.

And then you look it up what he's talking about.

And he was going to burn all the Christians too.

And if you look at it in Islamic history, the persecution of Jews was qualitatively the same as the persecution of Christians and other minorities, religious minorities.

So no one is saying Jews were never persecuted as a religious minority,

but they were never elevated to this metaphysical status of being the fundamental problem with all

of society, all of the world. That's an exclusively Western thing. Now, Keith Woods's retarded fucking dumbass

was like, what about the Romanov Russian Empire? Because he's historically illiterate,

and he doesn't know that the Romanov dynasty

began at the outset

with a historical period of

westernization and then under

Catherine they conquered the pale

they created the pale settlement

when they conquered the Polish

Lithuanian Commonwealth and they conquered the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. And they adopted the practices

of Western civilization economically. The same role of Jews, given the exclusive, almost, position of usury within civil society because they were barred from land ownership, both within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and beyond and so on and so on.

And also adopting the Western

patterns of thinking

Keith Woods is such a fucking retard

he's like oh I'm sure those peasants

were just too influenced by Teutonic

consciousness like you fucking Irish

retard we're not talking about consciousness. We're talking

about the relationships of production that were imported from the Prussian aristocracy, which came

from the West. We're not talking simply about consciousness. We're talking about serfdom.

We're talking about the role Western civilization allocated Jews, almost exclusively, by the way, in terms of usury, using them as a reservoir uh... for uh...

for loans when kings and aristocrats and nobles couldn't get it in

legitimate ways

they had it so that they got it from jews right

these are all ediosyncrasies of Western civilization, though.

There's nothing fundamental.

This is my problem with J-Qers.

There's nothing fundamental about Jews.

It's a problem of West, the Western civilization.

Even if they say, oh, well, Jews were usurers. By the way, this is a huge simplification. Why? Because the Roman church was a usurer, okay? The various military

aristocratic orders, the Knights of Malta, the Templars or they were just as usurious if not more the reason they expelled the jews from england for example is because they were offering lower rates lower rates of interest than the Roman church was.

It wasn't because everyone was engaging in usury.

The Jews were just doing it in a way

that was competitive.

You see?

So they missed that. But even if we say okay jews their primary significance was usually even if

even if we agree with that wrong conclusion only in western civilization where they put in that position.

Why is it in the Western civilization during the Middle Ages,

all other Christians banned.

All other Christians,

genocided like the Cathars,

Muslims,

not even allowed

to fucking breathe but only

for some reason Jews are tolerated

why? Because

kings

needed loans to wage the wars

they were doing after the crusades

and during

and they usually got it from the roman

church but sometimes they'd keep jews around for another reason so they had a relationship of

hypocrisy and that's just as much an indictment on so-called western civilization simply blaming the jews neglects the question

of why jews did not acquire this same role and position in non-western civilizations right so uh that

really made the far right angry.

And I got some messages.

They're like, they're really out for you now.

They put a fucking hit on out of you because of that.

Because I just said something that totally fucking nuked their whole shit from orbit.

By the way, what I said was the same as what Marx wrote in the Jewish question.

It's hypocrisy. That's the source of the JQ.

Because basically the material realm, the economic realm,

was regarded as a dirty, material realm which has no spiritual significance only the hereafter and uh you know heaven and whatever the afterlife by the, my fucking camera is broken.

That's another great,

great thing

that I have to deal with.

I don't know if my battery

is fucked or what.

Because I had a power outage

yesterday.

But fuck.

Anyway, I'm going to have to deal with that um

this is total hypocrisy

total hypocrisy

you know

anyway

um

so that's the Keith Woods thing

but anyway let me talk about fresh and fit.

Let me talk about fresh and fit.

And my debate, the camera again fucked up.

This is

unbelievable.

You know, this is really unbelievable.

We're going to have to

wait a

with this.

Okay.

So this goes into here.

Okay, so that's not the problem.

Here's the battery.

Got it.

Let me see if I take this battery out, just blow on it or something.

