HEATED Political debate...

Cause I feel like on the other side.

But I call on Jerry.

But the feeling that I have for you is so strong.

Things together so long and things could never be wrong.

Close the length.

Lots of

Shorty.

Darling.

Say, I'm a civil ja.

You must be sent from up above.

And you up here to me, Satinda.

Say, girl, I surrender.

Thanks for giving me your love.

Girl, it's like I'm a behavior.

You are missing out.

You must be sent from up above.

And you up here to me, Satinda.

Well, girl, I surrender.

Say, thanks for giving me your love.

All of this one big party when you're still young.

And who's gonna have your back when it's all done?

It's all good when you're literally up here fun.

Can't be a fool, son.

What about the long run?

Looking back, shoty, always I mentioned.

Say me not giving her much attention.

He was there through my incarceration.

I wanna show the nation my appreciation.

Girl, you're my angel.

You're my darling angel.

Closer than my pleasure.

Yo my dad.

Closer than my peace, you are dead.

My daughter.

Oh my, did you guys catch me singing?

Oh my god, this is really embarrassing.

I just I just left the mic and I was singing.

I didn't know everyone was gonna hear it.

Oh my god, this is really embarrassing.

Guys, honestly, just you know, forget.

Oh no, I can't believe it.

As many of you know, I've recently gotten into some trouble.

I'm being accused of being an anti-white.

Racist against white people because of my support for the EFF.

In response, I have to.

I have to clear this claim of being anti-white.

If they claim I'm anti-white, ask them to explain this.

It's time for y'all daily programming.

Eyes wide open.

And get ready.

He once was a Twitch streamer And he streamed for many hours

His voice was hard and weary, cause he didn't have no choice.

He heard so many, none but

Delete her.

He's our shepherd, and we're his flock.

Now he's our captain, and our ship's about to die.

Now he's our keeper, keep us safe from wrath.

Now he's our father, he's gonna lead us down that path.

Was a Twitch streamer and he streamed for many hours.

His voice was hard and weary, cause he didn't have a choice.

He heard so many non-believers.

He's our shepherd, and we're his flock.

Now he's our captain, and our ship's about to die.

Now he's our keeper, keep us safe from wrath.

Now he's our father, he's gonna lead us down that path.

Yeah.

He once was a Twitch streamer And he streamed for many hours

His voice was hard and weary Cause he didn't have a choice.

He heard so many non-believers till he heard the

He's our shepherd, and we're his flock.

Now he's our captain, and our ship's about to die.

Now he's our keeper, keep us safe from wrath.

Now he's our father, he's gonna lead us down that path.

Was a Twitch streamer, and he streamed for many hours.

His voice was hard and weary, cause he didn't have no choice.

He heard so many non-belief.

He's our shepherd, and we're his flock.

Now he's our captain, and our ship's about to dock.

Now he's our keeper, he was saved from wrath.

Now he's our father, he's gonna lead us down that path.

A Twitch streamer, and he streamed for many hours.

His voice was hard and weary, cause he didn't have no choice.

He heard so many non-believers.

Tilly her.

He's our shepherd and we're his flock.

Now he's our captain and our ship's about to die.

Now he's our keeper, keep us saved from wrath.

Now he's our father and he's gonna lead us down that path.

He once was a Twitch streamer And he streamed for many hours

His voice was hard and weary, cause he didn't have a choice.

He heard so many non-believers.

Delete her.

Now he's our shepherd, and we're his flock.

Now he's our captain, and our ship's about to die.

Now he's our keeper, keep us safe from wrath.

Now he's our father, and he's gonna lead us down that path.

Once was a Twitch streamer, and he streamed for many hours.

His voice was hard and weary, cause he didn't have no choice.

He heard so many none.

Tilly.

Our shepherd, and we're his flock.

Now he's our captain, and our ship's about to die.

Now he's our keeper, he was saved from wrath.

Now he's our father, he's gonna lead us down that path.

was a Twitch streamer and he streamed for many hours

His voice was hard and weary, cause he didn't have a choice.

He heard so many non-believers.

No.

He's our shepherd, and we're his flock.

Now he's our captain, and our ship's about to die.

Now he's our keeper, he was saved from wrath.

Now he's our father, and he's gonna lead us down that path.

a Twitch streamer and he streamed for many hours

His voice was hard and weary, cause he didn't have no choice.

He heard so many non-believers.

Tilly her.

He's our shepherd, and we're his flock.

Now he's our captain, and our ship's about to dock.

