🔴 RED NEWS | UK RACE RIOTS | IRAN WAR | AMERICAN COMMUNIST PARTY UPDATES

He's so cycling.

Should

Mario.

Put my whole life into these lines.

You don't want a problem, pal.

Yes, I came a long way since I was a problem child.

Same guy I always been, tryna make my mama proud.

Reaching for the stars, praying I won't ever touch the ground.

I gotta do this now while the sun's still shining.

No matter how you get it, gotta see the silver lining.

Remember when we came up, everybody tried to clown us.

Now the same people tryna say that they're the ones that found us.

All the minutes, all the hours, all the tears we devoured.

Now we up, feel the power, screaming out the world is now.

Close to my voice, looking at me through the glass.

I don't gotta lie to you, I don't gotta wear a mask.

I just gotta be neat and stay true to my last.

Dying day, I did everything I could to make it back.

Told each other we could do anything that we want, and nothing could stop us.

I got the ball, not gonna drop it.

No one can take this away from us, that's a promise.

Can't let this moment slip away, can't have that on my conscience.

I admit I lost my way, I was unfaithful.

But it's a new day, and I'm so grateful.

I still got a chance to show you that I'm worth it.

Can't take back what I did, cause you know that I'm not perfect.

Hold my head up to the sky through the clouds, I'll survive.

No regrets, I'm alive.

No more tears, let's get high.

Remember this moment for the rest of our lives.

Just know that I love you, and memories will never die.

This is all I've ever known.

The stage is my throne.

This is where I belong.

Don't ever feel alone.

Just remember this day and everything that I said.

The sun will still shine long after I'm dead.

Gentry, what's going on, brother?

I appreciate the five.

Let's get down to business.

I don't stream for no reason, guys.

It's always important.

Not just here to be a streamer anymore.

I'm actually, I have a job, you know?

Um.

No, I mean I I am streaming right now 'cause I feel like I have to, to be honest.

Like in terms of the topic, before I forget about it.

Kras, what's going on?

I I mean I mean to say I have things of substance that I need and would like to share with you.

And I understand how late it is and how late it's been.

Sammy, what's going on, brother?

I appreciate you.

I understand how late it's been, how late these streams have been.

I don't know what else to tell you except I'm busy.

I've been busy.

Alright?

I've been busy.

JB with the five.

Yeah.

I'm not really primarily a streamer anymore.

I mean, you may not see it, guys, but.

Like a lot of my future, I'm really banking on this book that I'm writing.

Like, for a lot of it.

Of course, we're fine.

I'm finalizing the manifesto, and we are doing that as well.

But my book, like, that's my heart and soul is really there right now.

But streaming is very important.

I'm just not a full-time streamer anymore.

And I'm very busy throughout the day, like, very busy on a given day.

But I decided that I was going to suit up and get ready for this stream because it's important.

I have important things to talk about that I wasn't able to talk about Tuesday, which was the MAGA communism thing I wanted to talk about.

I wasn't able to get to that on Tuesday.

So I'm making time for that today.

The Patreon is kind of dead.

And I have not done a Patreon QA in a long time.

So maybe we'll do that tonight.

Thank you for reminding me.

Uh yeah, we could do that tonight.

Sure, yeah, I'm seeing there's about twenty-one questions.

Okay, last time we did one was May.

It's been a long, long time.

Uh just been very busy guys.

Anyway, but I'm here now and uh there's a few things a few things we have to talk about.

Um, so just I'm just going to tell you now, not because I'm like, you know, trying to do this thing where I'm a streamer.

Here's the topics for t I'm telling it to you now so that you remind me in case I forget, because last time I forgot about one of the important topics.

So, there's a few things I want to touch on today.

Um, the first thing, let me think.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Nick Fuentes said some nonsense.

I could respond to that very quickly.

So there's that, there's the um there's the MAGA communism stuff.

And then there's this other thing I wanted to talk about, which was

Um

About capital and Marxism and the s academic nonsense I'm seeing on my timeline sometimes.

Uh people name-dropping me and shit, and they just don't wanna confront anything I say directly, so I'll just use the stream as an opportunity to respond.

Yo, artist, what's up?

So I'll talk about the Nick Fuentes thing that he said, and I guess it's kind of related.

I'll talk about the 2024 elections just a little bit.

So he said something, what did he say?

He said something like: I'm beginning to notice this new trend.

This is why I didn't want to say this in writing because it would be so misunderstood.

But what did he say?

He said something I'm sick of this new internationalist trend of Muslims and Communists who are getting involved, you know, um showing solidarity with other uh with other dictatorships, some something like that.

And then he goes, I'm a hundred percent America.

Yeah, MAGA communism, whatever he's saying.

So, to respond to that, he's 100% America with a 99% Irish, South African Boer, pan-European, and Catholic integralist margin of error.

This guy is not 100% American.

I mean, his biggest ally is Keith Woods, who's Irish.

Say what you want about us and our camp, but the highest ruling cliques, the upper echelons, let's call it that, of this entire movement is overwhelmingly and probably almost exclusively American.

We do have foreign friends, of course, but this movement is an American movement.

Okay, I mean, you look at myself, you look at the plenary committee of the ACP itself.

Um you look at you know, R T S G they're a mixed bunch, but

I mean, even they're mostly American.

Infrared is mixed, but it's probably mostly American.

But the movement as a whole is definitely mostly American.

ACP is definitely completely American.

We don't have to fly out foreigners for our events to have a showing, to have main all almost all of our influencers are Americans, so this is just nonsense.

But it's, you know, it speaks to the question: why do we care so much about the world and what's going on in the world and multipolarity?

He goes, you know, the Taliban stuff and the Russia stuff, that was just a joke for us.

But these guys, they're actually serious about it.

And it's like, yeah, we are serious about it.

That's the thing.

Like, it wasn't a it's not a joke for us.

We actually were and are serious, completely dead serious about it.

But it got me thinking about something that I want to talk about.

I think I might have touched on it before a little bit on stream.

But it's this it's this kind of problem I have honestly with the word globalism.

Because I'm not going to say it because it'll get clipped of me saying globalism is based.

Because people have an undialectical, one-sided view of things.

And they'll just pin you down on that.

But I would just like to remind everyone of the Hezbollah flag.

Okay?

Just begin from there.

Just begin from there.

And I want to introduce you to a concept that's different from gl if we understand globalism in terms of liberal universalism and bourgeois cosmopolitanism, of course we reject it.

But that is more a kind of ideology and an ideal and an aspiration.

But the the the dimension, let's call it that, of globality, that is not an idea, that is not a concept, that's actually an objective development of world history.

And some of the thinkers in the age of globality are like Malcolm X.

You know, Malcolm X was a thinker in the age of globality.

He was saying that instead of the civil rights movement constantly petitioning the US government, let's take it to the UN.

That's what Malcolm X was saying.

Um you know, uh a lot of the great freedom fighters of the nineteen seventies, sixties, these were thinkers in the age of globality.

You know, a lot of super-based people, um,

It's it it was a I'm uh

It's it's I I reject completely terrorism.

I have completely reject terrorism, but let's just say the PFLP and you know all these different types of groups, MK and South that that was all like a single global thing going on.

They were all working together like it there was no notion of narrow parochialism.

And I don't think that this dimension of activity and communication and reality and I don't think that can be called international anymore.

It's not enough to talk about internationalism.

That's kind of superfluous.

We are living in an age of globality, right?

The information age is inherently an age of globality.

