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

But when I take charge

It's the thrill of one of you, the last one to file.

To sacrifice that will.

Shining beer.

And reel, oh me old, old thumb, when the lancers trimming neat came charging down O'Connell Street.

A brim retreat, oh me old, old gun

It was sore, O me, old hoath gun.

Shall I ne'er see you no more, O me, old hoath gun.

There's glorious hopes that we could have set old Ireland free.

Are you far from me, oh me old ho thumbs?

Day will surely come, oh me, old, ho, thung, when join the fighting men, oh me, old, ho, thong, in some brave determined band.

I will surely take my stand.

Freedom of our land, oh the old gun.

Sing and speak about Easter Week and the heroes of 98.

Of the Finian men who roam the glen in victory or defeat.

Their names on history's pages are told, their memories will endure.

Now a song was sung of our Darlin once in the valley of Noganure.

There was Walsh and Lions and the Dalton boys that were young and in their prime.

They rambled to a lonely spot where the blackened hands did hide.

Their apublic bold they did uphold, though outlawed on the moor.

And side by side they fought and died in the valley of Noganure.

It was on a neighboring hillside.

We listened with cand dismay.

In every house, in every town, a maiden knell to pray.

Their closing in.

With rifle fire so sure And Lions is dead and the Dalton's down In the valley of Nakanure.

They tug them then beside the fence To where the first it blew.

Like brother soul, they face the foe to meet their dreadful doom.

When Dalton spoke, his voice it broke with passion proud and pure.

For land we died as we face the sky in the valley of Nakanure.

The summer sun is setting now behind the Philadelphia.

The pale, pale moon is rising far out beyond Falli The dismal stars and clouds afar Are darkening o'er the moor And the fans sheep ride when our heroes died In the valley of Noken

What's up, guys?

We have about twelve, fifteen minutes until the space that we're gonna be doing today.

I don't mind my fit.

I just uh, you know.

got back from the gym basically, so

I didn't have time to, you know, get in my regular suit, whatever, doesn't fucking matter, all right?

Now, listen up.

There's a lot of things on the agenda that I'd like to talk about today, as a matter of fact.

And we don't have a lot of time before the speech, so I want to get right into it.

So, first and foremost, I want to talk about some recent controversy, and actually it's a recurring controversy, and it has a lot to do with cattle-like psychology, which I don't hold my people to the standard of.

I don't hold ACP members to the standard of having cattle-like psychology.

We regard non-communists, non-Marxists, as having the psychology of basically cattle because they're basically children, they don't have consciousness yet.

They are pretty much completely ignorant and completely devoid of the ability to think critically in the sense that Marx meant the word criticism, right?

They're unable to actually understand the relationship between the appearance and the essence of things, right?

This is what non-Marxists lack.

They lack this ability.

But our community, our communists, infrared viewers who've been here for a very long time, they're supposed to understand that distinction.

I would hold Midwestern Marx's followers to the same exact standard.

So, why is there so much confusion when it comes to Jackson's tweets?

Jackson tweets something that certain people find that, okay, this is not what a party should be communicating.

Well, he's not, the party isn't communicating that.

It's just his personal Twitter account.

So, why are people unable to make that basic distinction?

And that's what I want to clarify.

That's kind of what I want to get into right now before we get into the Twitter space.

Because I do find it a little bit frustrating when Yellowstone, what's up?

I understand complete fucking dumbasses not understanding this.

I understand ops making this stupid claim that whatever Jackson says is literally the same thing as our official party position.

I don't understand how our own people are confused about this.

So, I'm going to be very patient and try to explain it to the best of my ability.

All right, because this has happened in the past and it will happen into the future, in the future.

So, first of all, the overwhelming source of the ability for ACP to become popular and get exposure absolutely has been Jackson.

1,000%.

So, that is a fact.

Jackson's successful ability to grow as an influencer has been the biggest advantage as far as us being able to get exposure.

Now, that's not to say it's the only reason, right?

Because if we weren't doing what we were doing correctly, we would have died off by now.

It wouldn't be able to be maintained the way that it is.

But Jackson definitely has been a really, really big blessing for this initiative.

We initially wanted to take over the CPUSA.

We did accomplish that just in a way we didn't expect we would have, right?

And without Jackson being a successful and competent influencer, that probably wouldn't have been possible.

But then, there's some people who take this and confuse the meaning.

They make it appear as though, sorry, they make it seem as if because of that fact, they say this is the Jackson-Hinkle party, which is not to denigrate Jackson's role in the party.

He is part of the executive board, but people confuse this because this is what I'm trying to get at.

Just follow me here, right?

Stay with me, as they say on TikTok.

Stay with me here.

You understand?

People don't cynically believe that if an influencer is doing things and if they're working really hard, it's just for their own benefit.

So a lot of people assume that Jackson could not possibly be helping out a Communist Party if not for the fact that it's his own personal vanity project.

So this is what idiots who don't know who Jackson is, who don't know what our party is, who don't know who we are, this is what they assume because it's probably true for almost every influencer.

They serve themselves.

They're self-serving and other influencers.

And, you know, the assumption is made that whatever they do, it must be an extension of their own vanity project.

But people need to understand and listen to my words very carefully.

The only proof you need that Jackson is not like any of these other influencers and he's not a grifter is that he genuinely.

has put his entire platform in the service of something that is much bigger than himself, an entire movement, which you are primarily the ones comprising.

If you understood this, if people understood this isn't his vanity project, he doesn't think of it that way, no one else thinks of it that way, that he's genuinely taking a huge fucking risk to boost this party with no precedent at all, and he's using his entire platforms being put in the service of it in many cases.

I think a lot of the people who look down on Jackson and assume that he's some kind of scammer or grifter or whatever would shut the fuck up because it's so far removed from the truth if you just know how it fucking works.

All right.

So, no, it's not an extension of his personality.

I want to make that absolutely clear because Jackson is entitled to a degree of flexibility and freedom that is far more flexible than what we have for our own formal party communications.

And there's a reason for that because when the party communicates, when the party makes a statement on its actual fucking party platforms, that is the voice of the entire collective.

That's everyone.

That's the entire party.

Yes, when ACP Main posts something, that is the party.

When we put something on our website, that is the party.

Oftentimes, I understand that I'm held to this standard as the executive chairman of the party.

So I try to be very careful.

I don't have as much freedom and flexibility that Jackson, that Eddie, that other people in the executive board have, because I am formally the leader of the party, and breaking that distinction between infrared and ACP is extremely confusing to the general layman.

But the bare minimum standard that I would hold a civilized person to is to basically understand the distinction between a collective institution, which is a party, and the opinions of individuals.

Everything that Jackson says is within, obviously, the acceptable range of opinion within the party.

Members are allowed to have these opinions.

But when people claim that ACP has taken a stance on this or that or this or that.

It's so fucking mind-boggling because no, we take a stance when we communicate this as the party, not just as individuals.

We don't police everything people in leadership or people in the rank and file say.

Now, that being said, obviously there are optical considerations, but nothing Jackson has said crosses those lines.

And even if it did cross those lines, that would be something we, the leadership, would handle internally.

And it's no one else's fucking business.

Frankly said.

Now, let me communicate something very clearly, all right?

Because this is going to help a lot of you understand Jackson's role and how much he's done for us.

And I mean that he selflessly has done so much for us and you don't even...

You don't even know the half of it.

You don't even know 5% of it.

You understand?

If you knew how selflessly he's devoted himself to this cause, not a single soul would dare even try to imply that he's a grifter or whatever the fuck these idiots are trying to say, that he has no principles and he believes in everything.

You're so fucking stupid, you don't get it.

And I'm going to try to explain it to you.

All right.

Sorry, I don't mean to swear and cuss so much, but frankly, it's pretty frustrating.

Lawn guy with the five, appreciate you.

Now, a lot of people think that Jackson is like some unofficial mouthpiece of the party.

That's not how you should think of it.

How you should think of it, and this is the most accurate thing I could use to describe it as, Jackson is more like an agent of the party.

In the same way that Tucker Carlson gets accused of being a Russian agent, John Stowe, what's up?

In the same way that Tucker Carlson gets accused of being a Russian agent, in the same way that Jackson is constantly getting fedjacketed, that he works for all these different governments, right?

The truth is, he is an agent.

He is literally an agent of our cause.

He is literally an agent of our party.

That is literally where his loyalties lie.

So everything he does is to even if it's even if he's communicating things that our party would not be communicating, everything he is doing indirectly serves the purpose of benefiting our party.

That doesn't mean what you tell the public is what the party believes if you're just an individual.

But an individual like Jackson communicating what he's doing serves and helps our party, specifically by him building bridges that help our party.

You need to understand what's going on here.

Jackson is not going to tell random fucking idiot, uneducated, stupid American politicians, you know, Marxist-Leninist theory.

Why would he waste his time doing that?

What he does.

is he moves about in a way

That opens many doors for us and helps us.

I need to fucking communicate something very clear.

You understand?

Just like Russia, just like the Soviet Union had KGB agents who were doing a lot of much more cynical things than we're doing, by the way.

Much more cynical.

But just like how they had a KGB, we have a KGB.

And Jackson is the face of our KGB.

What he does helps our party.

And how does Jackson endorsing Tulsi Gabbard help our party?

I don't fucking know.

Let's start with if we lift the sanctions against Russia, that is immediate relief for us.

How about that immediately takes legal pressure away from us that we desperately need to be taken away from us?

You fucking idiot.

Why don't you use your fucking brain?

I'm not talking about comrades who had concerns.

I'm just a little frustrated how stupid people they didn't understand this.

Yes, that doesn't mean we fucking agree with, oh, you share Tulsi Gabbard's vision for the future.

No, we don't.

But we understand the utility of fucking rescuing our party from legal danger by doing the best we can to indirectly affect outcomes and build the necessary bridges so that we don't get fucked.

Holy shit.

It's like the Bolsheviks had agents that were literally working in the police to save Bolsheviks from getting, you know, to understand to be 10 steps ahead.

What we're doing is much more modest, by the way.

But we don't want to be persecuted.

We don't want to be.

Had Kamala gotten elected, I'm sorry, but we would be in fucking jail probably because they probably would have changed the laws to such an extreme degree in terms of defining what constitutes a Russian agent that if you share opinions that Putin has, you're a fucking Russian agent.

That would have been the death of our party.

So yeah, we're doing what we fucking need to do to ensure the victory of our party.

But I'm just trying to tell, just so my own people know this, I don't give a fuck about anyone else, frankly.

I just want to tell you, you understand?

Everything that we do, whether it seems like it's consistent with our principles or not.

When I say we, by the way, I mean us individually.

Everything that's being done is for the party.

It's communists disdain to conceal their aims.

All of the indirect stuff where all the subversion we utilize, all of this secret agent shit we every single fucking thing we do is for our party.

It is for the victory of our communist party.

It's for the victory of our political goals.

It's for our movement.

It's for our army.

It's for the purpose of destroying our enemies.

And assuring our victory.

Every single fucking move we make is for that purpose, whether it's direct, in which case we communicate it directly through party channels, or it's indirect.

And if you can't understand it, use your head and think about it for two seconds.

Use your head and think about it for two seconds.

What impact Jackson, you know, being looked upon as favorable in the eyes of potentially, we're not even, we don't even think this is going to work, by the way, Amila.

But at the bare minimum, it's just going to allow us to breathe.

We need breathing room very desperately.

And by the way, the time scale I'm talking about, guys, is months.

I'm not talking about the party in the long term being friends with the upcoming administration.

That's impossible.

But say we can buy ourselves an extra six months that we otherwise wouldn't have before we're going to engage in serious, serious work against the anti-China and anti-Iran Iran designs of the upcoming regime.

Serious work.

If we can buy an extra six fucking months to build our ranks and operate, that's so precious.

The time is so fucking precious.

You have no idea how much the pressure is already on us.

They're trying to say Chris Halali has joined, he's become a police agent because he's the high bailiff, even though the role of the high bailiff is to fucking arrest the sheriff.

But in any case, Chris Halali is getting stopped at the border every fucking time he comes back.

I'm not going to lie to you guys.

Almost every single time, with a few exceptions, that executive board members and political members are coming into the country.

We're feeling the pressure.

We're being stopped.

We're being questioned.

We're being searched.

Our shit is being taken.

Again, we're not doing anything illegal, but they have made it very fucking clear.

That, yeah, they're building some shit.

They're trying to, they're, they, they, they know all of us, they know everyone in the executive board, they've done their research, yeah, they watch my fucking streams, we've confirmed all of that.

So, look, we're trying to get, we're trying to breathe a little bit, we're trying to breathe a little bit here.

It has nothing to do.

With um with a change in our party's position on geopolitics.

It's just pragmatism, it's utilitarianism, and it's fucking precious.

And by the way, who cares?

Yeah, we don't want bad relations with Russia.

What is Jackson doing that's so unprincipled?

Uh this is utilitarianism.

This is not some illusory notion that Tulsi fucking Gabbard is a communist or something.

So please, I mean, honestly.

Welcome to the real world.

You know, the real world, you got to make decisions and choices.

Now, our party is only ever going to endorse people that give something to our party tangibly or reflect our party's vision and its goals and its outlook.

That's why you'll never catch our fucking party endorsing Tulsi Gabbard or any other fucking Zionist for that matter, right?

But Agent Jackson, KGB Agent Jackson, agent of the American Communist Party, is well within his fucking rights to do things like this.

And guys, please stop fucking ankle biting him because you don't know behind the scenes how much he's helping us by doing what he's doing.

You're not seeing the full picture.

Don't ankle bite him.

Don't give him a hard time.

Again, this is not about.

Internal party stuff.

If you're in the party and you're watching this and you might be confused, no, no, no.

Our internal party discussions, this is not about that.

Those are totally fine.

I encourage more of those.

I encourage people who have questions within the party.

I am directing this more toward people outside the party who are not even obligated to keep their criticisms internal, so are just jumping the gun and kind of going crazy.

Or I'm also addressing our enemies, our haters, and people like that.

But.

This is not me using the stream to you know to to hit back against internal party concerns and criticisms, uh which I encourage.

They're completely those were are completely fine and in order.

But I'm telling my guerrillas, I'm telling everyone in general, do not ankle bite him.

Do not jump the gun and assume that, you know, he's a bad faith actor or he's just selfish or he's a grifter.

Because if Jackson was a grifter, he would have stopped being my friend a long fucking time ago.

Because guess what?

Both me and Jackson understand?

We understand the fact that.

For better or for worse.

Um sometime in late 21 and early 22, uh my uh

My my uh whole thing, you know.