I don't know.

Put it back in.

Okay. just blow on it or something, I don't know, put it back in. How do I fucking take this matter yeah i think it's like right here what a disaster honestly what a fucking disaster. The fuck that I do to deserve this.

Anyway,

fuck it, let's just put it back on.

Anyway, um, All right.

Anyway.

So,

Fresh and Fit,

so the debate I had on Fresh and Fit,

that was a fun debate,

I guess,

interesting debate.

But without talking about that too much,

I want to actually talk about I want to talk about my

fun appearance with the after hours. So that was me with all the

girls. So if a lot of you were confused of why I agree to do that. So I'll explain myself. I would have never even imagined doing it months ago because I'm like, I want to be more professional. I have to be more like Xi Jinping. But then I thought to myself when I was invited and I was like I'm not

Xi Jinping I'm 28 years old and I need some kind of way to talk to the youth of

this country and this is what they watch and I need I need to prove that I can

communicate my message in a way that's relatable and that,

you know, that can, that can, uh, that can, uh, that can be tested in this kind of very, very, very,

uh, vulgar environment. I'm not better than average Americans. We're a trashy country. We're a vulgar

trashy country. And if we want to be a communist party, we can't be like having our nose in the

sky like Caleb Mopin or whatever and be like I'm a... No, we have to fucking

we have to be Christ-like.

You know, we have to lower ourselves

and not

have any arrogance.

Not lower ourselves in terms of our dignity

but in terms of our ability to

communicate and talk to people, you know?

Because guess what?

People watch that show.

People watch this kind of content.

And I thought to myself, as long as I don't demean myself in a vulgar,

you know, trashy way,

this can actually be good. I can actually talk

about some real issues. So that

was fun. But people were wondering

why I was so uncomfortable.

People were wondering why I was so uncomfortable

huh well first of all

it's not that I was uncomfortable

the chairs were extremely uncomfortable

so I didn't like that

but the elephant in the room is very clear

all right

all right?

All right.

I'm still Haza.

I'm still.

I'm still.

I'm still Haza al-Gul.

I'm the same guy.

I'm the same guy.

And I'm human.

All right?

And guess what?

A lot of discipline. It took a lot of discipline to be there and be

fucking professional. A lot of discipline. Like, I'm sorry to tell you, a lot of those women were fine as

hell. Like, I was like, wow. A few in particular, right? And I'm just like, wow.

A few in particular, right?

And I'm just like, all right, sweating.

I'm like, I'm the chairman of a communist party.

I can't be, Zin-Pink can't be doing that.

Y'all got to understand the position I'm put in.

I literally sacrifice.

Being chairman of the party fucking sucks, by the way.

If this was me and my Twitch days, you would get the old Haas.

You would get a crazy Haas saying crazy things.

Running crazy.

I don't know, man.

That would be like the Zirka Royale type of Haas.

And you know what kills me is it's like,

if I was on that same energy,

just being myself,

I would go so fucking viral.

I would be so beloved and go so fucking viral.

But I can't do it

because I'm responsible to the party party that just goes to show how fucking

selfless i am i could grow my personal career so fucking easily just be in my damn self but i decided to

be your chairman and be professional and be like jiji jing p but uh no lot of temptation lot of temptation man i'm

be real a lot of temptation and i rained it in i had the discipline you, I had the discipline.

You know, I had the discipline.

You know, I, I, I, because here's the thing.

It's like, in the interest of content, in the interest of being charismatic and being funny and whatever, i was about i could have said some outrageous shit just like on the zirko royals and i was talking to the women on on those panels

back in the day and it's like you know i didn't do it because I was like, I'm chairman of this party and I got to be

disciplined and professional. I can't be looking trashy. Uh, pull a Fidel. Well, that's like a private

thing. You can't do that in public. You can't do that in public you can't do that in public you know uh myron made

them all leave at the end um listen you know i was being politically correct straight up and that's why i was

uncomfortable in a way not Not uncomfortable, but tense.