The Iranian Revolution, that was a revolution in the age of globality.

It was, in a sense, globalist, right?

And I want to contrast that with the narrow parochialism of, you know, this small nationalism.

Which I think is totally bankrupt and is just the other side of the coin of bourgeois cosmopolitanism.

Globality is first of all uh we should recognize it as a dimension of world systems, okay?

And multipolarity is an alternate form.

Of globality.

Multipolarity, polarity itself is a category of globality.

I mean, a pole.

What is a poll?

A poll is a pole of the globe.

Okay, that's what a pole is.

The problem is not globality per se.

The problem is unipolarity, right?

Where there's only one pole, which doesn't even actually have the substantive quality of a pole.

But nonetheless, there's only one kind of hegemony that dominates the globe.

That's what we reject.

But we don't reject global civilization.

We don't reject the age of the internet and global communication and economic integration.

And we don't reject these kinds of things.

Of course not.

And if you don't believe me, think about Xi Jinping because he says the same thing I'm saying now.

He said there's a shared future for mankind.

And um we are not parochial, narrow minded people who are trying to LARP as if, you know, America exists in isolation from the rest of the world.

And I I find it interesting he talks about Muslim.

Because it's part of our the next infrared psyop, which is going to be Rocky Mountain Islam.

But um it's interesting because there's a very there's a very uh close relation in my view between Islam and this new kind of dimension of glo I meant I mentioned Malcolm X already, right?

And it's not the Islam of like, you know, the ISIS cosmopolitan, you know, antisocial national nihilists.

I totally reject that.

But

I do like this notion of a higher calling of humanity, which is not a prescriptive universalism, but rather a way.

that humanity as a whole can recognize itself in common

In a way that goes deeper than um than like a u liberal universalistic form of human rights or something that's it's more like at the level of the symbolic texture of the signifier, the word, right?

It's very difficult for me to explain this, but

And it's not like a global country or something or a global government I'm talking about.

It's just more of this kind of acknowledgement and recognition of one humanity, you know, which I kind of which in a sense I accept.

It's just difficult to talk about that when there's so much baggage according to which we associate this notion of one humanity with liberal universalism.

And on that front, Dugan's critiques are completely legitimate, completely legitimate, right?

But once we accept that critique, and once we accept multipolarity, and once we accept the kind of plurality of civilizations and histories and poles, to me, Islam is a kind of gateway to a new ability to re-derive a sense of the universal, at least in my view, right?

And I'm not talking about Salafism and all this non I'm talking about if anything, again, they call me like I'm a Sufi Freemason or something.

If anything, it's more a kind of mystical Sufi kind of view, right?

It's not it's definitely not uh

Like I said, I don't like to talk about religion a lot because you know who's going to come after me?

Actual established, you know, authoritative Muslims, whether they're Sunni, whether they're Shia, it doesn't matter.

If we try to create an American Islam, the first people that are going to try to destroy it are these established Muslims.

So I don't even talk about religion because I don't want to deal with it.

I'm already dealing with the gatekeepers.

Of Western Marxism, I don't need to deal with the gatekeepers of Islam either, right?

I don't, I can't fight a war on two fronts.

Once we conquer Marxism, we're gonna just kidding.

This is not we, this is literally just my crazy brain.

It's not even like the consensus of the rest of the infrared showrunners.

This is a purely Haas derangement, anyway.

Um

Anyway, uh, anyway, guys, sorry.

We're getting way ahead of ourselves, like, by probably by like 10 years or something.

Anyway, uh,.

Uh what was I saying?

So he's uh but but so I'm not ashamed of that at all.

I mean, this is a global war.

It's the mo I I am fully, fully committed to an American uh vanguard of multipolarity.

America as part of the multipolar world.

And that doesn't mean America will become some other country or lose its specificity, far to the contrary.

It means America can really be what it actually is.

Um

Because its relationship with the rest of the world becomes clear, with other civilizations.

When that can become clear, then what we are can become clear, right?

But he goes, you know, I'm only 100% America.

And it's like, in the age of the internet, it's kind of like there's no such thing, there's no such thing.

information and communication uh has no nation, really.

In order to return to a national specificity, you have to pass through the kind of dynamism and abstraction and, you know, um

And um

Uh how should I say

the kind of uh dimension of globality.

That's not

Cosmopolitanism.

Okay, that's they're very different.

Cosmopolitanism is national nihilism, it's a negation of the nation.

Uh, globality is just a dimension within which nations or civilizations can derive a context from or out of, right?

Uh, you know, it's like China, for example.

China has all of the dynamism and sophistication, and you know, um, it has all of the kind of avant-garde features of a global civilization, but it's still uniquely and specifically Chinese, you know.

That's what globality means.

It's not something that comes at the expense of national or civilizational specificity, on the contrary.

A unique pole of a globe gives expression to a global civilization in a unique way.

So for example, one of the features of global civilization is recognition of the other.

Rather than a narrow, parochial, exclusive nationalism, where according to some features of race or religion or ethnicity, you completely and totally exclude others.

In a global civilization, you can somehow integrate the recognition of others.

And liberals put the twist on this, calling it multiculturalism.

So for them, it's indiscriminate.

It's an indiscriminate integration of others.

But in China and Russia, it's actually different.

There's a recognition of others that they agree with global civilization, the respect for differences and right to autonomy and self-determination to an extent, tolerance of diversity, whatever you want to call it.

But it's in a uniquely Russian way.

It's in a uniquely Chinese way.

And moreover, it's determinate.

The various ethnic minorities and religious minorities in Russia have a historical relationship with the Russian ethnicities, right?

Same thing in China.

The Han ethnicity has a historical relationship with the Tibetans and the Uyghurs and all these other kinds of religions and so on and so on.

So it has the feature of global civilization of the recognition of the other, but it's in a determinate way, right?

And that is not narrow parochial nationalism.

That is a determinate globality.

That's what a pole is, you know?

That's what a civilization is.

A civilization is not a pure ethnic race of people to the exclusion of others.

A civilization is a specific way in which different people come into agreement with each other and coexist.

That's the meaning of civilization.

So, uh, I don't care though.

I don't care.

I mean, at this point, it's kind of ridiculous.

It's like right-wingers will cancel me.

I mean, I don't give a fuck.

Honestly, I don't give a fuck.

It's like, think of whatever you want.

In terms, oh, you're actually, it's like when Nick Fuentes was trying to cancel me, saying, Oh, you're complaining about racism.

It's like, so you're trying to cancel me from the right now?

I don't, if you're trying to cancel me from the left, you know, everyone knows what my response was.

But you're trying to cancel me from the right, it's the same response.

It's not different.

I'm going to say what I want and what I believe is true.

And I welcome anyone to respond to it substantively.

But this whole virtue signaling thing of, oh, you know, well, you know what?

Why don't you respond to what I have to fucking say, right?

Anyway, um.

And you know, our receipts speak for themselves.

I mean, Nick Fuentes, in the same breath that he's talking about, oh, we're too international, this guy upholds the global hegemony.

He wants regime change in Venezuela.

He, you know, he supports

He supports imperialism and colonialism.

As much as he says he wants a based Catholic version, translation, he supports the world system of American unipolar hegemony.

And that's why he has these allies like Keith Woods.

And that's why he's always, you know, he got upset about the fucking boars in South Africa and all that.

He's a white internationalist who believes in pure white Europe or whatever, as if that's something Americans should care about.

So he's just being a hypocrite.