My whole personal career, more or less, was completely sabotaged.

What else can we say?

By the DNC, by the way, we know this for a fact.

On Twitch, the content I was doing on Twitch that I was very successful at during the SMO wasn't my bread and butter.

My bread and butter was something much more radical.

It was why most of you are here now, right?

And it was stirring up a new discourse within the left.

And they had to take me out right away.

A masculine, left-wing content creator.

They can't fucking have it.

The closest thing they tolerate is Hasan Piker.

But they have Hasan Piker on a leash.

You understand?

So they made me famous.

They this is what happened in late 21 and early 22.

They made me much, much more famous.

Destiny is included in this, by the way.

He also did this.

They made me much, much more famous than

Then uh then then my actual growth was ready for.

Like, by directing overwhelming amounts of negative attention toward me, top streamers would just be shitting on me and shitting on me.

And of course their audiences who don't know a fucking thing about me, you know, are just going with it.

And, you know, look, uh, I made I'm not entirely blaming others.

I'm just saying this is how it went, right?

Um

These, the DNC utilized their fucking influencer arm.

I mean, it was fucking everyone.

It was the majority report.

It was just weird fucking people.

I didn't even know who they were.

Later, I find out who Dylan Burns fucking is.

And it's just this whole network they unleashed on me.

And I was growing very rapidly.

Don't get me wrong.

My support was growing very, very rapidly.

It was very successful and promising.

I was making the impacts I was intending to.

But it was a level of growth that I could manage and I could control.

And I had time to kind of react to and consolidate and things like that.

But very, very suddenly, we just overwhelming amounts of negative attention started getting poured on me, especially from Reddit.

And the purpose of that, by the way, is to control the search indexes.

So Reddit and all these fucking plat, all these weird, glowy things, especially Destiny's whole.

Destiny, he's a streamer for 12 years.

He used his entire combined might of his entire following and his entire platform just to destroy me and bury me.

And

It's like no one can survive this, frankly.

The fact that I held my own in this kind of war is incredible, right?

And it shows what kind of people I have.

It shows what guerrillas are made of.

And, you know, a huge part of me is very happy that I only preserve the resilient and the strong, in a sense.

And another you know, another part of me is certain of the fact that what ha what happened had to happen.

I I think about it all the time.

Like, could I have just become a normal streamer, political streamer?

And I couldn't have.

I couldn't have because um

Because every single fucking day of my life, I wake up with Lenin's rage.

I wake up with Lenin's fire.

I wake up with his anger.

I wake up with his mission.

I wake up for the cause of Lenin.

I catch bullets for Lenin.

That's who the fuck I am.

That's always who I'm going to be until the day I actually do die.

And there's no fucking way I could have accommodated myself and adjusted to the rules and the necessity, the pragmatic necessities of growing normally as a political streamer.

I just couldn't fucking do it.

I couldn't fucking take the fakeness.

I couldn't take the phoniness.

I couldn't take how disingenuous and disgusting these leftist streamer pieces of shit were.

I hated their snarkiness and their arrogance.

And I couldn't sleep well at night if I became like that myself for the pragmatic purpose of consolidating growing the platform.

So in a sense.

A lot of what we wanted infrared to become early on, which was to surpass Asan Piker or whatever.

Boom.

For better or for worse, and I am of the opinion, maybe I'm coping that it was inevitable, that it had to end the way it did, but that that that couldn't pass.

But let me tell you something, alright?

This is what I'm trying to get at here.

21, I go to LA, right?

And through early 22, and I really meet Jackson in person, right?

And Jackson wasn't even that big at the time.

Now, I was in doomer mode before this, but after I start meeting Jackson, after he's prepping, I see him prepping for the Sam Cedar debate.

After that debate, after I meet him, I get an idea of who he is, what his character is, what his background is.

I say, this is our fucking guy.

This is the guy who's going to carry the torch to the finish line.

I couldn't fucking do it.

I couldn't fucking do it because I'm too esoteric, I'm too angry, I'm too uh and I'm too uh chaotic.

I have too much chaos.

See, Jackson sees a straight line.

I don't see that.

I see fucking chaos everywhere, and that's a great advantage in a lot of cases.

It makes me a very formidable enemy.

It also makes me an enemy that can burrow themselves underground and fucking strike targets, and they don't even know what's hitting them.

But in terms of carrying the torch to the finish line, it's just impossible.

But I met Jackson and I knew he was the fucking guy.

And I knew that then and there.

I knew he was the fucking guy who's gonna do it.

He's going to carry that fire.

He's going to carry that thing that I knew needed to happen, right?

And holy shit, in the years that have passed, how right I was, how correct I was And people need to understand that when they try to draw a distinction between Haas and Jackson.

There is no fucking distinction.

The distinction is Jackson's a KGB agent and I'm just o out in the open revealing all the evil plans.

That's the only difference.

I just directly reveal all of our evil plans to the whole world.

And this is the most beautiful part.

This is the most beautiful part, you ready?

Most people are too cynical.

And too stupid and too small-minded to know what's even going on, they don't know.

That Jackson

Has so much faith and conviction and belief in this small movement we have, this small cause.

He's doing so many big things for this very small cause.

And people can't wrap their minds around that.

They can't understand the cause.

They think the only they think everyone's a groveling pussy.

who's getting on their knees and only serving uh a cause that's uh already more successful than they are.

But in this case, it's the opposite.

It's literally the exact opposite.

And I really want people to appreciate that fact.

I really want people to appreciate that.

You know, in terms of his success, he did not leave this behind.

Far, far from it.

And people, again, they underestimate what ACP is.

They underestimate infrared.

They underestimate the whole small cause and the small movement.

So that's why I'm even safe revealing the evil plans in public.

People aren't going to fucking believe it.

That's fine.

I'm telling my people.

I don't want these people to.

If these people believed it, I'd be in fucking trouble because then they can strategize around that fact and then we'd be fucked, right?

But people genuinely believe that uh, you know.

that his motivations, that the real logic and the real kind of cunning behind his actions couldn't possibly be something that's not already more suc uh that's not already more successful than he is.

And people don't get that.

Sometimes people don't fucking understand.

Put it this way.

I almost want to uh get myself in some trouble.

By referencing an anti-Semitic paranoid delusion.

But I feel like this is the only thing that I like.

I don't know how else I would communicate this.

Without being too like esoteric.

So imagine the crazed mind of an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, right?

You know how a lot of Hasidic Jews are extremely poor?

They're extremely like dirt poor.

They have no success, nothing.

Imagine them.

like in a cave somewhere, wearing nothing but rags and just sitting and it's a whole group it's a f a handful of them.

And these guys are nobodies, they're sages, right?

And then like in the mind of the anti Semitic conspiracist,

They're thinking, oh, of Rothschild and all these huge, powerful Jews, right?

And it could never fucking and only that crazy paranoid anti-Semite could possibly piece together the crazy idea that Rothschild is actually serving these broke sages, this council of broke sages, in terms of the mystical cause that they serve or whatever.

And it's like, that's really the analogy here.

Like, our cause, we are the broke sages.

Not just infrared, but our whole cause, this movement of Marxism-Leninism we have that only very few people understand.

And Jackson's like Rothschild, right?

He's very rich and he's very powerful, but the true cause he serves is not already more successful than you understand.

You guys get what I'm getting at here?

Like, people underestimate us because we're in a fucking cave with rags, but they don't fucking understand the dynamic that's working here.

And they will never understand it.

I can say this a million times and they won't believe it.

And I don't want them to believe it.

Because if they did believe that, we'd be in a lot of fucking trouble.

Like, I don't even want to.

I'm going to say this because it's reverse psychology.

If Mossad was smart, they would kill every single one of us.

And I feel like that would really harm Jackson's morale a lot rather than attack Jackson.

Why would I say that?

Because it's reverse psychology.

Because, of course, they're not going to fucking believe it.

Don't curse us.

Yeah, but trust me, they don't understand.

They don't fucking understand how it works because they're retarded.

Because, again, this all goes back.

I'm going to go back to this.

I'm going to go into the space soon.

It all goes back to the cattle-like bovine psychology I like to talk about.

Amila, by the way, I'm sorry if I didn't say thank you.

West is red.

Appreciate you, brother.

Baudrillard, thank you so much.

The cattle think in terms of clout.

Can you guys repeat this for me?

Cattle think in terms of clout.

Cattle only see clout.

They don't see the master plan behind the clout.

That's the nature of cattle.

Cattle think in terms of clout.

Cattle think this person must be a nobody since you know they don't have a trillion followers or something.

But I'm gonna be fucking honest, that's not how influence works in the real world.

In the real world, that's not how influence works.

Australia Stani, what's up?

And it's not, it's not even that.

It's not even that I'm the biggest influence on Jackson.

It's more like Jackson has motivations that he doesn't talk to the public about, but he communicates only with his fellow comrades about.

That's kind of the dynamic I'm talking about.

Show Dan, what's going on?

It's like he knows what he's doing, in other words.

It's not like he's blind and he's just taking orders or some shit.

He knows exactly what he's fucking doing.

But people underestimate that.

They underestimate that motivation because they're cynical.

You know?

And um

Yeah, what's true no, no, no.

Cool.

I I used to not believe this.

I used to think this was just cope.

And maybe I am coping and it's just convenient because uh whatever, because of my situation.

But what is true is precisely what's not popular in a sense.

In a sense.

Meaning.

Popularity is something that

Um

Is not is true outwardly, right?

It's exoteric.

But the esoteric input that goes into that when I say input, I don't mean from others.

I mean input from one's own internal motivations, one's own, you know, what's the French word, raison d'et whatever.

One's own cause, right?

That is not something that directly appears exoterically.

And what did I tell you guys in the beginning?

Criticism.

Marx's critical thinking.

The distinction between the appearance and the essence.

The appearance is what's popular, but the essence can never become something popular.

The essence works in a way that's hidden.

The essence works in the back end.

You understand?

It's the appearance that's popular, not the essence.

The essence partakes in that popularity, sure, but not directly, indirectly.

And that's what makes it an essence, right?

And um people need to fucking understand that.

They really do.

They really fucking do.

Our enemies think they've won and they think they have defeated us in our cause because of that wall that I hit late 21 and 22.

And I'm not measuring that in terms of popularity.

Since then, I've become way more fucking popular than I ever have been.

Obviously, even as a streamer, I became way more popular after that.

But discursively, they came to define my reputation in late 21 and early 22.

It's just pure reputation destruction.

I mean, you search my fucking name on Google and it says Adam to here.

It's not even my real fucking name.

And it's just nonsense.

You know?

It's like that was all very intentional.

I'm just letting you know that happened very rapidly and very intentionally to destroy this momentum.

And then Jackson, they didn't even see him coming.

Now they bitch and whine and complain about Jackson 24-7.

But motherfucker, you thought you killed us.

You thought this was dead, you stupid arrogant bitch.

Now Jackson here has a bazooka pointed at your face, which is about to explode.

And you're bitching and whining, attacking Jackson.

No, no, no.

This is that dead cause you thought you fucking buried.

You thought you won.

You thought you defeated us, but you didn't.

It's come back to fucking destroy you.

It's come back to tear you apart.

And I love watching you squirm and cope.

That's why, ladies and gentlemen, they don't even fucking attack me anymore.

They say everything that's wrong.

It's Jackson's personality.

Jackson's so bad.

Eddie is so bad.

Midwestern Marx is so bad.

You wanna know why they don't fucking mention me?

Because it's humiliating.

It's fucking humiliating for them to have to admit.

The symbol they thought they killed in my face, they didn't fucking kill it.

It kept on going.

It kept on fucking going, and it wasn't supposed to.

And they cannot fucking admit that.

They can't fucking admit that they didn't get the W they thought they did.

So they're going and they're attacking others because they already think that they already got me, but they didn't.

How did you get me?

You're you're you're blaming all these other personalities and all these other people for all the problems.

And it's right in front of your fucking face what the real problem is.

Why am I going on this rant?

Maybe I just want some recognition.

Maybe I'm just a petty fucking loser who's a nobody, who just wants some recognition.

Please give me recognition.

I just want to be liked and not liked, sorry.

I just want to be text Eddie back.

Oh shit, I literally forgot.

I'm going to join the space in a second.

I just want...

Why do I, why am I going, why am I stepping out of bounds right now about this?

Because I want to experiment.

Because I want to see what fucking happens.

I want to see what happens.

Um

I like experimenting.

Anyway, let's uh

Let's open BlueStacks.

Um no, the real reason is I want more attention so my streams grow, so more people watch me.

And um, the reason I'm doing this tactic right now of like revealing the game, revealing my hand, it's because if I reveal my hand and people take it seriously, they're gonna put more attention on me, which would drive people more to the streams, which equals more money and growing the guerrilla army, obviously.

So that's just the kind of experiment I'm doing.

I don't know.

Probably not gonna work as a reverse psychology.

Anyway, let's join Eddie Space.

Yeah, if you guys can't tell, I'm uh building I'm building and saving assets.

For twenty twenty five.

Alright, anyway, let's uh join the space.

Let's join this base.

Eddie's gonna kill me.

But we fully expect that the hostility from the government towards our party and and just from the ruling class in general will increase as we as we continue to grow.

And this is why you know you need dedicated members and dedicated leadership.

For sure, for sure, thank you.

Uh if you want to make me co-host I could see people yeah.

Alright, Eddie, I'm so sorry.

I went on a major rant on stream about defending Jackson.

Anyway, let's bring up this person.

Wait, is this him?

Alright, if you are friends with us and like us, then unrequest.

Only if you hate us should you request.

Ah, we should.

Did you not make a title or no?

Oh, I thought I did.

Let me make one.

Uh.

I thought the title was talking about A CP whatever.

Whatever.

Twitter's stupid.

Mm-hmm.

I just went on the same exact kinda rant, um, defending Jackson.

Alright, so uh not to insert myself, but uh we were just talking about the legality of the ACP.

And um

Um that's a good question.

I don't know.

I uh I don't know.

Then I don't know.

I don't fucking know either.

That's the problem.

Alright, sorry, Eddie.

They're kicking him off.

I don't wanna Uh, you can be his friend, but

I mean personally I told him that I'm the nice guy and that when you came in we're gonna gonna crack down so it's all good.

All right, we'll bring up Comrade Confucius.

Why not?

Everyone wants him.

Let's go.

Alright.

Uh hello, mister Confucius.

Hello from the brutal capitalist dictatorship of Baralimpo.

How are you guys today?

Uh doing very well.

How are you?

Very well myself, thank you.

I'm surprisingly not suffering from too much jet lag.

I've just got back from London.