When I have to be professional and politically correct in that environment, a lot of tension,

a lot of tension, because it's not naturally how I am.

He's like, well, that's fake, haze. That's fake. Well, it's not naturally how I am. He's like, well, that's fake, Haas.

That's fake.

Well, it's called being an adult and being professional, straight up.

But it's like, you guys need to understand.

I'm still a human being.

Like, I'm still a damn human being, all right?

I'm still a human being.

I mean, I still got that dog in me, basically, you right? I'm still a human being. I mean, I still got

that dog in me, basically, you know?

Um, but I

got to rein it in and be disciplined because I have

a responsibility now that I didn't have

before. I have

a responsibility now that I didn't

have before.

So it's like, I'm just saying that's an example, guys.

It's not that I'm trying to be boring for you.

It's just like, this is a new era.

You know, I'm going to Russia and China and shit.

They can't see me being a crazy wild animal, like how I used to be.

Um, but, uh, you know, it's like... can we get old hot you will never get old haze back i'm, you're never going to get the old

hosback, straight up.

Because what would have happened?

What would have happened?

They would have clipped me and they would have canceled me and you know people are like this is a chairman of a communist party

And you know they were they would have been right. I'm gonna be be real. Like a chairman of a communist party

should not be on some wild shit.

You should be prof-

you should keep it professional

and keep it disciplined, you know?

But I'm still 28.

I'm still young. I'm still young.

I'm still a young man.

Am I?

I'm,

I'm still a,

am I middle age?

I don't even know anymore.

28, what's that?

I'm still a,

still in my prime as a young man, basically. I'm still, I'm still a... Still in my prime as a young man, basically.

I'm still, I'm still human.

I'm still human, you know?

I'm still human.

I'm straight up still human.

I'm still a grown-ass man.

Straight up still human.

I'm not gonna sit here and lie to y'all that I'm a Gnostic, you know, monk and female temptation is lost on me.

It's not.

I'm still human.

I'm still human, All right. Um, but I also have responsibilities and

discipline. I also, it's all about discipline, straight up, straight about discipline man uh you know but it's like

it's interesting to think about it's like as chairman i can't have that dog in me you know i can't there's things you can do that I can't have that dog in me.

You know, I can't... There's things you can do that I can't do, you know?

I can't be chasing females left and right.

Because then what happens?

Because then...

I mean, I don't know.

Because it just looks unprofessional.

It looks trashy, you know?

Yeah, definitely, by the way, it's not even a question.

Within the party?

Within the party?

I consider female comrades like my sisters, all right?

So it's not even thinkable that within the party, you know, I'm old haze, definitely not.

That's where the professionalism is absolute within the party like within the party it's like y'all are my sisters so that's gross to even think about you know i'm talking about outside the party, obviously.

But even outside the party, I have to be...

I have to live my values.

I guess I have to be a tradd-larper or some shit and get married.

But... get married. But, um...

Kina left you brain dead.

No, I'm just talking about why I appeared on the after hours, because I haven't

streamed in a week. I'm just trying to tell y'all an example of my professionalism. Why am I

telling you this? Because I want you to emulate my good example when you're put in similar situations.

Y'all may not be on my level, but you got to be professional. You got to be professional, you know?

You got to rein in the craziness. Remember when I was telling y'all not to be weird?

I just gave you an example of not being weird.

I gave you an example of just, look how I was engaging in talking to people.

You don't have to be condescending in the sense of like overly intellectual, but you should also just like not be weird. You shouldn't cross boundaries and, you know, start getting weird and shit, you know? So, yeah. That's what I'm trying to say. That's what I'm trying to say that's what I'm trying to get at you know but like I thought about

I was like oh isn't it looks so trashy that I'm like in fresh and fits after hours as chairman I'm like

well no because I'm 28.

And this is a young party in the sense that, not that it's just young people,

but it's like, we're not above anybody.

I'm not Xi Jinping.

I'm not Xi Jinping.