Now he's our keeper, keep us saved from wrath.

Now he's our father, and he's gonna lead us down that path.

Was a Twitch streamer and he streamed for many hours.

His voice was hard and weary Cause he didn't have a choice He heard so many none

Sabique, what's going on, brother?

I see you, brother.

What's going on?

Y'all didn't hear shit.

Comrade Thomas, what's going on, brother?

What's going on, brother?

What's going on, y'all?

Crass, what's going on, crass?

What's going on, bro?

I see you.

All right, guys, we're gonna be doing our confront the chairman space today.

And by the way, guys, peep the haircut.

I got a haircut finally because y'all kept telling me.

What the fuck is that, dastard?

Thank you, brother.

But I don't know what's going on.

But y'all, I got the haircut.

Y'all have been telling me to get a haircut.

So I got one, you know.

I got that haircut y'all been asking me to get.

And um

You know.

Uh oh my god, Comrade Thomas with the seventeen.

I did not see that.

With the seventeen, wow, thank you, brother.

I appreciate it.

Appreciate that a lot, actually.

Thank you, brother.

Really, thank you.

Um

Wow.

Thank you also.

Lawn guy, what's going on, Lawn Guy?

I'm not seeing Lawn Guy, what's up, bro?

I see you, bro.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Appreciate it, brother.

Got a wave check.

Merrick's

That's fucked up, bro.

Y'all are roasting my haircut now.

What do y'all want from me?

I can't do nothing right, you know?

Keep telling me to switch my shit up, and then what?

Y'all are just attacking everything I do.

I don't understand, you know?

Uh we got

We got Yo, Amila, what's going on, Amila?

With the

Why is it not showing up?

Trying to fix this.

Trying to fix some shit.

Oh, there we go.

Amila with the 10.

Wow, this shit is glitching a little bit.

Thank you so much, Amila.

Appreciate you.

Um, all right, y'all.

So, we're gonna be doing this space.

I have a schedule for 15 minutes because there's some things Australistani.

What's going on, bro?

There's some things I want to talk about beforehand and get right into.

So, basically.

Uh why didn't I buzz it yet?

Well, um brrr, what's going on?

You guys, I do have some stuff to talk about.

Um I didn't buzz it because um

I don't know.

We're not ready to take that leap until we, um we go to war.

Until the Civil War starts, I guess.

But um hold on.

Sorry.

HB, what's going on?

Yeah, y'all interrupting me big time.

What's going on, HB?

All right, guys, we have really, really, really good news coming up really soon.

And um

We have, I can't spoil it.

I can't tell you about it.

All I can tell you is that as it's going forward, I think I'm going to be streaming tomorrow.

And then I will not be able to stream for like a week.

But it's going to be well worth it.

And it's going to be a very, very big surprise.

And it's going to be very, very, very cool.

Very, very cool.

Sleeper cell with the five.

What's going on?

What's going on?

So uh

Yeah, we got some surprises coming up.

Really good surprises.

And you saw the big one with Jackson, who met.

Thank you, Circuit.

I appreciate you, brother.

Thank you.

We've got that one with Jackson when he met the.

The political wing of Hamas in Doha, which is super cool, right?

Very, very cool.

And Stalin, Beria, Gulag.

Wow.

Appreciate you, brother.

Wow, guys.

What a blessing What a blessing honest to God What a blessing

What a blessed beginning intro stream.

But uh we have um a lot of interesting updates coming up, a lot of exciting news.

Circuit, what's going on?

What's going on circuit?

And that's in the realm of the international department in the case of Jackson and also Chris.

Both of them uh Chris's interview I think was last year.

And then Jackson also went on the Economic Freedom Fighters podcast.

That's old news, as you guys know.

American step, what's going on?

What's going on?

And we're going to be doing the confront the chairman space tonight where people can ask whatever questions, you know, in terms of there I saw a guy in the comments just now asking about uh why you support Andrew Tate?

And it's like

But when?

You know?

When when have I What are you talking about?

It's got nothing to do with the party, you know?

And then, second of all, I'm not gonna keep going over this stupid fucking discourse, actually.

I'm just not gonna keep retreading it.

I'm not gonna keep treading this ground.

And constantly talk about this as if.

If Jackson has ever said anything positive about him, it literally had nothing to do with whatever past he had.

It was because he said the right things about foreign policy.

And he's a famous guy who said the right things about foreign policy.

It has nothing to fucking do with condoning anything he's ever done in his past.

It's such a stupid fucking bad faith-led discourse led by feds, right?