I'm so tired, but yeah.

I've been pleasured by your supporters to come and uh talk to you guys.

Um, yeah.

All right, what are the criticisms you have toward the ACP?

Well let's start with the uh good points first.

I I commend you for your uh your charity work and I commend you for uh you know what you've been doing for the people of America, but I do not agree, for example, that uh that America in its current state can ever become socialist.

Uh that's kind of ambiguous, but you know, broadly I think we agree with that.

We want to reconstitute the United States actually.

It's in our program.

I'm a bit curious though as to when you say reconstituted, does that mean uh giving the Native Americans sovereignty over America?

Well, uh they would have a level of so they would have they would partake in a general popular sovereignty, I suppose, with um maybe something that's the equivalent to an ASSR autonomous uh republic from the Soviet times if uh you know they are more interested in preserving their local and specific ways.

But um generally we think the reserve system is a disaster.

We think that the Again, we think the United States of America was a great first step of the actual mission of the American history, which is to actually build a united, one united republic.

The United States this is my opinion, by the way, Eddie, you can disagree with it, but this is my opinion.

Again, this is not necessarily the reasoning for what's in our program or Constitution.

It's just my take on it.

My take on it is that the United States of America was born out of a compromise.

At the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers had to compromise with the states, which had a lot of vested and private interests behind them, including that of the slaveocrats and the planters and other elements.

So the states wanted to preserve.

They were not really ready to go full in on one united republic.

So there had to be a compromise that was made before the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the ratification of the Constitution, respectively.

And that led to this idea of the United States.

The United States is just all that meant originally was we states are coming together.

But that didn't really the Federalist vision was not really fully adopted.

And then the critiques of the Federalists were also grounded in not necessarily just in the private interests of the state.

So there was a very it was a very kind of chaotic patchwork.

And we've preserved it, like many other things, like the

The weights and measurement system that we have.

We've preserved a lot of these things just out of historical inertia.

And they have not really come to face their actual rational basis yet historically.

So, you know, that's kind of our view on U.S.

American history.

It has been many things, many archaic and outdated things, including our common law framework.

I mean, common law is nice in local settings, but applied to a national scale, it's rather absurd.

We don't even have a real kind of equivalent to the Napoleonic Code.

And again, on the one hand, not having these things has allowed us to be dynamic in certain respects because it's allowed us to focus more on things like civil society, which is, you know, economics and technology and innovation.

When it comes to actually building a state, a functional state of the people, we are an extremely young and immature nation, in my opinion.

And that is what, you know, that's the next stage of U.S.

history is going to, as Mr.

Dugan has said, actually, I fully agree with him about this.

The task of really building an American state is ahead of us.

I agree.

If you read the Federalists, their early writings, and Christian Parenthes talked about this, they say this openly.

They're like, if we form an American state, if we form this union, and we give people democracy, how do we stop them from taking our wealth?

How do we stop the working class from preventing the ruling class from accumulating endless wealth?

And they said, well, the solution is to keep them divided.

And to this day, they've done a good job of that, keeping the American people divided, whether it be by the states or by other things like race and ethnicity.

And it needs to be reconstituted, as Haas said, and really united into one real socialist republic.

I'm just wondering if that uh union also includes people from the LGBT community as well.

I'm wondering as to whether that union would also include those people or r or if those people will be treated as degenerates.

Well, I don't regard people to be political subjects on the basis of their sexual orientation or their sexual activities.

I know Michael.

But I don't it's not see it's not really about persecuting people for stepping out of line, as it is encouraging pro-social tendencies which are necessary for a functioning and harmonious and lasting society.

So that's not, you know, I don't as far as the state's regard for

The private life of you know, um, private intimate life, I think it would just be, you know, encourage the facilitation of the continuation of society.

And, uh, you know, if people can't come to terms with that on an individual basis, it's really this is my view, it's really up to their families, it's up to their communities to decide to what extent they are willing to tolerate that.

But I think most societies, including the most extremely conservative ones, have shown that you know, exceptions to the rule are not necessarily always rooted out and completely eliminated and exterminated.

Sometimes there's you know, just an acceptance that, yeah, there's just going to be exceptions.

And I think that's just the norm for most societies.

But, you know, when you see, I don't like this kind of because I know there's a lot implied.

I mean, look.

Do we want to persecute LGBT people?

No.

But

We get accused of wanting to do that because we, for example, don't want it to be pushed on children or we don't want it to we don't want LGBT flags to be in like the cities and towns and like we don't want pride parades, we don't want things like that.

And they very and people kind of disingenuously try to make that personalized and be like, Oh, so you really hate the individuals and you want to persecute them or jail them and it's like, Well, no, we're not thinking at the scale of individuals, we're thinking at the scale of society and that level of responsibility.

And those are two very different things.

Well, in the 1950s, you know, they used to have this belief, this widespread belief, that the gays were trying to corrupt American children with their, what was the word for it?

Their degeneracy.

Yes.

And it's a common.

I'm not saying that you guys want to persecute gay people personally, but some of your followers, in fact, quite a number of your followers, in fact, have expressed some rather disdainful attitudes towards gay people, like your friend Mr.

Jackson Hinkle, for example.

Mr.

Confucius, I have to ask you something.

Because we have a consistent problem we face, which is that every single time we ask people to criticize our party, the focus always has to be on this.

Don't you find that a little strange?

It's very strange.

Like, with all the things going on in the world, with all the things that actually matter, why is it that our the fact, let's just be honest, that we are just men, you know, I guess we're men.

I, not to flatter ourselves, but I think we are, you know, masculine unapologetically.

And, you know, we're heterosexual, normal men.

And like, I don't, I feel like there's some kind of strange agenda.

I don't know where the agenda originates that doesn't want communism to be associated with those kind of traits.

And I think that is what I find deeply suspicious.

And the reason I find it deeply suspicious is because if communism is only ever associated with extremely people with very marginal and abnormal sexual habits and you know I think that it's it that that is uh that see you need to think about it like this Mr.

Confucius when you're fighting a war how do how do you keep an army fighting a war how people willing to go and die and risk their lives they have to have something to fight for they have to have maybe they have kids to defend maybe they have a wife to defend back home they have a future they're looking forward toward you know there's this kind of there's this kind of successful way in which the authorities in my opinion have divorced communism from

From having any place in the socius, in the actual heart of society itself, so that it's consigned to the fringes by just elements that want to distinguish themselves from society in every respect.

And that, those, well, look, Mr.

Confuses, I want to give you an example of this directly.

Just so you understand, we went to Carbondale, Illinois, and we actually thought we would be like, there's a possibility of a confrontation with like the DSA, who were all, by the way, all these people are these sexual minorities you're talking about.

And we thought there would be some kind of battle or because they said they were going to protest us or whatever.

We went down there and they were nowhere to be found.

Of course they're not going to confront us.

Of course they didn't have the courage to do that.

But you want to know who did muster up the courage to start doing reconnaissance to scout us out?

The actual local neo-Nazis, full-out neo-Nazis, like the actual criminal skinhead types.

And that was you know, that kind of awakening is like it's kind of scary to think about the fact that we're we are like the only organization that can actually.

Fight these people, and that's why we're a target for actual neo-Nazis.

We're the only ones that are going to be fighting them when the civil war comes.

It's just going to be fucking us.

All these people who you're talking about who have this existential turmoil about their genitals, they're not going to go and fucking die in a war.

They're not going to go and die for a political cause.

That's going to be us.

And when you think about it that way, communists in general are really fighting an uphill battle because it's a war.

The war has been waged on us psychologically and it's impossible for us to recruit soldiers.

It's impossible for us to grow at the same rapid rate that the far right is because the actual people who would take up guns and fight in a fucking civil war are not people who want to be associated with sexual abnormality and deviancy.

So, you know, this is a really tough situation, Mr.

Confucius.

I don't mean to vent on you or whatever, but it's like, you need to understand it like war, man.

It's like, um,.

Willingness to sacrifice yourself, willingness to sacrifice your individuality.

You know, that willingness, that's what it means to be a soldier.

And fixation on sexuality, even heterosexuality, if it's a fixation, if it's porn addiction, it's just self-indulgent.

It's just extreme.

That's why incels are the same, in my view.

People who fixate on LGBT issues, I see insules as the same way because it's just incredibly, incredibly self-indulgent.

It's incredibly self-indulgent.

It's what exactly Lenin called it.

It's navel gazing.

You're just looking at your navel and you're obsessed and fixated on that.

And that's not what matters in the end.

What matters in the end is what outlives us.

When we're buried six feet under the grave, what legacy we've left behind.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a biological one, but it's got to be some kind of legacy that goes on and lives on.

And.

That's the communist way.

I went to Russia, I saw how communists think, I saw how they used to think, I saw the monuments they built, I saw the culture and the ideology of the society that they built and

It's about sacrificing your own immediate self interests for the sake of future generations who you will never live to see.

And that is really the Communist way in every Communist State in the world.

Damn.

Agreed.

Well, I do take issue, Mr.

Adin, with the use of the term deviancy.

And see, you seem to be lumping in a porn addiction with the gay people or transgender people who simply don't want to be persecuted.

We're not persecuting them.

None of us are persecuting them.

If some of our soldiers have hurt their feelings in a confrontation online, I recommend you look at the details of what happened and you'll probably find that they were the aggressor and that they were just being hit back.

So all my soldiers have done is defend themselves, frankly, in the face of attacks that have predated this controversy.

Again, when I was on Twitch in 2021, I couldn't criticize anything LGBT.

I would have gotten banned.

So I didn't.

My community didn't.

And yet, we were under attack by the same people.

And what should we do?

We should look like idiots, like all these boomer leftists who just get attacked and shit on all the time and are apologetic about it.

No, we're going to fight back.

We're going to hold our own.

Why wouldn't we?

Well I I come from a colonized country, Malaysia.

You probably know I come from Malaysia and you're probably aware the British were here for two hundred years and they introduced what we call the buggery law.

And the thing is in most uh colonized countries you'll notice most countries that were that suffered from European colonization, LGBT persecution is particularly brutal, like in Indonesia for example or Malaysia.

Mr.

Confucius, with all due respect, you see it in countries that were colonized by France and you see it in countries that really weren't colonized that much at all, like Ethiopia.

So I don't know exactly what you're getting at with this and frankly um

I think this is a way of trying to explain why collectivistic societies tend to be hostile to LGBT propaganda and causes, but I don't really buy it, to be honest.

When the colonizers first came to China, they were shocked by how liberal they were towards sexuality or how what they perceived to be a liberal.

Mr.

Confucius, again, I don't want to interrupt you, but you need to draw a simple distinction between the culture of the courts, which was incredibly decadent, which didn't just include, you know, let's call it non-heterosexual behavior.

It also included sexual slavery and it included pederastry.

So let's not leave out these details because it's very important to include the whole thing so we get the full picture, right?

And this was court decadence that was not looked upon well by common people that were tilling the fields who were incredibly heteronormative.

And that is true for every single one of these cases that they try to tell us that heteronormativity is a Western imposition and it's not.

You have to look at what was the norm for the majority of the population, not just the elites.

You mean to say, sir, that the sultans of Malacca who had uh third gender priests known as Siddha Sidda were not hetero they were they were the exception rather than the rule?

They were the uh decadent elites of the society.

And the peasants would have been heteronormative in your view.

Yeah, and that's not because of any moral prescriptions or something.

It's just a very basic you'll find in history that when people have to focus on making sure they're not going to starve and having children and these kind of basic responsibilities and obligations, they don't have time to be sexually indulgent.

They don't have time to indulge and experiment in all these strange ways.

Well, strange, I guess, is a normal judgment.

But you get the idea.

And that's true of almost every peasant class in almost every country in history.

You guys do think that gay people were born that way.

They're biologically that way.

You think that listen, Mr.

Confucius, my personal opinion, I guess, would be contentious with you, but frankly, I don't know why it matters.

I mean, why we're the American Communist Party.

Why are we talking about this?

Why is there so much navel gazing?

Why is there so much of an interest in, you know,

These very, very, you know, specific sexual activities.

What is the, where's the communism here?

What's going on?

Do you know what I'm getting at?

Like, why?

There's so much going on in the world.

There's so much going on in this country.

Why is there such a fix?

I mean, look, I am a student of Lacan's psychoanalysis.

In this respect, I think I differ from Eddie.

And I, you know, I think I have an answer to this question that I could explain.

I could explain why people are so obsessed with sexuality today and so fixated on it and stuff.

But at the same time, I don't think they need to be.

I think there's a way to move past it if you can overcome the narcissism, if you can just overcome the navel gazing and the self-indulgent mentality and just really understand that this is something that's much bigger than individuals.

So something much bigger than individual desires and fantasies and wishes and wants.

And it's really, I guess that's very difficult to communicate.

You know, it's easy to say, but it's hard to really get across.

And that's why I'm frankly, I don't mean to ramble, Mr.

Confucius.

I know I've taken a lot of time.

But, you know, I'm of the personal opinion.

That in Western societies, and particularly in America, this hard pill that I'm explaining about how individual subjectivity doesn't really exist and it's nothing to fixate on, and reality is very cruel and impersonal.

And well, not necessarily cruel, but it definitely is impersonal.

I don't think this lesson is something I'm going to be able to communicate to everyone with my words or with anything.

I think that through the course of events, there's going to be incredible, incredible, horrific things that happen in this country that traumatize people into this realization.

I think people are just going to have to face this reality in a really direct way when they witness with what ease how many millions of people perish and just die and how through the chaos and the back and forth of real political turmoil and instability, ecological catastrophes.

I'm not, obviously, I'm not a green global warming alarmist, but ecology doesn't just mean climate change.

It means, you know, we've, for example, if something like Chernobyl happened, you know, just we have, there's so, we've created such an immense destructive power with civilization.

And there's no reason to assume that we're not going to witness and have to face the destructive power of our collective existence, whether it's through nuclear war, whether it's through an accident of industry, whether it's something else.

And it's like only when people really face this in a way they can't explain through individualism are they going to understand what I'm talking about.

Yeah, it's the same reason there's no strong LGBTQ plus movement in Palestine.

They're too busy fighting for their lives every day to focus on these things.

And, you know, as the American empire decays, it's highly likely, as Haas is saying, that we're going to be in a similar situation, that the violence the U.S.

government, or I should say the capitalist imperialists and the finance capitalists have enforced on the rest of the world is going to come back home here to us.

And we're going to be facing some very dire situations.

And there's not going to be time to focus on our own individuality, our own sexuality, our own sexual dispositions.

It's going to be, you know, we have to, as Haas said, fight, essentially be soldiers and think of the collective first.