Jackson and I, we will make friends with people around the world.

And we'll show them, you know, we'll show them like solidarity, but we're not gonna try to intervene in their affairs.

We're not gonna pretend like it's the exact same thing that what we're trying to do here is what we're what they're doing over there.

Like, for example, the American Communist Party, believe it or not, nobody, nobody gives us any orders.

I promise you that we take orders from no one, and we actually consider ourselves sovereign.

So when we're making friends with people from other countries,

That's a relationship of respect.

That's not a relationship of us going and taking orders from anyone.

That's a relationship built on respect, mutual respect.

You understand?

We are not.

We are not.

We are American communists.

You understand?

I don't know if this is somehow not understood.

We are the American Communist Party.

Okay?

We are fully sovereign.

We are the American Communist Party, and nobody will ever have anything to do with us unless they give us the proper respect and recognition befitting of that title.

You know?

And yeah, we have a sense of pride in this.

And it's kind of crazy.

I mean, it sounds like this is insanity, but it's like at this point.

You know, a great deal of my patriotism for this country is attached to the pride I have in this party.

Like, oh, you're you're patriotic, Haz.

Like, yeah, I'm patriotic for the vision of America that's being forwarded by the American Communist Party.

Like, that's what I'm patriotic for, our red flag, our banner, our Communist Party, you know?

It's kind of like that.

Um

So yeah, that's it's very different though.

It's like we're not

We understand the global context of our domestic struggle.

We understand that struggling against the regime is inseparable from the imperialist global system upon which it rests.

So I feel like that addresses everything, honestly.

Now, what uh what else?

Okay, MAGA communism.

Now, um

I think Jehu

Or someone, or I don't know.

Some people were kind of confused because I Pamphlets DM'd me and he's like, Wow, I like how you guys are doing this ACP thing and you know, there was some concern about MAGA communism.

I was like, Yeah, well, MAGA communism was just a slogan, you know, and ev even a kind of meme.

And then he shared that, and then so people are like, They're like, oh, so Haas, you're claiming that you were just joking the whole time and you weren't serious?

Okay, well.

Clearly I was serious Clearly I was serious about MAGA Communism.

But that doesn't change the fact that it was a meme.

And then you put two and two together, and what am I actually saying?

I'm saying that memes are dead serious.

In the information age, memes are not just jokes, as funny as they can be.

And there is, of course, always an element of irony in a meme.

Memes are dead serious.

And I can actually prove that and explain that theoretically, which is what I wanted to do last time, but which I forgot to do.

So let me explain what a meme actually is.

Now

Uh sit down and don't fall asleep and you know pay close attention to what I'm gonna tell you.

Now there is an established and most importantly accredited way by which we make sense of the world as a given society.

And notice I use the word accredited, given its proper credentials by institutions.

And obviously, in a Western society, in capitalist society, let's say, that is the view of the institutional bourgeoisie, right?

Which is, of course, one-sided and undialectical.

It's a view of reality.

It's even an ontology, if you want to call it that.

according to which uh everything real conforms to the selfsame rigidity and identity of a concept or an idea.

Right, so for something to be real, it is a selfsame form.

This is the basic precept of ideal the idealist outlook that underlies bourgeois civilization, if you can call it that, right?

So, it's a view of reality according to which contradictions have no place.

It's a view of reality according to which.

R reality consists in the the um

The selfsame consistency of form, right?

Insofar as the content of reality can be validated according to a preconceived form, it is real.

That's why in bourgeois metaphysics, you know, and Lenin will write about this too when he's critiquing the skepticism of empiricists or whatever.

You know, they will really say, oh, you know, the truth is not real.

You know, nothing is real, actually, because we can't actually say anything about reality because, you know, our measurement of reality is always imperfect and it's always subject to change.

We don't know for certain if that's actually the truth of reality.

It's always subject to change and so on and so on.

Lenin is dealing with something much more specific, right?

Imperial criticism.

But this is the basic kind of positivistic outlook, which, you know, it claims to reject metaphysics, but it's basically a view of reality according to which, you know, you have a preconceived kind of method, and as far as the content of reality conforms or can be validated by that method, it passes the test of being real, right?

So, I don't want to get too much into this stuff.

I hope everyone's paying attention.

I see people gibbering about fucking nothing in the chat.

But this is kind of the uh the the the the the um official uh legitimated and accredited metaphysical view of reality, right?

So this is this is the default view of institutions.

Anything that doesn't pass through the test of this kind of

Originating in empiricism, but today they'll call it, you know, fucking post-positivism, whatever.

But anything that doesn't pass the criterion of self-same formal rigidity, first of all, does not have the status, metaphysical status of reality.

And so nothing can actually pass through that.

What they will say is, okay, this has credibility.

This has there's evidence for this.

Right?

Experts agree.

They legitimate and they entertain this.

So we don't have absolute proof of anything, but at least here they're onto something, right?

Because of the scientific method or something.

I'm kind of botching and very, very radically simplifying this.

Okay, so there's a conventional way in which we

Except, there's an authoritative way in which reality can be made sense of.

So, what are memes?

Well, in essence, a meme is

It's a way of representing reality that, for whatever reason, for one way or another, right, cannot be reduced to the form of conceptual thinking, to the selfsame consistency of a concept.

For example, look at the chat in the Soyjack meme, right?

It's like.

Something about that just makes sense, right?

It just makes sense immediately.

And then after the fact, you will run you'll twist yourself in a pretzel trying to explain that by reducing it to the form of conceptual thinking.

The minute you try to explain a meme, like rationally or logically, is how people would put it, something about the meme gets lost.

Something about what it actually is gets lost, right?

Well, why is that?

Because according to bourgeois rationalism and the narrow sense of logic within idealism,

Um, the undialectical idealism, I should rather say.

Uh

Uh th things can must have they must conform to the law of identity.

They must be self same.

formally self same objects, right?

They must kind of have the quality of conceptual and logical and formal consistency.

And anything that doesn't have that isn't real.

Now, in everyday language, in our everyday intuitions, and our everyday experience of reality, um

Propositional logic is not what what what what has supreme um

Uh

Significance, right?

I mean, like, what people will say is, well, there's the lot you can be like Spock from whatever, what's his name?

Spock from Star Trek, where I'm just gonna think logically.

Or, you know, but we're humans and we're animals, so we have passions and we have emotions.

So there's this distinction between like the pure logical thinking and the animalistic, passionate, animal side.

And that's how most people reconcile the obvious inability for one-sided, formalistic, rigid thinking to actually be applied to how, in our everyday sense, we.

we experienced reality, right?

But that's just a complete nonsense cope.

You know, the the the passionate, contradictory and whatever uh emotional side of the human psych is not animalistic.

Animals don't dream like we do.

They don't have sub they don't um fixate on desires and fantasies like we do.

They don't um They don't have this kinds of angst that we do, right?

They don't uh have drives like we do in the sense of uh psychological drives.

They don't have pathological psychological fixations, okay, which clearly disturb the integrity of any kind of serene stoic, you know, conceptual thinking.

Or rigidity.

Animals are animals, sure, but they're not.

Animals are not like crazy, okay?

They're not like the animals you see on TV, like where there's a shark attack on TV and the shark is just so angry and it's so aggressive.

It's like, have you ever seen an animal attack another animal, like a predator versus prey?

It's very quick and it's very snappy, and it's not really persistent.

It's I never see persistence.

I never see the tiger like trying to break through a door, trying to, at all costs, like like attack someone like a monster does.