To cause confusion and stupidity on a large scale, you know?

So

That's honestly that, you know?

Yeah.

I mean, y'all kept telling me to cut it short.

Y'all weren't ready for me to cut it short.

Y'all, you see, y'all keep complaining about my hair all the time.

Kept telling me cut it short, cut it short.

I did it.

And you know what?

I'm happy I did it because.

I don't have to take care of it now.

You know.

But um

I'm not getting that Zoomer haircut no more, you know?

28-year-old man.

But um um

We're trying to get the James Lindsey thing going.

We're trying to get the James Lindsey thing going.

And um

He's not obliging.

He hasn't obliged for over a year.

You know.

But, you know, we we can hope.

The the the more this whole thing grows, the more that we gain traction, the more that it's gonna be more possible.

MF, what's up?

What's up, MF?

Appreciate you, brother.

I'm looking at this retarded chat, y'all constantly talking about my haircut.

What do y'all want?

What do y'all want?

You know, a matter of fact, the next event.

Y'all can line up and be my barber.

How about that?

In May, y'all can fucking line up and be my barber.

I don't know what y'all want.

You know?

It don't make no sense to me that y'all are y'all fixating on this shit.

In any case

You're the experts.

Anyway.

Uh what was I saying?

Um

Fuck, I actually had some important shit to announce.

Super important shit, by the way.

Um

I guess he'll have to wait till tomorrow.

I don't remember.

There was, oh, yeah, there's some stupid ass fucking discourse.

I don't even want to acknowledge it.

This was this wasn't it, but I'm just this is just some shit.

I guess I have to address it because everyone is.

Um

Hey, you didn't.

It sounds like y'all know what it is.

Should I acknowledge the discourse?

Should I talk about it?

How though, yeah, y'all knew y'all about Elon Musk and his uh his life.

Well

Let me think about that.

Let me think about that.

I'm definitely thinking about it.

And you know, I don't even give a fuck.

Like

Very controversial, I 'cause everyone really cares, all of you care, the whole world cares, people in Sri Lanka care, but I'm gonna be bold here and say that I don't care.

'Cause I'm just a bold original thinker.

You know

I'm gonna go.

Can I say that?

I don't care.

Because I'm really original and I like to be.

ahead of the curve and I like to be

Different than everyone.

But also, what I'll say is that what's new about this is Floyd Mayweather is doing the same shit.

You know, everybody does that same thing.

Who gives a fuck?

I mean, what's so special about it in this case?

I'll tell you what's weird.

What's weird is the Silicon Valley nerds who overthink this type of shit.

I don't like how they overthink it.

All right?

Nick Cannon's doing it.

I don't like how they're overthinking it.

I don't like how they're calculating it.

Oh, this is the evolutionary psychic.

Man, you're really overthinking.

I don't like how they do the eugenics thing and they're like, oh, yeah, we're going to do the, we have to have the high IQ evolutionary psychologist.

I don't.

I wish he would just be like Floyd and not even give a fuck, but you know, you got to be creepy, eugenicist.

I don't like that.

I'm not a big fan of that at all, you know?

I'm not a big fan of the eugenicism and the creepiness and all that nonsense really in general.

But I digress.

I digress.

There's other news, of course.

Um

International news.

I'm not exactly sure how important that is for us today.

Millay is going to get impeached.

I did not see anything.

I did not see anything indicating that.

I haven't seen any evidence of it.

I have no idea about any of that.

Millay

Instead of the more important news, the the the again, where it's a con continuation of the same.

I don't know what's going on exactly when it comes to the US Russia negotiations.

I think that there are strong indications right now that it seems like Trump

is going to want to settle.

With maybe a deal that involves Russia keeping its gains from the war.

Because Russia's on track, if the war continues, it's going to take Odessa, right?

And

Then there's talk about Western Ukraine going to Romania and Hungary and so on.

I have a hot take on that whole thing.

And I'm just I'm gonna share it.

At first I only said I'll share it in private.

Now I'm gonna share it in public because I am not Russian and it's not really my place.

But I am really disgusted at the idea of Western Ukraine going to Poland, Romania and Hungary.

I'm really disgusted by that because Stalin, if you know history, just if you care, if you're a nerd who cares about history, you know Stalin fought so hard, so hard, so much diplomatic maneuvering and wars of conqu- I mean, war, right?

Um.

to gain w to regain really the territory uh from Romania and from Poland.

And

I think it is such a shame that that is being reversed historically.