And a lot of these DSA folks who are hyper-focused on their own sexuality are going to, I think, get a very rude awakening.

And this is, you know, I don't draw from Lacan, like Haas.

I've never read Lacan, but it's a very liberal idea.

The idea that, you know, my sexuality and my gender identity should be prioritized above the collective or that this is what's most important.

And that's not to say we want to persecute those people.

That's not to say we don't want to let people, you know, consenting adults do what they want in their bedroom.

We don't really care.

But, you know, this is just the reality that there's a reason why people in Gaza aren't focused on their own sexuality and gender identity.

If I may ramble further just a little bit, you know, I'd like to kind of, at the risk of being controversial, I'd like to say that I really do think there needs to be a rehabilitation of Slavoj Žižek's critique of ideology, which to be fair, he's kind of drawing a little from Al Dussair there.

He's mixing and matching things that don't necessarily belong.

But nonetheless, when he's inquiring upon his original breakout book, The Sublime Object of Ideology, I think that that needs to come back in some kind of way.

There needs to be a kind of critique of not maybe not necessarily ideology, which was an idealistic framing of it, but.

Because in some sense, the reason there's such a fixation on sexuality, whether it's feminism or the LGBT stuff or whatever, is because oftentimes when it comes to political radicalism, there is definitely something going on in the structure of how, let's call it loosely, subjectivity is developed in the family, right?

There's something about that development which is obscured or it's halted or it's impeded or it faces some kind of turmoil where people genuinely have problems with the authority of their parents.

Obviously, all teenagers have this problem.

But that teenage angst and that basic Oedipal dilemma is being hooked into and hijacked by neoliberal capitalism in a lot of ways because it's profitable and also because we're entering into a post, seemingly post-Oedipal civilization with the rise of information technology.

The authority of a single individual head of the household, the so-called patriarch, the father, is struggling to catch up with the rise of technology and the rise of the acceleration of culture.

I mean, when teenagers look at their parents and like, oh, dad, you're stupid.

You don't understand.

You know, I think the thing that's tragic about today's society is that there is an extent to which this is true.

Parents don't know what social media is.

They don't know how technology works.

There are a lot of problems that young people face, which their parents are completely like they look clownish in the face of attempting to resolve and deal with.

And that builds a lot of resentment and disappointment and problems in young people.

And for so many other reasons, obviously.

The basic turmoil at the level of family life is a very, very potent pipeline toward some kind of political radicalization, whether it's the extreme right or so-called extreme left.

But in this case with extreme left, you know, there's a reason that it's so fundamental for people to say capitalism is patriarchy and all, even though the Communist Manifesto says the opposite, by the way.

But in any case, it's because they need the authority of the state, of the school education system, of established authorities, of the ideology of capitalism, of the ruling ideology.

All of that is bounded up with their father's wisdom, and they reject all of that wholesale.

So they have problems with their fathers primarily, which they then kind of gives them a kind of subjective freedom to reject the authority of the established media and institutions of society in general.

And that is where they locate the meaningfulness of communism for a lot of young Americans.

And one of the ways in which, obviously, it's the LGBT stuff.

It's this complete kind of repudiation of the basic life of the family.

Now, they confuse this for Engels' inquiry upon the history of the family, but that had nothing to do with the life, the living life of the family.

I mean, Marx was a family man.

Most communists were family men.

They had family.

They weren't like saying, fuck you, dad, fuck you, mom.

I mean, I'm sure revolutionaries have gotten in trouble with their parents here and there, and most people in general have issues with their parents one way or another.

But the critique of the family that Engels engages in is not a personal critique.

That's what I'm trying to say.

It's not being personalized and made into like a, it's not being given the status of individual subjectivity.

But that's what's happening today when it comes to the adoption of like communistic ideas.

Most fathers in America grew up during the Cold War at the height of anti-communism.

So a lot of people are adopting quote-unquote communist views because it's a complete repudiation of everything their fathers believe, everything their fathers see.

And that is really the root of it.

It sounds simplistic, but that's the truth.

That's why there's such a focus on sexuality.

And in terms of breaking out of that and solving that problem, I think people need to, they need to kind of.

Learn how to be free from the ruling ideology while still having a basic sense of obligation and connection with your actual family.

I know that our indoctrination into the system, more or less, does happen at the level of the family.

And these things are to an extent synchronous.

But now entire families are being victimized by the system.

You know, your father's a human being too, and he's also being victimized by the system.

And if he's not, then just admit that you're not coming from a working class background to begin with.

If your dad's actually like a real CEO patriarch who's a billionaire or something, and that's, well, then, okay, then you have some Oedipal problems with your own family.

I mean, stop trying to stop trying to like hold, stop trying to spread that extremely destructive ideology and subjectivity to working class people because all working class families are under attack right now.

And I think communism should be something that allows families to come together in terms of families trying to make sense of the world around them.

We're not living in a time where, you know, the father is a guy who's, you know, wearing overalls and coming home and saying, yeah, damn, commies, fuck all kinds.

Like, he might be saying that, but it's like he doesn't have a vested interest in saying that, you know?

And it's like instead of resenting him and hating him, like, okay, you had some problem that made you resent him and hate him, you know, because his authority wasn't enough to guide you through the difficult.

I'm not talking about you personally, Mr.

Confucius.

I'm just talking about people in general.

In terms of being able to guide you through the problems of modern society, and now you've adopted communism to rebel against him.

But really look into communism.

Really look into Marxism.

And if you do that enough, you'll find it within you to forgive your father.

You'll find it within you to forgive your family.

And you'll learn, you'll come together with your family and be a source of authority in your own household in terms of, you know, people are looking for answers in terms of how to make sense of the world.

And there's a lot of ways people can come together and do that.

And that's what's going to save families.

That's what's going to save the sacred connection of family life, frankly.

You know, it's going to be people coming together and learning how to make sense of this chaos.

Because even your fathers are being disillusioned with the system and they don't know how to make sense of it.

And all of their authorities in their lives are letting them down.

Uncle Sam is fucking letting them down, right?

So now that you've accidentally stumbled upon this communist ideology, which you've originally adopted, most of the leftists, despite their parents, it should be a source for you of forgiving your parents.

Now you can understand why you had the turmoil you did in the first place.

You can understand what the source of the trouble was.

It wasn't personal.

It wasn't because your parents are assholes.

It wasn't because your dad is an evil patriarch who wants to, you know.

No, it's because it's for objective, not personal reasons.

And Marxism has given you the tools to understand that.

And now that you understand that, you can mature from it.

And you can, you know, and I guarantee, I guarantee if people sincerely take my advice, we will never have to hear about criticisms of ACP or where we're coming from on the basis of anything else.

There's not going to be any more pride flags.

There's not going to be any more of these nonsense flags.

It's not going to be an issue anymore in terms of how much it's associated with communism and Marxism.

That's my rant, Mr.

Confucius.

The floor is yours.

Mr President, I won't take up too much of you gentlemen's time.

I'm heartened that you say you will not be persecuting LGBT people.

I just hope that they will not be seen as scapegoated as symbols of capitalism and imperialism and capitalist decadence just because of a few isolated cases of pinkwatch.

That's my concern.

I I hope that the anti-imperialists in the West will not will not lump them in with imperialism.

That is my hope.

Well, I mean uh

I I frankly think that, you know, uh

We w th im imperialism is based on one's stances that are political.

We i in terms of um decadence and capitalist decadence and whatever sexual behaviors would be associated with that, the the point is to go to the root cause, all right.

The point is to focus on the the the w the the things that matter, which is how one politically what stances one takes politically.

The rest should not be an object of focus at all.

Well, um, thank you very much for your explanation, gentlemen.

And as for the last point I'd like to make before I leave, right?

Um, it does concern me, though, that you guys I I'm not saying that you guys are evil imperialists, but do you know the American flag, the Star-Spangled Banner, is seen by many as a symbol of cruelty, of imperialist brutality, and many people around the world regard it that way.

In fact, the founding fathers themselves were slave masters, weren't they?

People like Thomas Jefferson, for example, who had children with his slave.

So I'm not sure how one can resolve the contradiction of the Star Spangled Banner's symbolism with the symbolism of communism.

Not sure how that...

Well, I would just say that the history is everything.

So the US flag is, yeah, it's a flag of genocide.

It's a flag of persecution and extermination and imperialism.

And that's also, that's, yeah, that is there, obviously.

But there's also other things there.

And the question, there's also a history of a country, you know, is what I mean to say.

And yeah, all of those things I mentioned are part of that country's history.

But can you annihilate history?

Can you annihilate it?

Can you somehow abolish all of it?

And I think the answer is no.

I think America has become a global hegemon.

And the dollars become the world reserve currency.

And America's world historical significance, for better or for worse, seems to be more or less something that can only be sublated, which is what China has done already by hijacking the kind of this world market and system America helped create through bloodshed and all these other things and assailing that world market toward the end of socialist construction.

And now, you know, the legacy of America is the entire legacy, you know, everything.

Nothing can be spared from the totality of what America is in terms of its existence.

But again, is there a stance we can assume that is free from that?

Is there anyone who can be free from it?

And the answer is, that's a really Mr.

Confucius, I would think about that because the Soviet Union.

Did it have to disappear?

No, but it's gone, and China's still here.

Why is China still here?

And we have to think about things like that.

We have to think about: is it possible to be free from the sinfulness that is the great Satan America?

Now, in the future, yes, obviously.

But even such a future will be tainted, right?

China, for example, with the reform and opening up, and obviously it stopped being in a perpetual state of war with America.

Other countries had a history of trade with America and being part of America's global system and still are, as a matter of fact.

So.

Even when BRICS not if, when BRICS succeeds in just overthrowing the dollar and really being free from America's political current political um

you know, uh, regime.

Is it possible f for any kind of subjectivity in the world to be pure and free from the impurity of the evil that is America?

In terms of their history, and I don't think it is.

Sorry, I was just going to say China has even given a name to this sort of rejecting of your country's whole history and just viewing it as one-sided, only seeing the genocidal aspects of your country's history and not embracing the resistance to the ruling class that's also a part of your country's history.

They call it national historical nihilism.

They say you have to come to terms with the entire history of your country.

In the U.S., that means genocide and imperialism.

But it also means the civil war, the war against slavery.

It also means the civil rights revolution, the mass movement against apartheid.

And we need to come to terms with all aspects of our history.

And China has identified not doing that as a failure of socialist countries in the past, including the USSR.

They've said you have to embrace your country's history and traditions.

You can't just reject them outright, whether that be the positive aspects, the progressive aspects, or the reactionary aspects.

And Carlos talks about this in his book, Why We Need American Marxism.

If we ignore the positive aspects of America's history, it's an incorrect picture.

It's not the full picture.

And this is why Midwestern Marx has made such an effort to embrace explicitly American heroes, heroes in the class struggle like W.B.

Du Bois and Martin Luther King.

So yeah.

I'm not douching.

Sorry.

I'd also say, yeah, sorry.

I'd also say that.

When it comes to the Marxist appraisal of history, the way in which something is regarded as progressive or reactionary is not based in, you know, if I was alive at this time and had unlimited power, would I fashion reality in this way according to my moral sensibilities?

It's actually about given the reality at the time of history.

When I say the reality of the time, I don't mean in a cheap sense.

I mean the mode of production, the history.

What is new here?

What has changed?

What is the change that has happened?

What decisive outcome of a given development, right?

So oftentimes Soviet historians had no trouble praising certain elements, even within feudal societies, which they viewed as facilitating the development of history, you know, ultimately in a direction out of feudalism, of course, but even before then, Soviet authors would debate and talk about whether historical figures during times where slavery was normal and where rape and war was normal and all these horrific, terrible things were completely normal.

And they would have no problem regarding certain people as progressive.

I think even Michael Parenti, who's not necessarily a Marxist-Leninist, would talk about Julius Caesar having a progressive significance.

But Julius Caesar went to Gaul and enslaved and raped everyone.

So you need to understand when Marxists talk about something being historically progressive, it's not about it being progressive.

It's not about it reflecting your own moral sensibilities in terms of what you would consider a correct or incorrect thing to do or good or bad thing in terms of how you would either want to design a society or how you personally would like to act.

It's about the impersonal development of history.

And there's no sorry, go ahead.

I would go so far as to call Oliver Cromwell historically progressive.

And he was.

Even though he butchered Irish people left, right and centre, yeah, it yeah, I I get what you mean.

It's not whether he was nice or not, just like Henry VIII was also historically progressive for breaking the power of the Catholic Church.

Sorry, go ahead.

Sorry.

Yeah, I mean, uh that that's basically it.

And you know, when it when it comes to America, I think, you know, what we as the ACP want to communicate to the world is that

Uh we don't we're not waving an American flag because we want to represent the US regime in the continuation of the American world system.

We are doing it because we want to finally take responsibility for our country and all of the harm and evils that it's committed and start on a new fresh basis.

And when it comes to the forces that are fighting America, and when I say fight America, I mean the regime, we're on their side.

So it's not just like we're asking them to trust us because we see ourselves as fighting alongside them.

So when we topple the American regime, hopefully, well, I have for legal reasons, of course, we aren't going to topple it.

But when the U.S.

regime is going to be toppled and we're going to have to build our country from scratch, build a state from scratch, you know, we are going to be the ones who are very vulnerable.

And that is the position we're taking when it comes to the international world.

That there's still going to be a country and a people here.

And we want to build on a new fresh basis.

And, you know, we want to take responsibility for what our regime has done.

And we want a new world order.

Yes, and the reality is that American people are not going away, just like the the Jewish people in Israel are not going away either.

You you can't just kick them out.

Well, um

Jewish is too broad of a term uh in this case, but in terms of Zionist settlers, for example in the West Bank,

I mean, I think it's fair to say that they're going out.

And I think it's also fair to say that many people in the Zionist entity will be leaving on their own accord because they're already fleeing.

So think America and Israel have similar history though?

Like America the foundation of America, the manifest destiny sorry to interrupt you.

Manifest destiny and Zionism, don't they have parallels with each other?

No, I think it's easy to draw a parallel, but I think the main difference is that, and I've elaborated on this before in long-form exposs, actually.

But I think the difference is that, well, there's a few.

First, I think that Zionism was an ethno-nationalistic ideology that specifically preempted the possibility of the construction of a multi-ethnic and multi-religious state right at the outset.

I think obviously the founders of America had racist prejudices and expectations.

But that doesn't mean the notion of an American state was from the outset preempted the very possibility of a multiracial, multi-ethnic country.

I think it's not baked in.