And, you know, we need to engage with the youth of this country, as trashy and vulgar and whatever as they are.

That doesn't mean we adopt that ourselves. It means we communicate, you know. We don't close the barrier of communication and by

the way I was impressed you know a lot of people are like oh ha's they're all trashy whores and it's like

well you know what I remember that girl, a diagonal somewhere.

She was Haitian or something.

And she was straight up woke in a good way.

She was like, yeah, the U.S., I know what it's done to Haiti.

Kamala and Trump are the same thing. And look what they're doing around the U.S., I know what it's done to Haiti. Kamala and Trump are the same thing.

And look what they're doing around the world.

And it's like, that's a normal person.

And it's like, you know what?

I'm sorry to tell you, but that's the American people straight up.

They're not perfect trad larpers.

They're just down

to earth normal people. And it's like, I was

impressed by how many people

how many of those

women were, they had good

instincts and good common sense. Some of them

were on that more PMC

type of thing with pro-Ukraine and like saying that abortion matters more than foreign wars or whatever.

But it's like a lot of them had good common sense.

And it's like, you know, I was my goal is like let's bring down the hatred let's bring

down the gender wars let's let's come together you know as the young people of this country

and these culture wars because i'm not sitting in judgment of nobody i'm not a i'm not gonna sit in

judgment of anybody i'm not better than anyone you know the lohaws their hors and it's like well

well i mean that's our country today you know straight up we we have nowhere to sit in judgment from that's the

problem we have no seat of judgment to cast look down on anybody we need to be christ-like and we need to

you know we need to forgive we need to forgive

we need to forgive we need to forgive

the misguided youth

he said women shouldn't vote

what did you think I don't think I really had

there was room for input from me there because I was so fucking exhausted and like it would be going for hours and, you know, it was already set. But if you want to know my view on um should women vote um i don't think it's impossible

sorry i don't think it's possible for women to be excluded from modern politics.

And for that policy to ever be proposed and gain traction, this is my opinion, it wouldn't

succeed. It would polarize the genders even more. And all it would do is give

ammunition to Democrats. It's unthinkable. It's an impossible, right? Secondly, here's another

thing I think. It's like, look, on the one hand, it's pretty outrageous that you had young women there that were straight up being like, yeah, I think that reproductive rights is a more pressing issue than World War III, then foreign wars.

So the idea is like, oh, so they should be allowed to vote and send young men to die in battle, even how stupid and vapid they are.

But then on the other hand, I think I'm like, well, look, Americans are fucking stupid in general.

And that's how most voters are in general. Most voters are fucking stupid in general. And that's how most voters are in general.

Most voters are fucking stupid.

Women are more stupid about some things, but men are also dumb about other shit, too.

This is the sham nature of American democracy in general.

We all just fucking vote on shit.

We don't even fucking understand based on our feelings.

Women are just more,

like,

it's just more explicit

when it comes to them.

So, like,

my actual solution to this problem

is that we need to get rid

of liberal democracy altogether, not strip women of the vote specifically but strip everyone of the fucking vote we should not be choosing our leaders directly in votes in general we shouldn't be choosing what parties in power through a vote in general. We shouldn't be choosing what

party's in power through a vote in general.

We should have a one-party

dictatorship that has

internal procedures of democracy

that are separated from

the democracy of civil society,

which, by the way, should be stacked, birthday cake style.

So locally, at a village level, should people have a say in electing their representatives at the most local possible level?

Of course they should.

And should women have a say in that? Of course they should. And should women have a say

in that? Of course they should.

Women are involved in the

village life. Women are involved

and they know what's going on. Women have a

unique perspective that is politically

valuable. Of course

they do.

And it's like they should elect a representative that they feel best represents them locally.

Everyone should.

And that person should elect, and it's birthday cake.

That's the, that's proletarian democracy.

It's birthday cake stacked. That's how the democracy in our party works too, by the democracy. It's birthday cake stacked.