That's really the fucked up thing, is the reversal of the historical lega legacy of the Soviet Union to an even further degree.

And I have to tell you guys something, that the politics of it are not good, okay?

It's going to strengthen anti-communism in Eastern Europe by reinforcing the view that Stalin's maneuvers to reacquire that territory were somehow illegitimate and part of the crimes of communism.

And it will strengthen the bulwark of rightist forces in Russia as well.

So if that happens, I don't think that would be a really good thing, to be honest.

I agree with many Russians, and I'm not Russian, it's not really my place, but as a matter of uh let's just call it philosophy, right?

I agree in principle with the view that all of Ukraine belongs to the Russian sphere.

The post-Soviet sphere.

I mean, Ukraine especially, all of it belongs to the Russian sphere, all of it.

And I don't know why uh th there's a lot of nuances to that.

I'm not going to really get into it.

As far as the implications of a US-Russia agreement.

what that could mean as far as plans to sever Russia from the BRICS alliances and former Soviet alliances that Putin was really spending a lot of time to cultivate and rebuild and reforge.

But I I all I'm going to say is that there is nuance and

You have to consider and weigh all of the consequences.

Finally, all of the consequences of what could result from the peace.

We would, I mean, of course, we would benefit very much from peace.

They would benefit.

The people of Ukraine would benefit, obviously, the people of Russia would benefit.

People in Donbass would benefit.

Heat would be taken off from us.

That would be good.

And of course, less people would die.

There would be less bloodshed.

But let's also consider the wider reality of geopolitics and understand that Russia fought very hard to forge these new international alliances and has many breakthroughs in international diplomacy.

And is it good that all of that is going to might be thrown away completely?

I don't know.

You know, you do the math.

I'm not very extreme on this matter.

Um I know there are nuances, but consider the all of the consequences is all I'm saying.

It does seem like there is an effort, though, on behalf of the Trump administration

or Trump himself to settle that war.

And it seems like it is being taken very seriously on the Russian side, obviously.

What's going to come of it?

We'll see.

But

Remember that China is what the US has always been worried about, you know?

That's the important thing to bear in mind always.

Alright.

Alright, let's um

Let's let's find our scheduled spaces.

All right, all right, we're gonna start the space.

So as you guys know, every Thursday I do these confront the chairman spaces.

The space is now open, by the way.

Every Thursday I do these confront the chairman spaces.

Last Thursday I wasn't able to actually get to it.

So to make up for it, we're actually going to be doing it today.

And, you know, I want everyone to take note of the fact that this is quite unprecedented and it's not very common for leaders of left-wing political organizations in the United States or political organizations in general to do this.

You'll never find the leaders of any of our rival and opposing organizations, the DSA and so on and so on, do anything like this.

I am giving the public the opportunity to speak to me directly.

Loady, what's going on?

I'm not couching this in.

communications purely in bureaucracy.

I'm giving everyone you the people really a chance to debate me, to confront me directly with your questions and with whatever.

And I want everyone to understand that that is because we at the American Communist Party

Are not afraid of the masses.

We are willing to speak with the masses.

We're not afraid of anyone.

We weekly, on a weekly basis, anyone can confront us.

I mean, they'll call us a cult, they'll call us whatever they want.

But remember that we are always extending everyone the opportunity on a weekly basis to confront us with anything they want to confront us with.

So every all the time that you're seeing these tweets,

Talk negatively about us and attack us.

Just understand that.

These are people that can directly confront us with whatever they have to say, and they won't because they know that if they did, they would look really stupid based on how we would respond to them.

In other words, the only reason they're getting away with this crap they say about us is because we are not there to check them.

You know, all it would take is a few sentences most of the time to prove that these people are coming from a place of bad faith, coming from a place of defamation often.

I mean, you'll see that play out in the legal system in the months to come.

And they're coming from a place of dishonesty, fundamentally.

You know?

Um.

We are the subject of American left politics right now, it's why everyone talks about us.

And that is clear to everyone.

That is absolutely clear to everyone.

all of these loudmouths are now given the opportunity to confront me directly.

Joe Sims never did that from the CPUSA.

The leaders of the PSL don't do that.

The leaders of the DSA don't do that.

The American Communist Party does that.

So where are all of these

These detractors and critics.

I would like to see them request and, you know, sh say what they say in all these posts with their voice, say it with their chest.

Will they do it?

Probably not.

Right, but if any of them will.

Last time we had one of our biggest detractors come up, it turned out to be a guy from Brazil who got into a fight in the Midwestern Marks Discord

And since that time, um

decided that he was gonna become a hater of ours.