I think the only thing that's baked in is what, you know.

is uh i is what happened in terms of um the aspiration of building a single republic.

And many things remained ambiguous and left open.

I mean, there was even uh well, anyway, uh in any case,

I also think in the case of Manifest Destiny

the there the there the in terms of the treatment and of of the indigenous people that were living there, of course it was horrific and brutal and nothing could justify it.

But the difference with Zionism is that

Zionist.

knew exactly what the consequences they knew that there were people living in Palestine.

The Palestinian people already had internationally recognized status more or less.

This was an era of the self-determined of nations as a principle of international law, which didn't exist at the time of Manifest Destiny, by the way.

And the Zionists baked into the very fabric of their ideology a complete repudiation and rejection of this.

That is explicit and express.

I mean, the fact that there wasn't a historical process in which there was any real encounter with others.

The settlers did encounter various indigenous people.

That was a real historical encounter.

Their response speaks for itself.

It's completely unjustifiable.

But Zionism in its meticulous cunning already knew about these others.

It already knew everything.

It already understood that they had a status within both the framework of international law and the norm of what was considered morality at the time.

And they didn't care.

They still went through it anyway.

They completely denied the process of entering into

An encounter with the Palestinian people where there would be a process of mutual recognition initiated.

Settlers

The form the mutual recognition with uh indigenous people took is that they were the indigenous were demonized for superstitious reasons, for uh fanatical reasons, um for oftentimes and this is another thing that's really n i neglected here here's why my final point I think.

I think Manifest Destiny was not principally

a political project.

It was primarily a movement that was occurring within civil society that was based in economic greed, primarily economic greed.

But in terms of an ideology, so manifest destiny, in terms of an ideology, was just this broad theme that reflected this incredible capitalistic greed within civil society that was sublimated as manifest destiny.

That's secondarily how it was more or less turned into a story of some kind.

But Zionism wasn't just.

at least directly at least I know it fits within the whole capitalist world system in a specific way, but that is a political ideological project whose ends are whose whose ends with respect to civil society are defined at the outset.

And I think that's a fundamental difference.

I think Manifest Destiny reflects the evils of capitalism in general.

But Zionism doesn't just reflect the evils of capitalism.

It assumes a fascistic dimension precisely because it responds to the breakdown and failures of capitalism in a very specific way and for a very specific people, namely the Jewish proletariat in Europe.

that the Jewish proletariat had socialistic aspirations like the rest of the proletariat.

And Zionism, similar to fascism, hijacked the disappointment of capitalism, the failure of capitalism, in order to extend its life span artificially.

Through the terroristic dictatorship of the state.

And that is what Zionism did.

But Manifest Destiny didn't do that.

That was literally just the naked and ugly reality of capitalism itself.

So I think that's a fundamental distinction I draw.

But the stage is yours.

Thank you very much.

I think I'm done actually.

Just one more thing before I go.

I have a friend, an American friend, actually.

I don't mean to use the black friend sort of trope, but yeah, he grew up in the ghetto, had a very hard life, and you know, from his point of view, he's experienced nothing but cruelty and hardship in America.

But then he lives in the global south and he enjoys a much better standard of living in the global south.

So he says that he he feels he has no obligation to America and he he hates America in fact because you know he only started experiencing a good life when he started living in the global south.

So he wants to help the global south achieve socialism but he feels he has no duty to the American people.

What would your response to him be?

Um, I think, you know, he I don't I don't necessarily have a response in the sense of saying, you know, what he did is wrong and it's he can't do that.

He hates America because America is a cruel society.

Yeah, look, if if if that's his path, that's his path.

But that's an individual choice.

I don't think individual choices like that can be applied at the scale of societies and community.

I don't think the majority of people can solve.

The problems here just by leaving.

I think a lot of people will leave, frankly, but most people are going to have to stay and sort out how to coexist and live amongst each other here.

And they're not going to be able to go anywhere.

And that is where we're rooted in.

That's where our focus is.

If people cannot do that and they want they have to move and go somewhere else for their own personal reasons, I'm not sitting in judgment and.

Going to sit and you know tell them that they, you know, how could you do that?

Whatever.

I mean, I'll give you an example.

You know, my grandfather was on the kill list when the Israelis, the Zionists came and invaded South Lebanon.

He was put on a kill list.

He was wanted dead.

Not wanted dead or alive.

He was wanted dead.

So there was a bounty on his head.

He had a family to raise.

And he was the only breadwinner for the entire extended family, not just his own kids, but for siblings as well.

And he, and he, because his parents were gone.

And, you know, if he was gone, it would have been the end of everyone.

It would have everyone would have been out on the street.

No one would have taken care of the whole extended family.

So, you know, he decided: listen, I can't defend my rights here.

I just can't.

The Zionists are only able to do this because they're getting weapons and funding from America.

So I may as well go to the belly of the beast to petition my right to exist and the right for my family to exist.

And that's what he did.

He couldn't stay in Lebanon.

Um so for one reason or another, personally, we all have reasons we have to leave or we can't take it anymore.

But that doesn't mean, you know, people in Lebanon stop fighting.

It doesn't mean they give up on Lebanon entirely.

It doesn't mean they stop fighting the aggressor and

fighting for their people and their country.

It just means for one reason or another, you know, individuals find themselves where they are, but you can't think at just as an individual.

You gotta think in a bigger level of scale to understand countries and how they work.

Thank you very much, Mr Aldeen and Mr Lagersmith.

I fit for today, and yes, the floor is all yours, gentlemen.

All right, thank you, Confucius.

Thank you.

That was great.

You wanna go with Zolo next, Taz?

Uh no

I would like to go for actual haters, not

Provocateurs.

Let want to go with Goingtard?

Yeah, I don't know what that is.

Whatever.

Something.

Alright, let's do that.

Better scandy choosers.

Hello.

Hello, can you guys hear me okay?

Yeah, we can hear you.

Okay.

Um yeah, so thank you for letting me on.

Um I have a pretty specific line of criticism.

Well, I guess depending on what it means to be specific, but um I think that there has been a fetishization and a kind of

um non-Marxist, I would say, focus on civilizational slash national politics that I understand as a Leninist is very important, right?

It's it's a fundamental principle, right, of of Leninist politics going all the way back, but

I don't see a lot of discussion and I guess you guys can call me a Mark Seyt or a, you know, uh uh ultra or whatever you want, but I I th I think there's a lack of discussion about

Commodities, I think there's a lack of discussion about what it means to live in a post-commodity society.

Again, these are not like sexy topics, but I feel like these things should be central to any Marxist-Leninist project.

So what is a commodity?

I guess I would define it with a twofold character, right?

Something which has a use value and an exchange value.

Okay, and um what does that mean?

In the capitalist context, it's something that's well not even in the capitalist context, but as far as commodities have existed, something that can be disposed of for an exchange value, something that's produced not for immediate consumption by the individual or the community, but specifically for the purpose of exchange.

Okay, so for you a commodity is something that has exchange value.

Yeah, I would say I would say that's a fundamental characteristic of a commodity.

Alright, um what is the basis of commodities?

In what sense?

Like the productive or technical basis?

How do commodities come into existence?

through a concrete labor process.

Can you be more concrete though?

Um sure, I guess

I guess in the simplest sense, if we go to simple commodity production, in the simplest sense it is the kind of surplus stock of whatever item or use value we can call it that a person or group of people have made for the purpose of disposal on a on a market.

Yeah, but that doesn't that's tauta that's tautological.

If there's already a market, then there's already commodities.

So where do commodities come from?

I guess I'm I I see your question.

I see I see your point.

But I guess I'm asking I I'll just tell I'll just instead of the Socratic thing, I'll just tell you what I'm getting at.

Even upon a minimal inquiry in the basic categories of classical political economy, which is the object of Marx's inquiry and critique,

We have to think in terms of civilizations, very distinct civilizations, by the way.

And we can't think in terms of economic categories by themselves.

We have to think in terms of civilizational contexts.

Classical political economy presumed a lot as universal that was very specific to European civilization.

This is something Marx critiqued, by the way, as well.

Now that we're living in a world that's bigger than Europe,

we have to think in terms of civilizations.

We have to even think about European and American civilization.

Because we cannot make the assumption that that specific

Um, context within which things like commodities arise or disappear for that matter, is universally applicable and holds universally.

So that's basically my short answer.

I mean, there's no dichotomy between thinking in civilizational terms versus thinking in terms of classical political economy, which is what you mean when you say you want more emphasis on commodities.

Because there is no way to think about again, go to the root word, what is political economy?

What does that even refer?

What is the political?

What is a policy?

These are all categories of what would fundamentally be a s an analysis of civilizations.

I'm a longtime watcher of you, Haas, and even though I know you said only enemies come on, I would only consider myself an enemy in this ideological line, right?

So I understand you have a very sophisticated and deep, very deep understanding of civilizational history, which I respect.

But I would not say that there is a dichotomy in my mind.

I would rather say that you are putting the cart before the horse.

I mean, again, maybe I'm a Marxo or something, right?

But I fail to see how it's possible to, you know, posit the civilization or the polity as somehow primary or kind of the primordial substrate from which these economic categories such as the commodity arises.

I mean, I think it's, you know, I think it's a fairly classical position that it is the economic and material life.

And I try not to say this in a mechanical sense, like in a vulgar mechanical sense, but it's the economic and material life, right?

It's the engagement of man with nature, which then determines, of course, through a very complex process, the polity, right?

The form of civilization.

I think if you go back to discussions that the Soviets had about production, just for the purposes of getting this along faster.

Well, I think that's not a correct assumption.

I think it is true that the economic precedes the political institutions and the political ideologies and the political state in the sense of the Athenian constitution described by Engels.

But if we conflate the political for civilization or if we conflate the political for a unified social existence and a totality of social production and reproduction, we cannot say this.

In order for economic intercourse to even be possible, we already must presume the existence of some kind of social body.

Now, the cognizance that consciousness is capable of with respect to the extent of what the form of that social body is in terms of how people think of society, what institutions they establish to represent that polity and so on.

Yes, that is very much something that is almost oftentimes it can be mechanically reactive to changes at the level of economic and material life.

But economic and material life does not end with individual survival and individuals helping each other survive, which is base animal life.

Material and economic life is how a given social existence reproduces itself.

How not just life of individual biological organisms, but the reproduction of lives and families and communities and societies, how that happens.

And that is much more complicated than what Marx actually described in Grundry say as the Robinson Crusoe of classical political economy, which just begins with the individual and the individual self-interest.

And what I describe as this communal reproduction is a polity of some kind.

Even before the establishment of formal statehood,

we have some kind of social body which has the limitations, which has a beginning and which has an end and which can in some sense be described as political.

And the transition to states, I should also add,

Is not something Engels ga fleshed out very properly.

He made a very, very big leap from what he describes as the Gentile form of existence to the Athenian Constitution.

He leapfrogged over millennia of history of Mesopotamia and the Iron Age and the Bronze Age, where

Centralized state bureaucracies, not just states, far more advanced and comprehensive than anything that could possibly have been the product of ancient Greece, were being formed quite seamlessly with respect to the amalgamation of various different Gentile societies.

For example, there were at least millennia, 1.5 thousand years of cities, settled temple authorities and cities in the Copper Age in Mesopotamia, and there was no state with an organized monopoly on violence that enforced rules upon the population.

So

Is that a polity or is that not a polity, right?

That that was a seamless product of the social existence, the economic and material social existence.

So, absolutely, economics is tied to the political from the beginning.

There is no edenic state of economic existence that precedes polities, if we understand polities in terms of civilizations, at least.

No, I agree, and this is the last thing I'll say to let other people speak.

Even if I grant you all of that, right, even, and to some extent I do, if you take the contradictions of generalized commodity production seriously, as I believe any Marxist should, right, you still have yet to demonstrate, or the ACP has yet to demonstrate, what serious people like Paul Cockshot, for example, have done, which is a serious wrestling with the commodity form, with decommodifying society, right?

And look, I'm not saying that what the idea of social media is.

But I think it sounds a lot to me like what you're saying, and you can correct me if I'm wrong.

It sounds a lot like the critique that Trotskyites like Ernest Vandel have made of the Soviet Union, where they basically say, well, it wasn't real socialism.

No, I'm not saying what it was.

My own family.

You're talking about my own family comes from there.

So I'm not saying that.

Right, but you're talking about the commodity form itself, right?

And the employees.

Eddie, I think what he's trying to say is that generalized commodity production is a unique challenge, let's say, that a conventional analysis of civilization by itself would not succeed in surmounting because it's a very new thing in history, history of civilization.

But I think, Goyne, I think you maybe underestimate a little bit.

The extent to which the focus on civilization has been precisely about wrestling with this.

I know I'm infamous among leftist theory circles for my reactionary critique of modernity.

But when I talk about modernity, I am literally just talking about the rise of the abstract commodity form.

I'm talking about precisely that unique peculiarities of the capitalist mode of production, which differ from every other preceding mode of production, and which has managed to sweep the entire globe in one fell swoop, more or less.

But that is also a civilizational predicament.

It has, and it shouldn't.

I think the disagreement comes down to this.

That problem cannot just be thought of in terms of the existence of the commodity.

There's also a deeper cause of commodities, which can be understood politically and civilizationally as well.

What changes in the trajectory and development of civilization gave rise to commodity production?

And to what extent can this be regarded as a necessary consequence of world history?

And to some extent, it seems like it does.

It seems like for the same reasons technology emerges, so has capitalism.

It's the same thing, actually.

I mean, Nick Land, love him or hate him, we probably don't like him, but he made a fair point, I think, when he said, in a stream I saw him in, he said, when people are talking about modernity, when people are talking about technology, people are talking about capitalism, they're actually talking about the same things with different words, right?

And that's something I fully agree with him about, actually.

And so when we understand it more broadly like that, we're able to reflect upon, you know, not just the commodity form, but.

For example, the enclosure movement and the and and and uh and you know who does this very interestingly, and this is why we're interested in him, is Michael Hudson, because he locates the root cause, if you can call it that, in a much deeper history, which is the history of creditor-debtor relationships, uh specifically um since uh since antiquity.

And even before then, a little bit.

But antiquity is where he draws the line.

And I think other thinkers have drawn lines and Marx and Engels drew the line with antiquity.

Let's remember that it's not for nothing that they said Asia fell asleep during history.

A very Eurocentric comment, according to post-colonial scholars.

But there is a reason they said that that has a basis and truth.

Not that others didn't have history, that's preposterous.

But the specific trajectory of the development of private property and alienation, according to Marx and Engels,

Really begins in antiquity with the rise of the slave societies and the Athenian constitution.