That is something different.

That's like the Freudian death drive.

That's not what bestial animals do.

Bestial animals.

Will go up to pray.

I mean, like, they'll try and then they'll fail, and they'll just turn around and just give up and sit down and chew grass.

It's all I don't want to even talk about this vulgar topic, but and put trust me when I say this, you want to understand what separates man from animal?

Man tries repeatedly after getting rejected.

The animal doesn't.

Animals really are quick to give up.

They're very quick to give up.

Like, no matter what it is, no matter what we're talking about here, getting food, whatever.

I don't want to.

Whatever.

They're very quick to just give up because it's not a pathological fixation for them.

It's not a psychological fixation that they're obsessing about and fantasizing about and having desires about and having these kinds of drives, death drive about.

It's more kind of just a snappy affect that they have, which is very ephemeral and very, very much not something that lasts forever, right?

It's very temporary.

Uh men look at the sky.

It's not what I'm saying at all.

It's kind of fucking retarded, honestly.

It's not what I'm saying at all.

Men look at the sky and ponder.

I mean, I'm not fucking saying that.

I'm saying human beings have angst, okay?

Human beings have a death drive.

We're like, it's that compulsion to repeat that animals do not have.

Anyway, we're kind of getting ahead of ourselves.

Um

We're getting ahead of ourselves.

No, animals don't have a subconscious either.

Anyway, I want to talk about this vegan stuff and tread these old waters.

I'm just trying to explain how.

The in in the Western um prevailing Reddit, let's say approved form of

Making sense of reality, we tend to throw different aspects of experiencing reality into two boxes: the pure logical side, like SPOC.

Anonymous, what's up?

Thank you for the five.

Appreciate you.

We tend to have two categories.

We throw we categorize different aspects of our humanity: the SPOC logical way, which is you know totally robotic and formalistic and mechanical, and then the emotional way, which is animalistic and irrational.

And the truth is, both of these are false categories, which just reflect an inability to understand what reason is, an inability to understand what the human actually is.

You're torn between these two false categories.

First of all, a false category of what true reality is, truth.

Everyone agrees, oh, the truth is Spock from Star Trek.

It's the formalistic, mechanical, robotic view of reality.

But we have this animalistic warm side.

So that's why we're imperfect.

You know, as if God is like an analytical philosopher, nerd, and because of our animalistic past, we're just too imperfect to be like God is, who's like Spock from Star Trek.

He's like a big computer or something.

That's satanic nonsense.

No, the truth is it's a false notion of reality that's the problem.

It's a f it's a notion of reality as such which doesn't include contradiction, which doesn't which doesn't include you know the the

the kind of uh Freudian death drive, let's say.

Uh or the Hegelian, right, the Hegelian contradiction as such within it.

Actually, I think this is why the Hegelian e-girls are really disturbing everyone.

Because why are they Hegelian e-girls?

Think about it.

Because Spock, who is the mechanical, formalistic, whatever, the logical side of things, and then there's the female emotional side of things.

And it's like, here come the Hegelian e-girls who are totally messing that up.

They're actually insisting upon the fact that at the level of Logos, at the level of truth itself, actually, no, Spock is wrong, and that Hegel, who is this kind of quintessential hysteric, like that's what Žizek says at least, actually Hegel is correct.

And Hegel is the one who can include and account for the so-called feminine side of things, the emotional, the irrational, whatever, and include that within this kind of notion of what truth and reality is.

So to me, it makes a ton of sense why that phenomena is.

is making the waves that it is and disturbing so many people because

According to the prevailing n view of reality that's sanctioned b institutionally and even in a sense civilizationally, um reality is something one-sided and sanctioned by institutions and subordinated to conceptual thinking, right?

Uh rea uh the terms of reality as subordinated and reducible to the form of a concept.

As opposed to the more kind of libidinal, you know um

um kind of objects of desire and drive and this something the the the the kind of object A that makes more sense in the digital age, which clearly that's not reducible to a concept.

Like look at any given meme.

The Chad the Soy Jack meme.

That's the concept has a lot of explaining to do, which just is takes too long.

But what how it how you intuitively make sense of that is just very quickly, right?

So what's going on here?

Uh what is a meme?

A meme is a more direct and immediate expression of signifiers.

Signifiers, in the Lacanian psychoanalytic sense, signifiers are inherently contradictory, let's call them formations within the unconscious, right?

Symptoms of the unconscious would be more accurate, but to simplify it for you, I'll say formations.

Um.

Which uh kind of uh which kind of uh

Which which are uh how should I say it?

Saying formed would not be really correct.

Saying reflect would not be totally correct either.

They um

They are bent and warped in the shape of the re the contradictions, not only within reality, but the uh the inherently contradictory nature of our relationships with those reality at the level of our activity as human beings.

Let's put it that way.

So that's what signifiers are.

They're more fundamental ways in which reality is structured within our subconscious.

Let's put it that way.

And signifiers are inherently contradictory.

Although they make sense to us, but when you reduce them to a form of a concept, which is a secondary form of activity, so put it this way: there's a primary type of activity, unconscious.

It's the sphere of what Freud calls the death drive, right?

Which is a more fundamental relationship to the world and to reality and to how it's structured, so to speak.

Like the Marxist relations of production, right?

And then there's a secondary activity, which is consciousness, which is how we reflect that in our minds and in our heads.

So this is the kind of issue philosophically a lot of people have.

They're like, okay, what is it?

Is it first there's a reality and then our minds reflect the reality?

And then, you know, you have this dualism between the world of reason and the world of logos and the world of nature and the world of chaos or whatever.

But the truth of the matter is that consciously, what our minds are reflecting consciously is not just a purely external reality.

It's also a reality we ourselves are culpable in structuring and creating just in ways that are not voluntarily or consciously prefigured or known by us.

So Mark says, he says, men and women make history, but not as they please.

So we are the ones responsible for creating the reality, you know, that we try to then consciously understand.

It's just that we don't create that reality voluntarily.

We don't create it according to a plan we have beforehand.

We are thrown into it, so to speak, before we have the time to draw conscious conclusions about it.

Okay, so keep that in mind.

So, um

So memes, uh because of the information age and what do you think information is, memes have a much more proximate and direct relationship to the realm of unconscious signifiers.

They are these immediate phenomenal expressions of unconscious signifiers that bypass uh conceptual or rational thinking.

I know I put rational in parentheses because

I reject both bourgeois rationalism and irrationalism.

They're two sides of the same coin.

There is a rationality, so to speak.

Of, let's say, the symbolic order, which isn't reducible to a self-relation of ideas or concepts.

Okay, so um that's what memes are.

and as such they are inherently contradictory.

And why memes have acquired so much relevance is.

Anytime there's this new development in reality that our institutions can't make sense of, right?

That the authoritative and established and conventional way of making sense of reality can't account for, the immediate reaction we have to that is irony.

It's ironic.

And so we make fun of it because it's funny.

I mean, look at Trump.

There's an established and conventional way of American presidential elections and campaigns.

And then here you have Trump and it's like, what the hell?

This is so out of place.

It's like, this is funny.

It's funny how much this is out of place from what it's supposed to be, right?

So that's why Trump was a living meme because there was something about him that was just not just novel and new, but new in a way that couldn't be accounted for according to our conventional way of making sense of reality.

So he acquired the status of a meme.

But literally, every single meme, every single meme is like that.

For example, even the first memes, I remember them, I was in high school.

Like a boss.

What were those memes called?