And the reasoning was what?

He didn't even have a reason.

There was nothing.

He said his WhatsApp groups all in Brazil, something.

He had no nothing to stand on at all, except having a problem with a Discord moderator in the Midwestern Mark server.

And and and he he uh he he dances samba or something.

So, you know, that's all we have so far.

If if there's anyone else who's gonna step up and be a better representative of these people, I guess here's your chance.

But where are they?

Eddie, is anyone requesting on your end?

I don't see any yet.

Yeah, me neither.

It's quite baffling actually.

It's quite baffling because, you know, you you they're gi they're being given the opportunity and uh nothing, you know?

Right, after being in our Twitter mentions all day.

Yeah.

That's kind of crazy.

Twitter mentions on a constant basis, but for some reason total silence.

When it comes to having a a clear, open opportunity to say whatever they want to say to us here and now, it's quite fascinating actually.

Looks like we got a couple now.

Eternal Orsos, Mercury or Emperor Shao Khan.

For Purple Teams Day.

Why don't you bring the hammer and sickle person up?

Hey, so I used to be infrared, you know, maybe a year year and a half back.

right before they started getting big.

Kind of like the the the peep.

And um you know I was wondering why is your party disproportionately like you know Bengali, Arab, there's one Hindu.

What are y what are you talking about?

Well, I mean it's there's there seems to be a disproportionate amount of non-white foreign new blood rather than, you know, the accurate the proportional population of white blue collar workers.

Like I live in a a a rust belt state and a lot of these guys, they don't like mass immigration.

They want to protect their trade and they really resent the uh the imported people here to destroy it.

So how are you supposed to appeal as an American Communist Party with all of these, frankly, non-Americans?

Yeah, I think that you get your information from neo-Nazis on Twitter.

And I think the fact that I get my information from blue-collar workers I meet in my dying restbox state or the industry.

You and your dying state have no information about our party's makeup and how actually disproportionately blue-collar it is.

You're just...

You're just assuming that, you know, all the party is just people that are H-1B visa people or something because you don't know anything about our party.

We're not racist.

Well, no.

I've seen...

We are not a racist.

Okay, pull up the picture of our founding members.

Please do it.

Pull that picture.

I can post it in the comments.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

This is where I got the Hindu claim and all of that.

Sure.

Sure.

Post the picture of the founding members.

Do I look like a Hindu to you?

Well, I mean, I'm not sure if he actually is a discrimination.

You sound stupid.

You just fucked up big time talking about the founding members being all by the way, even if we had a bunch of Indians, that's fine, because we don't discriminate based on race.

So that's why we have people from all sorts of races in our party.

Of course, we're not going to discriminate on the basis of race.

By the way, blue-collar people find that unacceptable.

They can have sentiments about immigration, but they don't believe in this metaphysical gibber about the purity of the race.

They don't give a fuck about that.

No, but they care about people from their time.

Okay.

That's how I know you don't know the first thing about our party.

That's why it's so silly hearing you talk.

You're just getting all your information from these Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, BAP, I don't even know these fucking people.

Just make shit up.

No.

Just making shit up.

Well, I don't know where you're getting your information.

You're just the presumption is that we're all none of us are non-immigrants in our movement because we are we're quote-unquote third worldists, because we oppose CIA regime change plans in South Africa and in West Africa and around the world.

And we believe in forces that represent sovereignty against American imperialism.

And we reject the anti-human ideology of racialism and racism and eugenics.

So they invented this notion that we're a bunch of people who just are resentful toward the white race.

And um, no one believes this except a very small niche of neo-Nazi ideologists.

Because the left is constantly attacking us, claiming that we're white supremacists, the pan-leftists, liberals, I should say.

And meanwhile, we have never ever been confronted with that claim by any MAGA person ever.

We've obviously had MAGA people reject us and repudiate us and so on.

Not one time have they ever raised the claim that we're too un-American and that we're not American enough.

Not a single time.

So, what you're saying is a bunch of nonsense, really.

The the American Communist Party cannot simultaneously be too white and not white enough.

You have to choose.

Because we are constantly being besieged by both accusations.

You have to choose.

We simultaneously we can't be both.

One has to be correct at the expense of the other.

So you should settle on one thing and stick with it.

And be sure you're claiming we're not white enough.

Instead of fighting with us, the largest source of discursive contention will be the liberal leftists that are constantly accusing us of being white supremacists and too white.