Now, granted, there are in barbarism and in Gentile society, this is Engels's words, there are roots of this, there are traces of this, but the institution of alienation and private property really begins with antiquity for Marx and Engels.

So, you know, I think that in terms of understanding where we are today and where we can go in the future and where we are going, as a matter of fact, it's very important to situate the critique of classical political economy, the critique of political economy, within a civilizational context and couple that with a similar kind of analysis of the development of civilizations that we see with Paul Cockshot, for example.

Sorry, with Michael Hudson, for example.

Yeah, well, I mean, it sounds like there's still this wrestling, right?

There is still an attempt to account for, like you said, we all call different things moderni generalized commodity production.

I guess my concern there is when will a

You know, maybe I'm maybe I'm like too quick to the start, but we need a viable alternative for people to ever get behind, right?

And I think that's uh, maybe that viable alternative is American socialism with American characteristics.

I'm not saying that that's if that's the end-all be-all, I don't know, I don't know if that's going to get us together.

I think the problem, bro, is that we can you can have a solid program, and by the way, Paul Coxhott endorsed our program, you can have a program, yeah, he did, but if, if, if what you're saying seems like, okay, what is communism then?

Like, what is really communism, the really overcoming of commodity production, right?

Finally, this is, I think, to this is what I was sorry, just one last thing, and then I'm gonna go, then I'm going.

All I'm saying is, please like write down the thought, hold it.

Um,

All I'm saying is that if you want to think about communism very long term, like what does it mean for the commodity form to really be overcome, you have to have a civilizational orientation.

You have to think about things in terms of processes already in motion and maybe that have been in motion already for hundreds, even thousands of years.

You have to have this level of scale of thinking because if China is anything to go by, the overcoming of the commodity form is not going to happen within a single lifetime.

So it has to be immersed in a civilizational context.

This was what I was saying before I was interrupted is that this is the Trotskyite argument that these countries aren't socialists because they didn't overcome general.

I'm not calling you Trotsky.

I'm just saying that's the argument they make.

And what the Chinese communists are saying are no, we haven't completely overcome generalized commodity production yet.

But what the socialist markets and socialist commodity production takes a different form than generalized capitalist commodity production.

And to go back to the contradiction between use and exchange value, there's much more of an emphasis on use value production in China than there is on exchange value.

The use value that the commodity actually serves for the population is given much more emphasis in the five-year plans and in the socialist economic planning of the Chinese state and the Chinese economy than it is in the capitalist US, where surplus value and exchange value is the number one focus.

Commodities are produced for exchange and exchange alone here, whereas in China they're produced more so for use value.

And this continues and increases as China continues the construction of their socialist society.

So it's a process of overcoming the commodity form and it's not something that can just be done overnight.

And the reason I connect it to Trotskyists like Ernest Mandel is because this is the critique that they make of the USSR.

They say that they were still producing commodities, so therefore it's not real socialism.

But that's a utopian view.

They're not looking at it as a process of overcoming commodity production.

All right.

Well, thanks guys.

Yeah, thank you.

Eddie, my bad if I'm interrupting.

Just be more aggressive, honestly.

It's just a Middle Eastern nonsense thing I have.

Um I'm gonna blame my race inst for my bad behavior.

Typical.

Yeah, if it weren't to worry my way out, it's probably not even Middle Eastern at all.

Anyway, um I have bad manners because uh

Well, I just I don't know.

I'll I'll I'll try to get better.

But um no no add to add to your point by the way it's like uh

The whole thing that Stalin and people are so stupid on Twitter.

Like, they don't even understand.

Like, for example, why was Lenin contentious?

What was even the contention between them, between Stalin and Trotsky with regard to Lenin's legacy concretely?

And it was like, well, it's the peasants.

Lenin was a quote-unquote talist who wanted to have a co-dictatorship of the advanced city proletariat and the backward peasants, quote unquote.

You know, the dumb, illiterate, you know, as Trotsky saw them.

And Stalin was defending them.

You know, he was like MAGA communism before anyone.

Anyway, sorry.

But it was about his economic problems in the USSR and where he defines a socialist commodity.

And so all these idiot left comms and Trotskyite smug idiots think they're so smart because they're like, oh, you know, clearly there can't be any socialist commodities.

It's a contradiction.

It's an absurdity.

And it shows they don't have a grasp of the rudiments of Marx and Engels and the logic that they use in the very writing of Capital and other texts where they make it clear how socialism develops from the womb of the previous mode of production.

How the development of anything, I mean, read Engels' dialectic of nature.

The development of any given thing, not just modes of production.

Doesn't happen when you grab something and smash it against something else out of nowhere in some kind of dualism.

It's things develop.

According to the very uh they developed imminently according to the very logic of the development of the previous form of the thing itself.

And that's how novelty arises in existence.

It doesn't arise on the basis of, you know, uh

You know, i it doesn't arise from me thinking of the concept of capitalism in my head, then abstracting myself from that concept and making and and and enclosing it in my fucking fist and smashing it in my hands.

That's just some nonsense idealism.

It can't even be called utopianism.

It's infantilism.

Capitalism is not a concept, it's not an ideology, it's not a an object we take and we sh you know, smash it on the ground or whatever.

It's

It's something that is in the process of developing into something else.

And how we respond to that politically, of course, is very decisive.

We need to seize power, of course.

We need to smash the bourgeoisie as a class.

But what did Lenin show us?

Even after we smash the political bourgeoisie, we haven't destroyed bourgeois relationships within civil society.

All we could do is oversee and facilitate the development.

Of new relations of production that are already there.

And then, one last thing, I know I ramble.

Of course, it takes decisive will to do this in many cases.

Collectivization took will.

But what was collectivization?

Was it Stalin thinking of post-capitalism and then imposing it on reality?

No.

There was already a cooperative movement.

All they did is have the courage to defend that movement and raise it to never-before-seen heights.

So you see, that's what socialist construction is.

You're taking something that's already there and you're developing that.

You're not just smashing, you know, you're not creating an enclosure around reality, calling it capitalism, and then belly-flopping it or something.

You're discerning tendencies in the very object of inquiry and partaking in the development of those tendencies and encouraging those.

Sorry, go ahead.

Yeah, no, I agree.

And to the last guy, Goink, or whatever his name was, if you feel like we haven't focused enough on commodity production, you could check out my analysis on American healthcare, which focuses on or uses the opioid crisis as an example and shows how the American healthcare system is entirely focused on the production of exchange value and surplus value and offers some ideas, mostly nationalizing the entire system for transitioning healthcare towards a focus on use value, towards a focus on uplifting the population and keeping the population as healthy as possible, a focus on what in healthcare is just called public health rather than on profit making.

And I take that down to the level of the commodity because healthcare is sold as a commodity in this country.

But like anything, that would be a process of construction.

You would need to identify the changes that need to be made in commodity production in each industry.

And so I get what he's saying when he says he wants us to focus more on commodity production, but I also agree with what you said, that it's not the end-all-be-all, that there are also all these other factors that need to be taken account, civilizational factors and whatnot.

But yeah, that's in the Journal of American Socialist Studies 2 that I did the analysis of healthcare as a commodity.

But yeah, that was a good question.

Yeah, if people don't notice about Eddie, he's very much someone who's inquiring and investigating and understanding economics, I would say.

More than any of us in the executive board.

Am I stepping on anyone's toes by saying that?

I feel like it's no, I don't think so.

I mean, I I studied it in college as m because I got a you know, they tell you to study economics when you become a socialist.

So I got a um a background in neoclassical economics, and then a lot of my work has focused on um socialist commodity production, um, socialist economics versus um you know, capitalist neoclass because neoclassical economics really emerged after Marx because Marx, you know, so thoroughly critiqued the classical school.

He so he really brought classical econom political economy to its logical conclusion.

So the bourgeoisie needed to come up with a more subjectivist way of a more you know, pseudo-scientific, really economic quote-unquote science in order to explain why capitalism is the best.

And this is where you get folks like Hayek and Milton Friedman, and they, you know, have an entirely different basis for their economic system than classical political economy.

But yeah.

Yeah, I mean, classical political economy, the key word there is political.

It was a holistic understanding of societies, and it grappled with fundamental questions of where wealth and value actually came from.

And it viewed societies as these integral holistic totalities of production, where wealth is not something produced in isolation.

It's societies are producing the wealth.

You know, the peoples are entire.

Um

Entire polities are, right?

And that is the scale at which it was operating.

It was really leaving no stone unturned.

It was a total and concrete aspiration, at least.

Whereas neoclassical economics would be regarded by Lenin and Marx as Philistinism.

It's not a concrete outlook, it's an abstract one.

It doesn't deal with, it's not a political economy.

It's attempting to draw what they call macroeconomic conclusions on the basis of various assumptions about the nature of individuals and individual choices and consumers and whatever.

And it doesn't have this integral holistic outlook.

The closest it gets is in this dumb phrase they call it macroeconomic.

But it's not really a form of knowledge.

It's more like a utility, a scam utility, by the way, for policy-making institutions where they are not looking at the reality of production and the reality of society.

They're looking at that reality to the extent that it fulfills policy-making agendas and decisions.

But not this kind of, I guess we would call it metaphysical now, aspiration for the truth in and of itself about the nature of reality.

It has no concern for that.

I think it was marginalism that started that tendency, where they basically said classical political economy is metaphysical.

We don't care about value.

We don't care about all this other stuff.

Let's just look at marginal costs versus profits and so on and so on.

That doesn't matter.

Absolutely.

You g yeah.

Yeah, you could um I don't know when the marginal school came out, but you could trace it to Alfred Marshall, too, who tried to argue that supply you know, against the labor value of every commodity, because that's the basis that classical political economy starts from, is that the real value of every commodity is the labor time that it costs to produce it.

And Alfred Marshall comes in and says, no, it's just supply and demand.

It's completely subjective.

It's based on, you know, what a it's based solely on what the consumers are willing to pay, which is a you know, if you read volume three, Marx talks about supply and demand a ton and the effect that they have on the actual labor cost of a commodity.

But what neoclassical economics does is what a lot of bourgeois pseudosciences do, which is isolate two factors, isolate supply and demand, or isolate how consumers act in a market and ignore all of these other factors, which is just very typical of undialectical bourgeois pseudosciences not having a dialectical and more totalistic view of political economy and all the factors involved.

But that stuff's kind of boring, I know.

So, Eddie, I know you're a big fan of my provocations, but I'd like to make another one.

Please.

You know, but here's what's interesting.

If we try to historicize, sorry, you're getting feedback.

Oh, bad on mute.

If we try to historicize, why did that outlook with respect to economy emerge?

Like, why did they say all that matters are consumers' desires, supply and demand, and then value as such means nothing?

Here's my provocative thesis, more or less.

My provocative thesis

Is that

This is actually something that corresponded in reality to the breakdown of the capitalist mode of production.

And the notion that the discretion of consumer societies because here's why, I mean, obviously the rise of light industries, where the discretion of consumers became much more decisive than it was in Marx's time.

In Marx's time, it was kind of self-evident that what people consume is kind of predetermined.

At least it could be culture, it could be the necessities of survival and subsistence, it could be just convention and norms.

But with the rise of light industries, those are all about breaking norms and conventions to get people to consume and buy new things that they're not used to.

New novelties and trinkets and light goods, right?

That's why it corresponds to such a level of the disruption of traditional culture that it never was before.

But in any case,

But what is that consumerism?

What does that attest to when it comes to determining factors in production?

Well, for one.

This production is increasingly, paradoxically, not individually but socially determined.

Because the light industry companies and corporations later that are tracking consumer choices are not tracking them as individual choices, they're tracking them as aggregates, social and societal and cultural aggregates fundamentally.

Right, so this ability for society to decide production on the basis of desires.

attest to the increasingly social factor of production over the factor of uh

over the factor of um the value form, but on the basis of the logic of value itself.

In order to increase their profits, they have to yield and give way to the whims and fancies of

Social production, what society wants.

So basically to cut a long story short, the an i ironic provocation I'd like to suggest is that the rise of neoclassical economics is actually proof of the victory of socialism and the destruction of capitalism itself.

But that's an i kind of long shot.

I have to think about it more.

I'll have to go back and re-listen.

But I think I agree.

Um.

Yeah, I could go in further on the like the law of value is still in command, obviously, but it's like it is true that consumption has become more decisive when it comes to making or breaking entire industries.

Right.

Up to that point, like advertising and marketing didn't even really arise till post-Marx.

Right.

It was like, at least in the U.S., it was in the early 1900s.

Basically, to put it this way, decisions about where we're allocating our resources and wealth.

are heavily tied to demand like they never were before, because demand it can be subject to so much change, unpredictable change.

Why do we why are so many supply chains and resources directed to the production of iPhones?

right, or as opposed to a cheaper, you know, Android alternative or something.

But the ability but I think that's a social factor of production.

I think that's it shows how society is somehow driving production

according to changes in culture and changes in in in um ways of life and stuff.

And that s in some cases is more decisive than just, you know, um

Just a pure profit motive, I guess.

Right.

No, that's interesting.

And it is kind of like we were talking about earlier, how modes of production, you know, it's a process as they evolve into the next mode of production.

Like communism, socialism evolves out of capitalism.

Like you said, that shows the victory or the necessity of socialism.

Obviously, you need the revolution for the working class to assert political power, but capitalism is creating the conditions for the possibility of socialism.

It's centralizing itself.

It's leading to more planned production.

And this is just another factor of that.

There's more of a focus on demand.

That's what I mean.

Consumer demand and what do people want as like an a form of social planning.

It's not a form of planning that's directed by that's directed centrally by like you know bureaucrats or something, but it is a plan.

Production is being planned on the basis of some kind of social social goal, right?

Right.

No, I agree with that a hundred percent.

So uh is there anyone else requesting or yeah, there's um we got

Psychonaut, um Zolo, the guy who uses gas stations.

Um wan do not I guess if they're a hater, yeah.

Hopefully they are.

Oh, this other person looks like a gorilla, so we'll let Psycho not in.

Alright Psycho now, tell us why you hate us.

You're muted.

I can't even see them, so maybe I have 'em blocked.

Oh.

Saigona, um, go ahead and speak up.

Oh, you muted yourself again.

Yeah.

We can't hear you.

There must maybe there's something wrong with your mic.

Alright.

Well

doesn't seem to be working.

Alright, uh I can't even see them also, but bring on uh someone else.

Yeah.

All right, the guy who uses gas station toilet.

Hey, first off, actually a huge fan.

Love you guys.

Just wanted to critique one thing, though.

I was just curious about reaching the average dude.

I'm a giant oaf.

I'm stupid as hell.