That's how the democracy in our party works too, by the way. It's like you have the lowest level, elect the representatives, these representatives, elect other representatives, and on and on it goes until it's, you know, less and less people.

And it's like, should women be involved in that process? Sure.

The problem is that liberal democracy polarizes voters on retarded lines such as gender war shit, where people are allowed to make the decision to like prioritize abortion over fucking nuclear war. I mean, that's, to me, that's a defect of liberal democracy itself. China doesn't have, China doesn't need to strip women of the vote because China doesn't have a political system that polarizes people along gender lines in the first place.

Women that are voting in China are voting on real issues because the way their political system is structured is that it prioritize the most important

issues being and immediate issues being rendered contentious at the most local level.

You know, like at a village level, you know, women who are involved in raising children who are living

like anyone else is living in the same environments who want clean streets and pretty much want

the same thing everyone else has why is their input not important? Like people when they say strip

women of the vote, the only good faith I can afford to that view is like, you're thinking

of like a stupid women, a stupid woman thinking emotionally about World War III. Like, I get that. But, you know, that's a problem of liberal democracy. That's not a problem of women being in any way participating in the process.

John Jackman.

Yeah, it's pushed on them since birth, so it's like a brainwash thing.

Like, I totally get it.

But it's like...

Like, for example, in a marriage,

even if men

have the final say in a

forward-facing way,

the decision-making process

as every man will understand

involves women,

big time. It's a, it's compromise and it's balance. That's how a marriage works.

It's compromise and its balance, you know? So there's a way to be responsive to women's perspective politically without the craziness of liberal democracy,

which just seems to empower everyone with the ability to make retarded decisions. um but that that that that would have been what i would have said if I was asked, my view, right?

But it's outrageous how, like, some of them were saying, like, yeah, foreign wars are less important.

It's like, well, like, you're not going to go die in those wars, you know?

So it's like, I just think that liberal democracy is itself the problem.

Not necessarily women's participation in politics in general.

But I also think it's kind of, it's a, it's a class distinction.

It's like, wow, you're really going to prioritize.

She was like, one of them,

I remember she was like, well, I live in America.

I don't care about all these other people who are bombing.

I care about Americans' human rights. And I'm like,

that is your Kamala voter.

Straight up like Chauvinism, you know, like, okay, you don't fucking care about bombing other

children, women and children. That's literal Hitlerite chauvinism right there. And for some reason, it's given a pass because she's a liberal young

women and i guess that couldn't possibly be a a fascist perspective but it's like well it is it is a

fascist perspective to say i'm you, you don't care about other people's rights. And therefore, your country can bomb them and kill them with impunity. And it's not as much as your problem as if, you know, your abortion rights are slightly restricted from being able to abort a baby at nine months to having to do it in like the first three months or something see this is why my perspective i think is value on a show like that because i think it would

really reveal it's not a man versus woman issue it's a class It's like, yeah, the women that are like, oh, yeah,

all that matters are my brunch and mimosa. Like, that's class struggle. That's not necessarily a problem

with women. Common sense working class women don't have that fucking crazy perspective.

You know, women that are actually working class, you know, they're just trying to get by.

Why should they be crucified on the same cross as these retarded, as Rosa

Luxembourg would put it, like bourgeois women.

Why should they be treated the same?

It's not fair. Yo, minister,

what's up?

Anyway.

Anyway, guys, I think that's all for today's stream.

But good stream, and hopefully I'll be back tomorrow.

I hope you enjoyed the debate Chicago event

We're in the final stage of locking the date down

But it's looking like the second week of October

It's looking like the second week of October

And

I'm going to...

I'm traveling

soon this month.

So I'll keep you updated.

But hopefully we'll be live tomorrow as well.

All right, guys. I know it's Labor Day and I should probably stream all day.

Because nobody's doing anything, but guess what?

I got to eat. I got to eat. I got to eat.

I got to eat.

You know, I got to eat.

I'm hungry, you know.

And there we go.

There we go.

See you all later bye bye bye