So you should take that beef with them and convince them that we are primarily with your rebuttal is that I never brought up the notion of white at all.

Yes, you did.

You said they're a bunch of Indians and brown people, and you mentioned skin color, did you not?

My core point was that people from the communities from which the blue-collar worker is from, the the blue-collar workers I see, they care about their tariffs.

There is no industry from this country that has as much representation from flyover states, from small towns and from blue-collar working-class people than our party.

We have chapters that are based in small towns all over the country, in flyover states, in places where no other left organizations have any footing whatsoever.

And easily, over 50% of our party's membership are blue-collar workers themselves.

Over 50%, which is unprecedented for leftist organizations today.

Okay, like I said, I'm Cuban.

In our constitution, in our priority meetings, there's reported mention of a protection of Cubans, a protection of the Cuban working class.

And I haven't seen that in the ACP

Frankly at all,

Well, I I see you kind of dodge the issue of mass immigration and the its harmful effect on working class blue college.

Sure.

Yeah, pull it up.

Absolutely.

I mean, it it vaguely mentioned an American, but there's very little on the mass import of immig immigrants, H1B visas, etc.

Sure.

Let's see if that's true.

So, can you point to point 15 on the program?

What does it say?

Do you have a I remember when I first looked at ACP there was like trouble with the link.

Read it out loud.

Read 0.15.

ACP.us slash program.

Mm-hmm.

The national industrial policy?

Is that what point fifteen says?

Yes.

The Communist Party stands for nationalization, restructuring, and conversion of all large-scale strategic industries into state-owned enterprises.

Can you count?

Ha what does the sixth one say?

What does what does the one after that say?

Let's just say that.

Energy and infrastructure policy.

What does the next one say?

Healthcare and heal education reform.

And the next one?

Social media reform.

And the next one?

Standardization.

You said 0.15?

So let's kind of broke up.

Ending mass immigration and modern slavery.

Okay, so the Communist Party stands for immediate end to the system promoting mass immigration and its replacement with bilateral frameworks for the negotiation of population exchanges on a rational and planned basis.

So where exactly is the promotion of this?

Where have you like

It's the fifteenth point on our program, our party programme.

Okay.

So what about the party members that are all Bengali and mostly?

And you yourself are Lebanese Arab?

Bro, I'm wider than you.

Can we name three members that are Bengali in our party?

Not that it would matter, it wouldn't, but I just don't even know where this comes from.

Just name three.

Three Bengalis?

No, one Bengali and some Hindus.

Yeah.

Well not named, but I've seen Hindus in the uh the photos you took when the fir when the party was first established and you signed the the whatever declaration of the party.

The plenary.

I don't know if you're Bengal there were Bengalis or Hindus at the plenary committee?

It looked like he was to the right of you, yes.

Right or left.

I'm trying to find the photo.

Yeah, please find it.

Go ahead.

We can do this again.

And I'll read it from the left of w of what the uh

At least the external works, I mean

I would say I have a very good grasp on what a white American is, which is the majority of the working class.

There's no there's no

Sort of

Mm my argument is on the basis of the white race itself is like a neo-Nazi concept, it's that it's the majority of the working class.

And this is a reality.

The actual working class doesn't have any care about metaphysical racial nonsense.

They don't care about that.

They'll marry Mexican women.

They'll marry they don't care.

They don't give a shit.

They don't really care.

They they care about working class communities and culture, whatever, but they have no care for in the world for racial purity at all.

That is a highly metaphysical and uh petty bourgeois academic notion actually.

Um not welcome in the academic institutions that rule us today, obviously.

But you have to be kind of like a fucking nerd wearing glasses to give a shit about racial purity, basically.

Like nobody in the real world who's a working class person gives a fuck about that.

What would the party gain if we kicked out every single person who doesn't have skin that looks like mine, who does good?

It's not on the basis of skin, it's the basis of actually being authentically working class from working class blue colour community.

One click on your profile, tell me what is authentically American about your own Twitter profile.

How in what way does that reflect anything to do with the average American person, American worker, the majority that you're talking about?

It w would would that be comprehensible to them?

Would that in the then the dying you said your dying Rust Belt state that you live in?

For the majority of people there, would would there be anything comprehensible and intelligible about your Twitter profile?

So, I mean, there's a difference between Twitter and reality.

Of course, my optics aren't the best, but I'm not like a Twitter.

Larapist.

I don't know.

I mean I will say my racial views are closer to the American rest belt worker.

I definitely don't think that all American respite workers have no issue with mass immigration.