Try to read as much as I can.

But how are you going to reach these people?

And this is all about ACP, right?

This is about you guys specifically.

Yeah, we're looking for criticisms of ACP.

I just think it's mainly hard for the average dude to get past the word communism.

I know that sounds stupid, but like, especially in the United States, like that, and then just like you guys are doing great stuff, too.

It's awesome to see.

But like getting past that and like the education system hates communism.

Like every class you take, they're like, oh, it killed millions of people.

Everyone hates Stalin.

And it's like people barely read as it is.

They watch the news.

I mean, hell, half the people I work with, and I'm an EMT.

They're all watching Fox News.

Like, I don't know how you get...

Like, yeah.

I don't know.

Uh Eddie, I can go, but do you wanna go?

You can go first.

Yeah, all right.

So what I'd say is uh

I don't think the goal I don't think we have a reasonable expectation.

We're just going to convert people in mass numbers on the basis of our words.

But I think what we want to do is initiate a process where people can just see what it means based on what we're doing.

And so that's the first thing.

And I think the second thing is, more or less, I mean, there's a lot

But more or less, I think the only reason Communists disdain to conceal their aims and use that word and

uh understand how shocking or whatever it is because we have a reasonable expectation that big shocks are in store for society itself that it's not going to be able to explain conventionally.

And in those circumstances, communism is going to be the least scary thing, frankly.

It's going to be less scary than reality itself.

I think communism is used

As like the worst thing ever in America, a word for that.

But what happens when the worst thing ever actually comes to pass?

You know, I think.

Communism is a very scary ideology, but what happens when times themselves become scary?

And I think that's when, you know, look, I don't know if I'm getting ahead of myself, Eddie.

You can give your thoughts in terms of this observation I'm about to make.

But I even feel like this has already happened in a lot of ways.

Like when we were in Carbondale, for example, it wasn't just homeless people that were coming up to us, it was working-class people.

And we had the hammer and sickle, and we were telling them we were the American Communist Party, and nobody was freaking out.

It's almost like reality has become so shocking and bizarre for them that they're just like open to anything now.

Like, they're like, all right, interesting.

Absolutely, I agree.

And as as the capitalist imperialist system continues to decay, I think that's only going to get worse.

And I think we're only shooting ourselves in the foot by hiding our aims and hiding what we are and hiding our theory.

Like we have to sow the seeds now, get people more familiarized with communism so that as things deteriorate and get worse, which they have been for 40, 50 years at least in America now, they know what the solution is, or they're more open to solutions like communism.

And it's going to be a process.

That's kind of been the theme of this space, is there's nothing that happens overnight.

But if we conceal our aims and conceal what communism is now, we're not sowing the seeds for it to spread and become more popular later.

And communism wasn't that popular in 1905 Russia.

And a lot of the communist movements had been crushed by the Tsar and the monarchy.

But when times got extremely bad, when World War I was breaking out and people were being sent to die in these senseless wars for capital expansion, that's when the communists were there to offer people theory and offer people an alternative.

And that's when they ran with the Bolsheviks.

And part of that is people respect actions more than words, especially Americans, I think.

And so another part of our strategy is proving to people what we're all about through our actions.

And like Haas was saying, if you have working class people who are starving and struggling to make ends meet and the communists are there meeting their material needs, that's the way to change their mind.

And we've already seen that.

A lot of the members of our party, none of them were born communists.

There's some red diaper babies, but most of them are people who have had their world view transformed through our educational programs and our outreach.

And I think as conditions decay, that's going to happen on a larger and larger scale.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

That was a good answer.

Yeah, thanks.

Also, Eddie, it was good seeing you at that tournament in Chicago.

If you come out to Rochester, hit me up.

Oh, hell yeah, man.

I didn't know that was you.

Yeah, I'm the guy who uses gas station toilets, brother.

Oh, yeah.

Good to talk to you, bro.

That guy's a he's another Division Three wrestler, so solidarity.

Hell yeah, brother.

Big bet.

And to the point um I know for a fact that um our gas station toilets comrade here was radicalized by uh his time in the military.

And that's uh you know kind of like what the the point I'm making as you know these imperialist wars continue and as conditions decay, more and more people I think will open their eyes to what's going on.

But we have to put out the we have to make the education available for them.

And we have to be there to offer them an alternative, which I think is the reason I mean, there's all sorts of reasons, but it's one of the reasons that communism isn't popular in America right now, because there hasn't been a strong Communist Party, you know, showing what communism is all about through our actions and offering that theoretical education.

But if we're there to meet the crisis, if we're there to meet the problems of our time, that's, I think, where we reach people.

Trip over, go ahead, and I think this will be the last person for the space.

Hi, I guess this is less of a criticism as it is a question.

I'm speaking as someone associated with the Cyclone Network.

I'm sure you're aware what that is, in Britain.

And I'm interested in your response to a tweet by Jehu about wage slavery.

I'm wondering what the ACP's response to this.

And the thread is it reads, the last thing you ever want to do is romanticize wage slaves.

They will break your fucking heart.

Ain't no creature easier to buy off with a 2% raise and a promise of a clean bed in a nursing home to die in.

And it basically goes on to say, this is the reality of the working class.

Nothing makes sense.

No one can be trusted.

Everybody is the enemy.

The government, politicians, unions, company, and co-workers.

How do you not believe in conspiracy theories?

How do you not believe the media is lying?

I myself am a minimum wage worker in London.

And I've been trying to speak to people in my workplace about what they're, you know, where they're interested in unionizing.

And a lot of them are being exploited, even people who are being paid a little bit more than me.

And I'm wondering, what do you think the response is to a working class which doesn't even define itself as working class anymore, which doesn't even have a word for that?

A lot of the situation in London, and I imagine it's the same, it's even worse in America, is obviously the internalization of the bourgeois ideology and the sense that you can just hustle to become richer.

You completely internalize it to the point where you even deny the fact that you are working class.

You deny the fact that you even have a class identity.

What do you think the metaphysical response to this might be?

Well, I think it's an interesting question.

And to respond to Jehu's question, because I think the second question is a little more difficult in terms of labor strategies and stuff.

I think Kyle is much better to talk to about that because he has more experience unionizing workplaces.

But I can respond to the metaphysical quote-unquote side of things.

Yeah, I'm very interested in that.

Go ahead, yeah.

So I'll respond with an actual interesting paradox of a certain literary figure in U.S.

history because it's a very American mindset, which was Jack London, right?

If you read Jack London's Call of the Wild, it is the epitome of what they called social Darwinism, which I don't think it's like that.

I think social Darwinism is looking at society from above and making us conclusions.

But Jack London, he's kind of giving us the epitome of this literal dog-eat-dog mindset with respect to absolutely what Jehu said: everyone will just fuck you over.

Don't trust anyone.

Everyone's a monster.

Everyone's a beast.

You can't trust anyone.

You can only trust yourself, if even that.

And that is very much a working class mindset in this country.

It's a very gritty realism that people hold to.

And it's like it's true also that movie The Joker, the first one.

It's like that's where it's really showing, you know, that people are so mean and awful.

But how does this paradoxically, so often in history, within the history of literature and stuff, why does this correspond to a seemingly like socialist and revolutionary position?

That's something that's very, very strange that people should think about.

Like, Jack London was a socialist.

He was actually someone who believed in the cause of the proletariat.

And yet he had such a grim view about the nature of people.

And just he didn't like he wasn't, you know, lovey-dovey, like, oh, everyone's so great.

No, everyone's a fucking monster.

Everyone's a fucking beast.

What is our solution?

And sorry, I don't mean to be rude or whatever, but I'm just kind of losing thought if you interrupt.

So please just let me finish this.

Sorry about that.

Anyway,

Sorry, I just lose my train of thought easily.

Uh but what I'm trying to say is um

What's basically uh what I would basically say is that I think the key is that when we go from bourgeois consciousness to proletarian consciousness, when we transition from individualism to collectivism, we actually have to pass through individualism and bring it to its logical extreme in a sense.

And what I mean by individualism is not individual desire and self-indulgence, because as you can understand, every narcissistic fantasy that's individualistic involves some kind of false assumption about how other individuals are roped in.

That's why it's paradoxical.

I'm going to say something, Eddie will shoot me for.

Ayn Rand was maybe a few steps away from proletarian consciousness.

Possibly.

I mean, that's a huge exaggeration, and it's not true.

But the stereotype of Ayn Rand, I want to say, is a few steps away from proletarian class consciousness.

And I don't mean hedonism.

I don't mean self-indulgence.

I don't mean narcissism.

I mean such an acute degree of schizoid paranoia where everyone around you cannot be trusted and everyone around you is a monster and even your sense of self is becoming a little you're just purely reduced to like fight or flight type of mentality.

There's something to that where

You know, it's like um

Why how could that possibly be conducive to a collectivistic consciousness?

How could that possibly be conducive to prol please mute yourself, please?

I'm sorry.

Um all right, hold on.

Um

How could that possibly be conducive to a proletarian consciousness?

Um, well, I could explain.

Basically, when we call schizoid consciousness, which is the logical conclusion, it involves a splitting of the individual.

All the kind of conspiracies about MK, oh, they're not conspiracies, it's true, MK Ultra and LSD and stuff.

That is actually how mind control happens.

That's how federal agencies control people.

They split the self, the sense of self, right?

But this splitting of the sense of self is also what happens at the high point of alienation, individualistic alienation.

Because what we come to realize is that a fundamental part of our selfhood does not actually belong to us, but is actually based in how we are recognized by others, by this big other, so to speak, by this collective being, right?

By the others, by the crowds.

And the Joker in that movie, when he has his extreme kind of alienation from society, that is the schizoid kind of individualism.

Jack London in The Call of the Wild, you can make a case, he is projecting very real human feelings and subjectivities on animals.

What is that if not proof of a kind of split, a kind of schizoid break?

If The Call of the Wild was about human beings, that human being would be a fucking crazy guy, right?

But for some reason, we sympathize with it and it works because it's an animal.

So what it but what is going on in that case?

Uh the alienation in question is between the individual consciousness and an inability to trust sorry, the individual self and subject and what we call the other of society.

And here's the thing, in bourgeois society we must mistrust the other, because the other is what?

I'll just break it down simply.

The other is CNN, the other is the academic institutions, the other is the bullshit we're being spooed fed, which we have every right to be cynical about.

The other is the bourgeois institutions, the other is the false and hypocritical institutions of capitalism.

Every the ruling ideas of society are the ideas of the ruling class.

But the ruling others of society, so to speak, is also the others of the ruling class.

Meaning, the most popular chit-chat is the chit-chat of the ruling class.

The most viral likes on X are the likes of the ruling class in some sense.

There has to be this profound distrust, even hatred.

For the falseness of the other.

That's a precondition to any other kind of consciousness.

And that first paradoxically takes the form of an extreme Jack London-like kind of rugged individualism of total mistrust and repudiation and rejection of others.

Now, how does that transition to proletarian and collectivistic consciousness?

This is what I mean to say.

Well, you begin to understand the other not as a person, but as a collective being.

Once you understand social existence as impersonal, you're no longer heartbroken and disappointed by it like Jehu is.

You understand it in terms of objective historical laws.

You understand it in terms of objective material realities and relations of production, not the moral inclinations or character of individuals.

And in this sense, there's something very beautiful about that.

Even if we're all evil, dirty, rotten bastards, we have a chance at redemption just by being honest and authentic about the reality we share in common, inadvertently, that we've inadvertently managed to produce.

And once we take responsibility for that reality, do we acquire a collective consciousness, or sorry, a collectivistic consciousness and a proletarian consciousness?

When the object, the social object, so to speak, is no longer personal.

It's what we've all produced as a consequence of our relationships and our existence.

It's the thing that we sit and await judgment with respect to, so to speak, right?

The real consequence of our existence.

It's not personal.

It's not good or it's not bad.

It's just there.

And the minute we start recognizing it, the minute we take responsibility for it, we think collectivistically.

We think like proletarians think.

We think in a way that is befitting of the interests and the existence even of the proletarian class.

So there's no illusions about proletarians being good people personally and individually.

Rather, the point of proletarian consciousness is to shift our, let's call it, political subjectivity away from normative judgments about the character of individuals or even the existence of individuals as subjects and toward impersonal collective realities.

And once we accomplish that transition, we can now change our standard of individual morality.

He who is moral is he who places themselves in the service of the very reality they depend upon.

He who is cowardly and spineless and immoral is, for example, in trade union consciousness, the scab, the traitor, the one who's betraying the movement, the one who's selling out, the one see in the face of this.

So that's not to say judgments of individual character disappear with the rise of proletarian consciousness.

They are finally given a proper basis.

No longer can we universally prescribe everyone as evil and sinners equally, as we do from the perspective of bourgeois consciousness.

Now we can actually reacquire a sense of real morality to hold individuals to the standard of.

So I'm going to unmute.

Sorry.

I'm sorry I muted, but I just I need to have my line of thought completely uninterrupted, but I'll go ahead and unmute.

No, that that was very that was very helpful.

Thank you.

Um I think one of the one of the problems for with this for me, um I guess I mean I'm I'm I read a lot of like Nietzsche and and I I've I kind of understood this through a Nichean um

I've also been aware of this same process unfolding in fascist consciousness as well, even though that's obviously completely misdirected.

But I guess where that position comes from is the sense that you have to look into the abyss, you have to look into the eye of the storm.

And anyone who's a critic of mass consumer society will say that it's becoming impossible to do so.

It's becoming impossible to critique this morality, as it were, because of the sheer anesthesia of consumerism.

How even in acceleratingly declining circumstances, it's becoming almost impossible to avoid this anesthetic quality simply by having access to short-form media like TikTok, simply by having access to things like junk food, things like this very cheap, very reproducible form of entertainment.

And I think the concern, and I think a lot of this concern is also what in some ways drives the self-appointed aristocratic right wing is this sense that most people are too stupid, and myself included, are too stupid to approach an understanding of this eye of the storm because they, even on a physiological level, are anesthetized and are too well placated, even when the world around them is apparently and really collapsing on material basis and ideological basis as well.

There's obviously this witness to destruction, this kind of babel-like destruction, and yet there is this desire to simply recoil and numb the pain, which seems impossible to broach.

Well, I think my response to that would be to focus and fixate on what you just said, the witnessing of the eye of the storm, which is happening on a mass scale.

Because what's really going on when we're talking about the eye of the storm is that the more people are placated and satiated on a short-term basis, right, for immediate gratification, the more in the realm of long-term experience, some kind of fundamental tension is being built up where, yes, there's a total numbing and stupidity, and yeah, there's a total amnesia.