Rage Comics.

What was so funny about those memes?

Uh not funny, just potent.

What was so potent about those memes?

Well, the potency of the memes consisted in the fact that somehow, for whatever reason, these silly little comics and photos could capture and encapsulate our moods and you know dispositions and sentiments and emotions in a in a much more kind of raw and effective way than like a rational conceptual kind of self-expression could.

And something about that was funny to us.

There was something funny about how I could draw a stupid face

And it's so relatable, and it's even more relatable than if I try to rationally explain it.

And according to our, you know, let's call it idealist prejudices, that's not supposed to be the case.

And yet, voila, here it is.

You know, Neil deGrasse Tyson, whoa, we got a badass over here.

Somehow is more relatable than you know, just spelling it out rationally.

And it's like that to us was something ironic and funny.

So it was a meme.

So all memes, that's all memes are.

That's all they are, right?

Yo, what the fuck?

Smudly!

Oh my god!

Smudly coming through with a wow!

Smudly.

Smuddly, wow Holy shit

Um

Wow, smudly, I appreciate it.

Thank you so much, Smartly.

Shout out Smudly, man.

I don't Smudly's getting VIP at the event.

I don't remind me of that too, by the way.

We're gonna have a VIP section.

Bottle service, you name it.

Non-alcoholic though.

Come on.

Just kidding.

You know what?

100 subs.

Smudly can.

He can drink whatever.

He can even eat pork.

We'll even get him a if he wants.

He can have a whole pig.

Anyway, uh

So that's all memes are.

That's all they are.

And okay, so we know that they're related to irony, and this is a kind of ironic way of giving expression to this.

And the fact that.

The fact that uh ironic

The fact that Ironic is um

Is funny and is the default way because it's enjoyable, because it's a way for us to enjoy.

Uh as far as I know, you don't know my identity, so I'm safe from any attention.

Smodley, what's up, brother?

Um

What's going on, bro?

It's all up to you, man.

Brutal, what's up?

Sublime, what's going on, man?

I appreciate you.

I appreciate you a lot, Smuddly.

I mean that.

Um

Anyway, I was saying

Uh

It's because it's a way for us to enjoy that.

Because the information age and social media and the internet, it's been very disorienting and it's caused a lot of changes in reality that we don't immediately have ways of making sense of, according to the conventional and accredited and officiated, established ways.

So it's a way for us to kind of feel like the authority is being embarrassed.

It's a way for us to feel like the experts and the scientists and the academics and our teachers at school and the president himself is being humiliated and embarrassed by something that makes sense to us but which they're not able to explain.

Hot take, what's up?

It's like there's nothing funnier than the emperor wearing no clothes.

There's nothing funnier than like if you're in high school and like the teacher like their pants fall down or something.

It's like it's funny.

It's not supposed to happen, but here we are, right?

That's what memes are.

That's why memes have been such a vector in the direction of the far right.

Because when it comes to political taboos, which don't necessarily have positive content, it's not like the far right is offering like a new vision of society in the world.

It's more like they're offering a kind of embarrassing...

Embarrassing attempt to humiliate at all costs everything the

The authority, let's call it, you know, stands for, which is liberal society believes.

So all of the antisocial taboos

when given political expression

That's why the right wing owns the meme game, right?

Um

Until we came along.

It took a Lacanian to understand what's going on and totally destroy them.

Anyway, uh.

Anyway, I want to keep talking about this because it's really important when it comes to the manga communism thing.

So, this is what memes are.

So, although they're funny and they're ironic, it's dead serious about what's going on, right?

Memes are giving expression to and they're representing, let's say, signifiers.

Uh in ways that

Um there are no conventional means uh to make sense of.

In a way that's compatible with, you know, the the let's call it the fundamental fantasy of liberal society.

And uh not just liberal society, but but but um

Capitalist society as a whole.

I mean, we're entering a new mode of production with this information age and the fourth industrial revolution and so on and so on.

Social media, it's it's a total game changer.

And the old way of making sense of the world, all the old ideologies, all the everything, everything is just a kind of joke.

Okay, so

So the takeaway here is it's like a more direct raw feed into the symbolic order, bypassing conceptual mediation.

And conceptual mediation, those are the academic institutions, those are the scientific institutions, those are the political institutions, all built upon this kind of basis of idealism.

And it's just totally being bypassed immediately, just like directly, right?

And um

That's what it is.

Memes connect you to the platonic world of ideas.

Artist,

Artist, how badly should I roast you right now?

Let me see.

Artists, I get that you're a sub and you are you've gifted subs, but I'm gonna be fair and just say you are really fucking it up, like big time.

And, like, let's say, I don't even know, like, you should go to fucking jail for saying that.

If I was dictator, you'd be in jail.

For saying that dumb shit.

The platonic world of ideas.

Isn't that kind of the opposite of what I'm trying to say though?

Aren't I trying to say that ideas and concepts are the result of a more secondary type of conscious mental activity?

And that the order of signifiers, that's not a platonic realm of ideas, it's a more fundamental kind of

Unconscious structure of reality that's born of our material relationship to the world and to ourselves.

Those are unconscious symptoms are not ideas.

They're not ideas.

They are circuits of jouissance, if you will, right?

Circuits of enjoyment.

They're specific forms, let's call it, of the compulsion to repeat.

They are contortions of the underlying death drive, the underlying Freudian death drive, right?

So that that is a very different thing than ideas.

Platonic ideas, that is some n nonsense, okay?

Uh total nonsense.

I mean, like

Yikes Yikes

It's time to take the Aristotle pill too, honestly.

It's like Hegel was not really a Platonist.

I don't know if you guys know that.

Hegel was kind of more like Aristotle.

Hegel didn't believe in Platonic ideas.

He didn't believe in the kind of Platonic pretense of eternal ideas that are se separate from reality somehow.

All the ideality of some if you read Hegel's logic, something's ideality is just what it is.

And and it's it's it's inseparable from

It's kind of uh worldly reality.

It's inseparable.

Yeah, yeah, I know I've told you to read Plato before as a beginning because Plato is the beginning, but my Plato is a Scythian Plato, my Plato is a barbaric Plato, my Plato is not a Greek pederast Plato, my Plato is a Mongol Plato, so it's a Zoraster, it's a kind of Persian fire worshipper Plato, very different.

Very different, very different.

I'm a materialist, Plato.

The gorillas and sons, it's a materialist Platonic Sun.

How do you know?

Because there's a fucking gorilla in front of it representing the primordial kind of material humanity.

Anyway, this is too advanced for most of you.

You get the meme, so it fucking works.

You don't even have to know the back end thinking that goes into it.

You don't have to, because it makes sense.

When you see that gorilla and sun, it makes sense.

I don't have to explain it to you, it makes sense.

Anyway, um

Anyway, uh what was I saying?

Don't let LaRouche I don't give a fuck, dude.

I mean, that's the problem is that some people took the stupid claim that we're LaRouchites seriously and were like, All right, we're LaRouchites now.

It's like, but we're not and we never were.

Okay, sorry.

Anyway, uh

Just because we I went to a Schiller conference one time in my life doesn't mean I'm a Lyndon LaRouche follower.

It just means I'm not allergic to everything he's ever said.

Um anyway

No, Heraclitus is not.

I mean, I don't wanna talk about this right now.

By the way, there's no way we're doing a Patreon Q and A.

We'll do that next time.

Sorry guys.

I've I've been I've I've been rambling too long about this topic.