Yeah, but you you do this weasly thing where you confuse the issue of mass immigration with racial purity and metaphysics, which they don't care about.

I've never said I cared for racial purity, more like

The purity of the the actual cities, the the the retainment of the white working class that has been here for centuries.

You can cry and whine about immigration all you want, but a politics purely formulated on that doesn't address the root causes of mass immigration, which is the capitalist class.

And as long as you're not addressing that and putting that front and center, you can cry and whine about it as much as you want.

It'll mean nothing.

I don't care about your crying.

It means nothing to me.

I don't know what account you're looking at, but it definitely isn't mine because I always put the bourgeoisie, the capitalist class at the forefront of any issue I have.

So unless you control the resources of the country and you have economic sovereignty, you have no say over the immigration question.

You never will.

And that's a simple fact.

The only way to control immigration is to have socialism, to have a communist state in charge, a proletarian dictatorship.

There's no state in history that has been able to avoid mass immigration of low-wage workers.

Even Nazi Germany was importing slaves.

They were importing slaves from Eastern Europe.

The only countries that were able to avoid the anti-social and destructive phenomena were communist states.

And that's a matter of historical record.

The aesthetic problems you have with the fact that I am ethnically a foreigner and an alien, I don't care.

I don't you can cry about it.

I don't care.

I'm here.

For whatever reason, I'm here.

It was God's will to bring me here, evidently.

And here I am.

And

Frankly, you can talk about white this, white that.

and how I'm not authentically American enough.

But how has authentically American been working for you for decades and decades of getting fucked over by the capitalist class?

Maybe you should be a little open minded about the alien and the foreigner in the room who, um

Who is trying to revive working class politics?

Maybe you should be a little open-minded.

That's what I'll tell you.

Because I don't know what ground you're standing on.

You're complaining about mass immigration, you're complaining about me, you're complaining about supposed Bengalis.

I don't even know what you're talking about.

I mean, you took a photo with the Bengali I'm referring to.

I posted it in the comments of the space.

This person is repeatedly harassing you in that scene.

You can go ahead and tr create.

Where was anything before I came?

What was going on before I entered the scene?

Me being a Lebanese ethnically non-white guy who's a foreign alien.

What was going on before I came to the scene?

Did I interrupt something?

No, I mean, you didn't really cause anything.

I mean, imagine.

If I didn't cause anything, why are you here?

What did I interrupt that was so important that I shouldn't have interrupted as an alien?

My point is that you didn't interrupt anything in the working class scene.

I mean, imagine going up to the average brute caller worker and telling him you have to re get an X account to retweet Jackson Hinkle all day and go pick up trash.

I mean, come on.

Is that what we tell workers?

I'd imagine that's that's what all of your followers do all day, honestly.

Retweet at Jackson Hagle, pick up trash sometimes.

I mean of course I'm not shitting on it, but like that's not a really upsetting the the worker.

We're liberat creating liberating conditions for the American working class.

So what would what would be step one of doing that today?

Since you were the expert?

What step one?

I mean, I would say, in my opinion, the greatest pathway to reform in the United States is to existing unions.

Kind of like your shitty idea with the infiltrating the CPUSA.

So wouldn't it be interesting if our party was already organizing with unions and working with unions and unionization?

Wouldn't that be interesting?

Well, I mean, my point is the majority of unions are extremely loyal to the DNC.

Well, what if our party was already working with unions?

What would you think?

Would you feel a little dumb for making assumptions about what we're doing just because of this nebulous I mean, it doesn't seem like you're putting in a lot of effort to even understand what our party is or what it does.

It seems like you're just operating on the basis of hearsay and just your vague nebulous grasp of sometimes what you see on the timeline without even investigating what's going on or anything.

If you're not willing to put in any effort to know anything about our party, you don't even know our program.

Don't you think it's a little unfair for you to come here and and stand on criticism as if you have any legitimate criticism?

To make criticism, you have to actually have to have done your homework.

You haven't done it.

You haven't shown any effort or willingness to care to learn about the party.

No, I haven't, because honestly the numbers are kind of a what gives your criticism any weight?

That's all I want to know.

You're consistently wrong.

I don't care if you're I don't care if if you're Cuban, I don't care.

I mean, by your own logic, shouldn't you be deported?

I mean yeah, that's my plan if any Iraq style war comes a around.

Yeah.

If what war I would be happy to leave the United States and sit martinez on a beach in Cuba.

I don't I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

So what's your point here?

What are you trying to confront me?