But this is building up very long-term symptoms that are returning to people in ways that they cannot avoid and causing a fundamental disturbance at the level of their subjectivity that's equally unavoidable.

And it's manifesting in terms of an extremely unhappy consciousness in a both literal and philosophic sense.

People, yes, the more accelerated the rapid pace, it's kind of the opposite of what we would assume.

Actually, when people are placating themselves in large but let's say infrequent doses,

They have a lot of time to just kind of fall into this cycle of stupidity and cattle-like consumption.

But now that it has accelerated to such a degree of constant immediacy, the con the indirect consequences of mass consumption and immediate constant consumption are being felt far more intensely and far more aggressively.

And what's basically going on.

Is that

People are experiencing the destruction of individual subjectivity on a mass scale.

The rise of the far right is a mass phenomena.

It's not they think of themselves as aristocrats, but they are really an extremely quiche mass phenomena that's just happening to everyone seamlessly who's being roped into it.

And the exception among the youth is actually the kind of naive Harry Sisson Liptard.

That is a kind of robotic, nobody that's only the extremely privileged few, and those people are monsters behind the scenes anyway.

Everyone else is going down this spiral of grappling with the eye of the storm, and even Nietzsche himself is becoming a tool for people to cope with it and stuff.

And so that's important to bear in mind.

It's like all of this consumption, which you're calling junk food, people are, however, stupid they are, there's this deep numbness they're increasingly beginning to feel, which is why their appetites are becoming far more intense, because it's just at a certain point becomes sensory overload for them.

It's just one meaningless stream of consumption that is without distinction.

They're getting bored of TikTok.

They keep scrolling and scrolling and scrolling, and it becomes increasingly more obscure and nonsensical and meaningless.

And that is building up as a kind of sensory overload within which lies the destruction of subjectivity, individual subjectivity itself.

So, I would say, out of that destruction arises the possibility for a new kind of subjectivity, which is not an individual subjectivity, but the subjectivity befitting of the socialist mode of production, right?

The class consciousness, proletarian consciousness.

How to tap into that precisely.

It has a lot to do

With understanding what's going on in the first place in terms of changing modes of production.

As naive and stupid as that sounds, what the right wing is thriving off of is a kind of immediate false consciousness, which in many roundabout ways is trying to salvage individual subjectivity.

So, that aristocraticism that you're talking about is one such way.

Ah, it's just that everyone else is dumb and I am smart and I am enlightened.

So, this is still really all about the subject.

The individual subject remains intact.

They just have to abstract themselves from the experience of reality itself in order to be preserved.

But that is a kind of psychosis.

It's again a schizoid consciousness that I talked about earlier.

The other kind of responses and reactions of dehumanizing other races, the JQ obsession, all of these reflect attempts at salvaging the pretense and integrity of individual subjectivity in the face of its objective destruction.

And so, all communism should be in this era of TikTok and unhappy consciousness and so on, and black pills and whatever, is just an acceptance.

Yes, the individual subject is gone.

Now we're in an era of the objective.

Now we're in an impersonal objective era of impersonal objective realities where our desires are not the center of reality, the center of the universe, and the center of society, even.

We can just have acceptance now of this new reality and even see in it the possibility of a

of a of a redemption of humanity itself.

And I think that's the communist response to the turmoil of the age, the alienation of the age, so to speak.

And and so far this force does not exist.

So far this specific response to the problem is nowhere to be found.

Because communists have not made because in order for it to be possible, it's not going to emerge passively.

It's going to emerge by conscious, historically conscious communists who make the connection between the history of communism, beginning with Marx and Engels, all the way through the experience of the twentieth century up to this point.

Those people who make that connection and connect that with the present alienation that's being felt by the masses and and and articulate communism through that, that is what's going to succeed and that's what's going to prevail.

And um that's what infrared has always wanted and aspired to be.

But

Uh we know that, for example,

It's uh it's it's going to require an intense an increased intensification of uh I mean, we're here, we're not going anywhere, we're gonna stay.

But as far as this specific response to the problem spreading, it's gonna require more intensification for us to grow, at least.

Go ahead.

You can unmute yourself.

Go ahead.

Hi.

Um

On yes, on the question of entering the objective era, accepting the destruction of individual subjectivity, do you think this potentially presents a conflict between a kind of acosmic model and an otherwise pro-human, if you like, you know, I guess Christian socialist kind of positive vision for collectivism and things like this.

Do you think that in this short life that we have and in these particular developments in the historical process which are being made, do you think there's a risk of leaning into an acosmic theological framework which suggests a kind of emptying out of the human which denies as first principle, I know you hate first principles, but which denies an individual subjectivity, an individual, and risks, I guess, denying a soul.

I think this is an idea which has been articulated by all the sort of critics of communism who say, oh, well, you know, it's all about losing who you are and becoming part of a sort of mindless cult of personality.

Also, Nick Land will be the opposite.

He will critique communism as precisely the Christian thing and insist upon the inhumanism that you're describing.

But I think the trouble lies in precisely the conflation of the individual subject with the human.

For Marx, when it comes to humanism, the human is not an individual.

The human is a collective being.

And the subject is labor, but labor is also social and collective.

Individual labor is meaning, cannot be abstracted from the collective existence for Marx.

So also this also is with respect to, for example, the existence of a soul.

I think the conflation of the soul

if we're talking theologically with individual subjectivity is a an assumption made uh well, I'm a kind of Bruno Latour schizo, so I'll give it to you like this.

Basically a rogue strain of Gnosticism prevailed in the development of um

Western European Christianity, which disguised itself esoterically through the ages more or less, culminates uh in the Enlightenment, where it kind of reveals itself almost brazenly and openly, and it it comes to redefine the meaning of religiosity itself in many ways.

And um

We, you know, the individual subject is a being that is alienated from the objective existence.

And the impersonal, objective reality is regarded as something devoid of meaning and devoid of humanity.

And so that dichotomy that you're talking about, which is between the human as the individual subject and soul/slash soul, versus the impersonal and objective, which is regarded as nature and devoid of humanity and acosmic and so on, that is an incorrect distinction in my view, because the reality of humanity is the real reality of the human is an impersonal reality.

It's not a personal reality.

The reality of personal existence, as a matter of fact, should be redefined and re-understood in light of this revelation.

We should rediscover our sense of individuality in light of the fact that the reality we participate in is fundamentally a non-individual but rather collective reality.

And I think that is the Christian view, actually.

If we read the New Testament and we read the Bible, I think the centering of the individual subject is a strange Luciferianism which has somehow wormed its way into religion.

But the spirit of Christianity is about the kingdom of God.

It's about the community of the Holy Spirit.

It's about a collective existence, which is regarded, as a matter of fact, as the subject of the Bible.

It's not.

It's not uh

an a uh uh individual subject.

Individual subject see the word subject, it implies I mean, that is what everything is for, right?

So the notion that everything is for an individual, I think that is in the realm of uh sinfulness and pride within Christianity.

Um individuals exist.

A great mercy is uh bestowed upon the individual by virtue of their existence, and individuals should be regarded with consideration and care.

But they are not the subject of reality.

The subject of reality is radically

uh collective and and impersonal.

So that would be my view basically: is that the human itself should be understood in a different way.

Now, that opens the question: if the human is not the individual subject, how can it be tangible and definite?

Because a human being is a tangible organism, it's an animal, right?

The body, the human.

Well,

I think that is uh f uh another false assumption.

We are not just animals.

And even animals are not this way because even trying to explain an individual organism in terms of the definitiveness of their um

Their embodied existence neglects how that existence comes to be, how it is maintained, and how it is, uh, how it changes.

For example, even um, in biology, they don't say this, they say everything is the DNA, that's really the substance, not the tangibility of the physical body, but the DNA coding inside.

So, even they.

concede on that front that there is some kind of virtual element that is the object and that the physical organism is a kind of um uh symptom of that fact.

Of that reality.

So the human is even more so irreducible, I would say, to

Individual tangibility of physical tangibility of the individual because by the way, when we say physical tangibility, we're referring to physical tangibility to the extent of a sensuous relationship, of a kind of I can see and feel and measure.

keeping that in mind by another individual.

Subject.

So uh

But um w how does the how does humanity acquire concreteness and tangibility if it's not just the individual?

Well believe it or not, that's uh the object of inquiry of Marx.

How does humanity constitute a concrete totality?

That is why he embarked upon the critique of classical political economy.

That is what he set about to try and understand in the very writing of Capital.

Um the concrete

existence of mankind is in a mode of production.

Where does that mode of production begin and end?

It's the big question of Marxism.

How is the current one transitioning into a new one?

Right?

Thank you.

That's been very enlightening.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Um, Eddie, I please wake up.

Sorry.

I'm still alive.

I'm still alive.

All right.

I think that's a good place to end the space.

I don't know why you.

Yeah, yeah.

That was great.

That was great.

Thanks for coming on.

Thanks to everybody who stopped by.

We'll do another one of these soon, I'm sure.

Well yeah, good discussions today I thought.

Yep, I agree.

Awesome.

All right, everyone, we'll see you next time.

Any last words, Chairman?

Nope.

Nothing from me.

Cool.

Peace, everybody.

We'll see you on the next one.

Alright, uh I want to say some final things before we end the stream.

Uh I was gonna talk about like um after Trump's victory in twenty sixteen, there was a huge rise in the left, but we need to be a little skeptical because

Fucking libtards love LARPing as revolutionaries when the president is a Republican or the president is Trump.

But when the president is a fucking Democrat, they're regime-pilled.

So you're going to see a lot of people that claim to be regime maxers that loved Biden and even memed about it, even if they weren't serious, become the resistance now and LARP as revolutionaries.

So that's just a bunch of fucking nonsense.

Sleeper cell.

A lot of people became radicalized by Trump and became communists because they're like, oh my God, Trump is a president?

I fucking hate the government now.

I hate America.

And it's like, no, if you didn't hate America under Obama and under Biden, you're a fucking LARPer and a liar.

Fuck you.

As a true hater of the real great Satan, the US regime, it's fucking disgusting how these people have this idea that like, oh yeah, you're a you're a you're now an enemy of the regime just 'cause y the president is Trump.

No, you're a fucking shill.

You know.

You're just a shill.

If you weren't like this under Biden, you had time to learn.

In 2016, I get it.

You know, people were woken up and shocked by Trump's presidency because it was unprecedented and new, and it disrupted a lot of their assumptions about, you know, U.S.

democracy and whatever, you know, human rights, whatever.

But then you should have learned if you became radicalized.

There's going to be a new generation of radicals.

No, there's going to be a new generation of Nazis.

And we're already starting to see them.

Trump is going to radicalize fucking Nazis who are going after all the minority voters that voted for MAGA.

The disillusioned liberals this time around are going to become Azov Nazis.

Mark my fucking.

I told you about this two years ago.

And it's happening.

And now they're saying we want to deport all the Muslims and and Mexicans and whatever and Latinos 'cause they voted for Trump.

And that's what we're not gonna fucking see

Com we're in lip tards in after 2020, there's no lip tard to communist pipeline.

I'm sorry to tell you.

So these people are gonna fucking become Naslibs.

Mark my words.

And they already are.

Look on Reddit.

They're already.

You know what?

Maybe human biodiversity has validity because of the low IQ of all these minorities who are voting for Trump.

It's gonna be like creepy shit like that.

Mark my fucking words.

But mark my words though.

Like write this down and mark my fucking words.

And we're gonna we have to prepare to go to war with these fucking people.

You know, guys, I'm I'm dropping gems on these streams.

Just like gems, gems, gems.

Uh, so clip 'em and save 'em and, you know.

Uh, we'll stream tomorrow, or if not tomorrow, we'll stream uh Tuesday.

And uh

Yeah.

History is gonna remember Richard Spencer as having been

Like an early adopter of something that's going to become very widespread.

Like the Richard Spencer stance.

Stay what you want.

I mean, like.

Look, Richard Spencer is a fucking Nazi.

He's a fucking Nazi.

But

I mean, there's no but, but it's like he somehow was smart enough to foresee what all liberals are going to become, which is pretty crazy, you know?

Like.

He was, in terms of foreshadowing what all the Democrats and liberals are going to turn into, he was ahead of the curb.

You had white guys for Kamala and all this shit.

That's what's going to happen.

That's what's going to happen.

And I have been saying this for three years.

I've been saying this for three years.

All right.

And will I get credit for it?

I am if these kind of fucking predictions I make

It's like they are so much more on the nose than any person on the stock market, and I don't fucking make any money from them.

If I could capitalize off of my predictions like someone on the stock market, I would be worth $500 million by now.

Minimum.

Minimum.

You should find my old predictions about this, because it's fucking crazy how I predicted this.

All of it.

Ah.

Anyway, I'm gonna Suez There we go, cashed in on the credit.

Suez just gave me credit.

That's right.

We're grifting it up.

Or grifting it up.

Anyway, guys, oh, also, also, now let me tell you something.

Ones if you think

I should accept crypto donations personally.

I'm not talking about the party, just personally.

Like, are there crypto whales in the community who are like fucking billionaires who just want me to like open a crypto wallet and will give me a fuck ton of money in crypto that they can just wipe their ass with?

I don't know.

One w were broke as fuck.

All right.

Yeah, I don't know.

Plenty of people making bags off of uh Bitcoin.

Yeah, that's crazy.

Yeah.

No, we we're we are actually

We are crypto broke.

I'm broke can only afford one gift saw.

You know what?

That's that's all the money in the world to me, Por Porm.

That's all the money in the world to me.

All right, just by boosting my shit, that's all the money in the world.

You don't even have to donate, you don't even have to subscribe.

I appreciate ver I appreciate the support.

You understand?

That's a you know.

Anyways.

Um

Look guys, uh I'll see you Tuesday.

How do you survive?

I'm doing it.

I've been surviving.

The past the past like fucking three streams of me grifting is how I survive.

Iron Rose.

Anyway, guys, thank you.

We're gonna wrap it up.

Um anything I wanted to say last

Haz thinning out.

What does that fucking mean, thinning out?

What does thinning out mean?

Someone explained that to me.

What does thinning out mean?

Getting thin.

I've actually gained some weight.

Not a good s I've gained like two pounds, but it's still not a good sign.

Uh okay guys.

Well

I lost weight because I was broke.

Oh, that's not why I lost weight.

I lost weight because I stopped eating like a fat fuck.

It's not hard.

Uh and now I I also have to stop again because it's happening again.

But McDonald's sounds we're not doing that.

Anyway guys no no my weight as including the fluctuation.

Alright guys, I'm ending the stream right now.