Anyway, let's go back to the topic of memes and stuff.

Uh.

So why what makes MAGA communism a meme?

What makes MAGA communism a meme is that, first of all,

It was always, I was always very upfront about the fact that at the level of conceptual thinking, it is contradictory.

I mean, of course, it is.

But

Why was it so effective as a meme?

Because there is something about it that still made sense at the symbolic level.

And a lot of people were literally losing their minds and turning themselves into a pretzel.

Trying to reconcile the contradiction between, okay, at the one hand, at a conceptual level, this is total nonsense and it's totally stupid.

But on the other hand, there's something about this at the subconscious level, our intuitive sensibilities, that just makes so much sense and it's so persuasive to people.

There's something about that that just like clicks for people.

We're like, you know what?

There's something to that, right?

But there was no way for people to make sense of it conceptually, right?

So that's why a lot of people got MAGA communism derangement syndrome.

Let's call it that.

MC.

DS, right?

MAGA communism derangement system syndrome.

Why did they get that?

Because of the contradiction between the

Uh it's its value, let's say, at the conceptual level and its value at this kind of more intuitive level of the signifier.

Um

So, in this sense, MAGA communism was a meme.

And also, it was funny, and we enjoyed it as a funny meme.

But that doesn't mean we didn't take it seriously.

Because honestly, if you read the substack, what was the serious message behind MAGA communism?

Like, think about this for one moment.

What was the serious message behind it?

I said it, I said it the whole time, right?

The serious message behind it was that the conventional way in which we make sense of politics in America has broken down.

the so called political spectrum.

Like it's no longer an uh it can no longer account for new developments in reality.

That doesn't mean left wing and right wing are gone.

Like

Historically, or even in the contemporary moment, that we weren't saying, oh, we transcended left and right.

There is a reason I began the substack saying it's not syncreticism.

We're not saying we're transcending left and right.

We're saying that in America, the conventional and institutionally accredited way in which we've made sense of politics.

has collapsed.

You know?

And it's like that's what it proved.

And what was the so that's the negation aspect.

What is the positive content of that fact?

There's this new form of popular sovereignty called MAGA, cybernetic form of popular sovereignty, and that's our new square one for politics.

We don't have to begin with the Democrats or Bernie, we don't have to begin with the Republicans either.

We can just begin with this new meme politics of MAGA.

Because it's not really a meme.

And how can I prove to you it's not just a meme?

You know what country takes memes dead seriously?

China does.

Xi Jinping thought, all of the slogans and campaigns, harmonious civilization, Mao Zedong thought, beginning from Mao Zedong thought actually, those are not concepts.

Those don't have the rigidity of selfsame conceptual forms.

And yet at a social level, at the level of all of Chinese society, what is meant by Xi Jinping thought?

What is meant by all of these different slogans representing the party's direction and orientation?

They all make sense.

They don't have the consistency of a pure concept or a pure idea.

They don't have the they don't they don't make sense according to the rigid confines of propositional logic.

Yet they are just kinds of direct expressions of the symbolic order as it finds reality in China, if that makes sense, like the reality of Chinese civilization and politics and society.

And these memes are not funny in China because there's nothing ironic about them.

Because dialectics has become institutionalized in China because it's a communist state, it's a proletarian dictatorship.

Dialectics are taken for granted by everyone at an institutional level.

The fact that there are novel developments in reality, which there was no way to make sense of before, but which now require a new way of giving expression, that doesn't cause turmoil in society.

That doesn't overthrow the state.

That doesn't cause conflicts.

That doesn't lead to a kind of joker-esque, everything is a joke, you know, meme, ironic.

No, I mean, it's just superfluous.

They understand that because their very ontology, their very way of making sense of reality is from the outset already dialectical.

It's already accounting for the fact that contradictions are real, right?

And that it's not something that threatens the integrity of civilization itself to them.

So, memes in China are not funny because there's no need for them to be funny, because they're just what reality is.

this this more direct way of making sense of new developments within reality, and then the party finally officiating it with slogans and new kinds of thought, Xi Jinping thought, and so on and so on.

Um, new synthesis.

Marxism-Leninism.

I'll go so far and say something that in some context should get me shot.

But as long as I clarify what I mean, Marxism-Leninism is not a philosophy, okay?

It's not a concept, it's actually much closer to meme than it is to philosophy.

Marxism-Leninism.

Um

Is a direct, direct expression of real political authority and real changes in reality.

Like socialism in one country is not a concept, it was a fact of the circumstances of the Soviet Union at the time.

And all Stalin was doing is naming it.

It was a meme, if you will.

It was a meme that wasn't funny and wasn't ironic, but it was just this more direct and immediate.

um expression of information that comes directly from the source of the unconscious order of signifiers as they were being as they were uh ordered

In the circumstances of the Soviet Union at the time.

Um

So, in communist states, like memes are not jokes, they're not funny.

They're like literally just the default of reality.

So,

The re uh we have placed less of an emphasis on MA communism now, not because we repudiate the whole thing as a joke, but because we no longer find enjoyment in laughing about it anymore.

We are now drawing the serious conclusions and implications from it, and that's what the American Communist Party is.

There's no need to call it MAGA Communism anymore.

Like as much as we do, I guess, because um

The way we describe and refer to reality and politics, it's like we don't need to clarify that we're not Democrats.

We don't need to clarify that we're not like the DSA.

All of those people are scared to call themselves communists in public for a reason, okay?

They they're literally called the Democratic Socialists of America.

How many of these people are calling themselves communists publicly?

And the ones that are, they're very marginal.

I'm sorry.

But it's like we don't need there's a there's enough of a surrealism in an American Communist Party

It transcends memes.

It's like look at our party launch.

Look at our party launch video.

That's dead serious.

But it's somehow not reducible to a conceptual

You know, uh like logic

Of self-same consistency and whatever, but it's like there's something about it very inspiring and it's tapping into something.

And it's like it's that kind of new sincerity.

It's the post-irony.

It's the horizon of a post-ironic era of politics that we are interested in participating and leading, right?

Um

So it's like we don't repudiate our past.

Every single one of the memes Infrared launched.

Were necessary to get us where we are now.

It's like just because Stalin wasn't, you know, placing emphasis on collectivization in 1943 in the middle of a war, doesn't mean that he repudiates the collectivization campaign.

It means that is a stage which has passed.

Yo, Florence, what's going on?

So I want to be clear about that.

Anyway, guys, I hope that wasn't too complicated.

Now I want to talk about economics because it's being brought to my attention that there's a new retard going around claiming that every single job in any relationship where someone is paid a wage to do something and that enterprise is making profit, that that is always a case of surplus value being created by that employee because by virtue only of the fact of being paid a wage and by virtue only of the fact of the relationship itself.

And that's all you need.

All you need is some abstract transcendental relationship with no mediation in the actual creation of material wealth and reality.

It's just a woeful misunderstanding of what Marx was saying.

Marx never divorced social relationships of production from material relationships of production.

He never divorced capitalism from being a mode of production, a mode of material production.

He didn't reduce it to some idealist gibber of being a purely transcendental social relationship.

What he did insist upon, and why he emphasized the historically specific nature of capitalist social relations, is because he was trying to say there is nothing about empirical reality, let's say, by itself.

There's no eternal laws of nature that automatically give rise to.

to uh value, you know, uh to surplus value, to uh the the peculiar qualities and features of the mode of production we live in.

He wasn't saying you don't actually it doesn't actually need to be contextualized and grounded in a material production.

He was just saying it's it can't be solely reduced to that.

So there's a key difference.

He wasn't saying that all it takes for surplus value to be created is to jus just to you know give a wage to someone and then for profit to be made in isolation.

And how do I know that's not what he said?

Because I've read volume three.

Because I've read volume three where he says explicitly that surplus value is a category that is only meaningful, he can only meaningfully refer to surplus value in the aggregate.

In other words, as produced by society as a whole.

So there are many sectors of the society which are profitable, that is, raking in more money than what they initially started off with investing with.

But which are just redistributing surplus from other sectors of the economy in order so everything levels out into an average rate of profit.

Surplus value is produced at the aggregate level.

Not every industry is producing surplus value.

Many industries are parasitic.

They're taking surplus value produced elsewhere and they're redistributing it for the subsistence of that particular industry and enterprise.

The credit system and speculation is the best example of this.

Bitcoin doesn't produce surplus value.

It's a way of redistributing value that is produced elsewhere and pumping it into somewhere else.

But anyway, that's just talking about the 19th century.

Today

It's debatable as to whether there is any profit at all being produced anywhere and whether we can refer to surplus value meaningfully in the same way Marx did in the 19th century.

I think that should be a debate.

I don't think anyone can draw definite conclusions and start canceling people for...

I mean, Marx didn't even finish capital.

And I'm saying this because most industries will never pay off the capital that was necessary either in speculative investment or in loans from banks that was advanced to them in order to actually

Start producing profit.

Uh all of these industries, you name it, they're not producing profit.

Service industries, not even just service industries, Toyota is in debt.

It's a car company.

They're not producing profit, they're in debt.

They need investment and they need lines of credit to be pumped into them to continue subsisting.

And it will never be paid off.

That's what this people are missing.

It's like it's not going to be, they're like, well, once it's paid off, it's never paid off.

That's what you're not understanding.

The indebtedness of the economy is such that the initial capital is never paid off through profits.

So they're not really profits.

They're profits only when we take them in isolation from the bigger picture of this whole fucking company still being indebted.

And even in the case where it's not indebted, you know, directly.

The initial capital that was advanced to it in the form of speculative investment is never paid off.

So, for example, let's say a company is given, this is a stupid example, let's say a company is given $50 million to start, right?

In almost every case, the company never makes enough profit to pay to match that initial 50 million investment.

So it's never actually the self-valorizing process of capital anymore.

It's not capital valorizing itself.

That's a precondition for the for Marx, productive labor valorizes capital.

It initiates the process by which from nothing but labor, capital expands and valorizes itself and grows.

But in today's economy, whatever you want to call it, capitalist, whatever, that is not how enterprises work.

And that's what I talked about in my video.

Now, I've studied this and it's like I'm not drawing

So we know this.

Now, how do we understand surplus value in the 21st century?

It's really hard.

Something interesting I've noticed is just look at the country the companies that make the most profit margins.

I've noticed it's two types of companies.

One of them is Energy.

makes sense.

Energy is a proxy for the entire economy.

And then on the opposite end of it, energy is the most primitive thing.

It's just a raw material, right?

But on the opposite end, the most advanced product of our mode of production that requires the most amount of supply chains are the chips.

NVIDIA, the chip companies in Taiwan, whatever.

They make like 50, 60% profit margins, 40 to 60, something like that.

Profit margins that seem to be able to catch up with the total amount of capital advanced in order to

Um, produce them, produce those margins.

So that is something I find interesting.

Um

But this is why I think Michael Hudson is worth more than all Western Marxists, because they don't talk about debt.

I'm sorry, but the whole debt thing, I mean, please stop LARPing and pretending like you know, oh yeah, I'm just gonna one for one apply capital, not even capital, just capital Volume one.

And for these idiots, I need to explain this, and uh just so my ed audience is educated.

You know, most of the project of capital, it's crazy, right?

But it's actually called a critique of political economy.

Marx.

Wasn't really

Like

proposing his own theory.

necessarily, always, he was giving he was presenting the conventionally established theories of classical political economy and working through the contradictions and inconsistencies

and trying to derive conclusions thereof on that basis.

I see so many people cite theories of surplus value where Marx is paraphrasing Adam Smith.

And just presenting what Adam Smith was saying about productive labor.

He wasn't even talking about what he himself was saying.

He was just saying this is what these guys are saying productive labor is.

And people make it seem like that's what Marx himself is saying.

And it's like, well, no.

And all I can say is that when you look at Marx's commentary and critique of political economy, I don't know how you can draw the conclusion that capitalism for him and capitalist relations could be divorced from material production.

Marx even gives the physiocrats credit for acknowledging a material basis.

He just rejects the view that it can be reduced to one specific form of, let's say, technology, which is agriculture.

In capitalism, the constant revolutionizing of the productive forces is such, this is why, like, for example, people always try to cite Marx saying, oh, it doesn't matter what type of labor it is.

This is not what establishes so-and-so as a capitalist relation.

It's like, well, Marx was not trying to say that the relationship can exist in isolation from its actual material premises in material production.

What he was rather trying to say is that it couldn't be reduced to a specific form of material production.

For example, there's different forms of material production because there's different revolutions in the productive forces.

producing cars is not the same form of activity as far as nature is concerned as producing uh linen coats in the nineteenth century.

So you can't affix to a specific technological paradigm some eternal laws of

Of human nature or production and so on, because the productive forces are constantly revolutionizing.

But it doesn't change the fact that they still have to be materially grounded.

They still have to be grounded in the production of material wealth for society, like the production and reproduction of human beings ultimately, which is what Engels says, right?

So these people, I don't understand the stupidity.

It's like, no, of course Marx was not saying capitalist relations.

I mean, think about how stupid it is.

How does capitalism even arise from feudalism?

Or how could socialism even arise from capitalism if capital is just this like pure transcendental horizon, totally divorced from any contrary material reality?

And it's that they literally believe that.

They're Gnostics.

They believe capitalism is this transcendental, you know, Gnostic, demiurgic prison.

Prison world, it's just fundamentally inescapable.

Oh, capital is inescapable, capital is all-powerful.

And this is what these hipster gibberers say: it's like, well, no, capitalism only arises as a particular mode of production because it's a mode of production, it's a specific way of giving expression, it's a specific way humanity is producing materially its own existence, it's not a transcendental.

Ideal relationship.

It's not a transcendental aesthetic of the mind.

Capitalist relations are not transcendental relationships of the mind.

Okay.

They are relationships rooted in production.

They are relations rooted in production.

Okay.

I don't know why I need to say this because Marx literally says this like thousands of times, but here we are.

Capitalist relations, because these people are like neo-Kantians.

These people, they're like neo-Kantians who are like, oh, capitalist relations of production.

And they're fixated on how these relations obfuscate our relationship to reality and all this kind of stuff.

And it's like capitalist realism with Mark Fisher.

And it's like, well, what about how it's actually based in material production?

It's not reducible to that.

We're not saying that.

Marx didn't say that.

But it's inseparable from it.

Without that context, it's meaningless to talk about.

It's meaningless to talk about outside that context.

You can't talk about capitalist relations of production if you're not talking about a specific form of production.

We're not denying the specificity of that form, but we are insisting upon the fact that it is a form of material production, like actually producing material wealth and the conditions, the natural conditions of the subsistence of man.

So it's just kind of ridiculous.

It's like, well, yeah, of course it's rooted in the expansion of material wealth and and like what is necessary to actually and you know what even if you want to play these like uh idealist postmodern games I will meet you there.

I can talk to you about how blue collar let's say productive labor

um material labor rooted in physical production uh has within the transcendental horizon or whatever, like that has a more fundamental unconscious significance.

I'll meet you there.

I'll meet you there.

That's that's as far as you, the idealists, are concerned, that is ground zero of the Platonic realm of ideas.

Okay?

You want to talk about the transcendental capitalist relations of production.

Those are being materially reproduced and not just reproduced in terms of people's ideas.

At the level of something physical.

Like nature itself is not some metaphysical purport.

Nature is the otherness.

For you, idealists, right, for Hegel, nature is the otherness, the negation.

So yes, the context of capitalism's capitalism does not just create itself.

This is kind of like Nick Land's idea of like a runaway AI and coming from the future and dangering the conditions of its own possibility.

But it's a myth.

I'm sorry to say it's a myth.

Capital does not create itself.

It doesn't.

It's rooted in a more fundamental context than itself.

You don't want to agree with that?

Fine, but Marx and Engels believe that.

Marx and Engels believed capitalism was rooted in a more fundamental and more material context than just itself.

How do I know this?

Because for them that context was a process of transition into a new mode of production, which they called socialism.

Voila!

Not French, but there you go.

There you go.

It's that fucking simple.

If these people were right about the nature of Marx's views on capitalism, Marx would not have believed in the inevitability of capitalism's transformation into a new mode of production.

Uh my book probably will not my first book um will not talk about uh uh capitalism, but it will talk about economics, uh ancient economics probably.

So, I think that's all I need to say, probably, right?

Anyway, my, and then, you know, I talked about this in my video that was posted on the Haas channel, but you know, then what is the status of productive labor and surplus value?

And I said the place we should start is what labor sustains and maintains.

The revenues, the constant revenues, like oil, for example, out of which usurious.

Uh interest bearing credit.

can be um injected into other sectors of the economy.

I said we should start from there to understand the status of the proletariat today.

The proletariat is that the see all of this kind of postmodernists and ecologists they're kind of correct.

The the shift in our era is more toward reproduction.

This is why there's this new feminism.

It's always about the domestic h household reproduction, uh the the conditions of the reproduction of production itself.

And there's grains of truth in that because the the the proletariat is no longer maybe a class which is only producing surplus value.

It's a class which is maintaining

the streams of monopolistic rent and revenue, which are used as collateral to lend out uh or inject credit into uh uh to pursue more speculative and yes, uh

you know, speculative, uh, adventurous enterprises which are in the hope of actually getting a return on

uh investment through surplus value or credit sorry or profit.

Like, um

Like you need to study the Rockefellers and the Vanderbilts and the Morgans and monopoly capitalism as it arose in America, because it's a very unique kind of it's very something Marx didn't write about it, honestly.

It's something very unique, the standardization, how they consolidate these industries, which in laissez-faire England, so to speak, these are industries that are producing surplus value.

But they standardize these interests such that they're accruing very predictable streams of revenue and income.

It's just no different than rent.

They're monopolies.

And on the basis of these predictable streams of revenue and income, that could be used as collateral to issue out loans.

for kind of productive not productive, but speculative venture capital enterprises that are unproven as far as their ability to have returns on investment.

Uh like maybe that's going on with Nvidia and then the chips, you know.

I'm not saying uh the frontiers have been closed completely and there's n no possibility to entertain that there's profit.

I I'm just saying it's an open question.

We should ex start exploring it.

Then I have to say, like, uh

Yeah.

Then I I was gonna say uh

What was I gonna say?

Yeah, I mean like for example, you know agriculture was the first form of this kind of collateral that banks banking dynasties would arise on the basis of.

In Italy, around the time of fascism actually, what would happen is that the big landowners would oftentimes be the same as the big bankers, the banking dynasties in Italy, and they would use their land as collateral.

And that was the case in feudalism, because the revenues in agricultural profit, which was rent really, were just predictable.

That's why the physiocrats, you know, they place the emphasis on agriculture that they do, but Marx rejected that.

Why?

Because he was.

Aware of this new um this new development within political economy, so far as the physiocrats were concerned, of industrial

Enterprise, which did not have the same level of predictability.

uh as agriculture, and which therefore was more speculative and experimental and riskier.

And um but eventually that

turns into uh forms of revenue, not just profit, revenue that become predictable and standardized, similar actually to agriculture.

So something strange happens where like capitalism, as Marx understood it itself, kind of folds back into the feudal, I guess, rents bearing the dominant form of income being rent-bearing income.

That doesn't solve the puzzle entirely.

At some level, is surplus value still being produced?

I think so, but I just think, one, it's socialized.

It's not the capitalist production of surplus value.

It's something that integrates the total supply chains, not only of a given society, but potentially the entire world.

Culminating in the chips, chips production.

Is China messing up these predictable revenues?

Ah, the chips sector is what is everything is at stake there.

That's why there's the war is over Taiwan.

Just look at the profit margins of the chips industry.

It beats everything else.

There's a reason for that because all of these

Supply chains

See look, um the predictable revenues in rent

They are used to give out loans.

Because

they're only predictable they're only steady revenues in rent, or they can only increase to offset the falling rate of profit, so to speak, through new speculative, experimental kind of venture capital enterprises.

R D basically, to produce new kinds of thresholds of profitability and and extraction of surplus value, so to speak.

So, um

Everyone is in debt, but they're hoping chips are going to be the thing that pays everything off, basically.

It's kind of like that.

Like like that's what's gonna pay back all the debt that's impossible actually to pay back.

It's like, look, you're already getting revenue in railroads or in oil or whatever, and then you're giving out interest-bearing credit and debt.

So you're reaping profits from other industries, and everything is being centralized and aggregated.

Lenin talks about that in imperialism.

That's what was happening with monopoly capitalism.

And it laid the foundations for socialism.

And today it's kind of culminated in BlackRock, which is now making investments based on algorithms.

you know, utilizing information technology.

Uh algorithms which can be uh which can be aligned, you know, like according to uh values, according to desires.

Like like d uh what do you call it?

ESG scores, right?

So that's kind of a foundation, if not already socialism, it's definitely a foundation for it.

So we will have Red Rock.

A C P is Red Rock.

We're gonna become Red Rock.

Not Black Rock, Red Rock.

We're going to algorithmically allocate resources to the most profitable and productive chapter enterprises.

And even then, we will have it so that we'll have it.

You'll have to fit criteria.

We'll have our own ESG scores.

You know, how much are you?

If you're if you're producing anime, we'll take away the investments.

Just like if you're being racist, you get you get it taken away.

Or whatever.

There you go.

Anyway, guys, enough jokes.

I uh

I'm going to sign off.

I hope you found the stream informative and helpful to you.

Bye bye.

By the way, Sunday I'm going on to debate, I think.

I don't actually know why I'm going on.

I was invited.

What's his name?

Douglas Lane?

Uh, he wants we have disagreements and he wants to talk about them.

I don't know if it's a formal debate, but I know we're gonna

We're gonna present our disagreements, something like that.

That's gonna be at 7 p.m.

on Sunday.

So that's gonna be much earlier.

So you have that to look forward to.

Fresh and Fit.

That's going to be decided in a few days.

It will be between the 20th

And the thirtieth.

I think it will either be the 22nd, somewhere the last week of August, that's when it's happening.

Anyway, guys, bye-bye.

See you guys later.

Bye-bye.

See you Sunday.