'Cause this is the confront the chairman space, so what is it you want to confront me with here?

Chiefly the

sort of inaction when it comes to actual blue color communities in the United States.

I that's okay, you critique the optics.

It's just laughable.

It's just not true.

I don't know what else to tell you.

It's laughable.

I mean, I saw you guys did some things in South Carolina after the hurricane, but wh where where is the connection with the actual

I was at our ACP Iowa meeting today.

I was talking to one of our lead members who's the head of the biggest industrial union in our entire town.

And he's working to get more of his coworkers involved with union action and struggling directly within the workplace.

And, you know, we have members like that pretty much in every state across the country.

So among many other things.

So that's something that happened today, by the way.

That's just something that he's reporting from today.

Okay, so if that just happened today, imagine what's been happening for months and you just don't know about it because you haven't done your homework.

So what do you want to confront me with besides the fact that you haven't done your homework?

That would honestly just say it.

The disproportionate amount of foreigners in your party.

Like you can't see the average blue rest belt blue car rest belt worker and and and think they they love these people who came that oh if they're if they're based enough that they should be accepted, that's awesome.

Dude, they're they're imported here to replace you, but they they're they're cool.

They're the authentic American working class.

You should go to a punk rock concert with uh skinheads and shake your head really angrily and talk about how you hate all the non-whites and all the foreigners and then blow off the steam that way.

'Cause I don't know what you want from me.

Well, I mean, they've been going and talking about has reportedly, you know, repeatedly mass reported me.

Okay, so you have some dumb personal issues that why do I care about that?

You're confronting the chair.

Well, no, because we're shitty little group chats with a lot of high-ranking people.

Um they're swarming me currently.

Okay, what

What is that what you're you're here to confront the chairman of the Communist Party.

What does the chairman of the Communist Party care about your online drama?

Tell me.

Tell me it's not online drama if they're high ranking people in the ACP who are using their rumors group chats to I don't see it's just some shit I don't even have anything to do with.

And it's just I don't understand what the point is.

It's pitiful, really.

Jake Harrison,

We'll add Jake Harrison.

Go ahead, Jake.

Uh who are you seeing?

Uh can we have a real conversation here or what's going on?

I just brought you up.

Go ahead, confront the chairman.

No, I just like pu put p wh like what what were the standards for the uh

the debate here because I just came in last minute.

You can read the title, you confront the chairman of the American Communist Party.

Okay, he just left.

Eddie, who do you see is uh requesting?

Well, we got six here: Mercury, Emperor, Shao Khan, Carl, Mike, Purple Tuesday, and Rambly the Raccoon.

Um

The Rambly is a furry pervert, but can you um we'll save them for last, I guess.

Can you uh who do you think who do you think should be brought on, Eddie?

It's up to you.

I'll I'll trust your judgment.

I think maybe Mercury.

This looks like that.

Bring 'em.

Yeah.

Can you hear me?

Yeah.

Hey, man.

I've been a big fan for a while.

I used to talk to Logo a lot.

See, I got it.

I kind of have a gotcha just because of the format.

The thing I always argue with Logo about with Stalin and so I want to know what you have to say about Stalin approving this recognizing the state of Israel three days after it was announced.

Trotsky would have never let this happen.

You said I can explain why exactly that happened.

So Stalin wasn't to blame here, first of all.

Second of all, the the Soviet Union had always consistently maintained an anti-Zionist view, but in the immediate postwar period, it wanted to act as a world leader alongside America and Britain.

And it wanted to be party to the major decisions they were making around the world.

They wanted to be there and feel like their input mattered and so on and so on.

So when it came to, um

When it came to Israel, the Soviet Union was not really invested at all.

They didn't have any interest in the region really.

They didn't have any um particular thought they put into it.

But

They did definitely want to feel like they were, especially in the kind of dynamic they were trying to create with America against Britain at the time.

So there was that dynamic as well, but they mainly just wanted a seat at the table, at the UN, and feel like they are making important decisions.

They didn't really thoroughly investigate it too much.

I mean, it was something that was going to happen regardless.

The way that they felt, which was a huge mistake, by the way, I'm not saying it was a good thing what they did, it was a huge mistake.

But in their mind

It was a v it was going to happen anyway, and they wanted a seat at the table as far as defining the future of it, you know, which failed completely.

There was also another dynamic I think that should also be given attention, which is the two faces of the Zionist movement.

There was one face which was Lehi and Ergun and the revisionist Zionists, who were the muscle of the Zionist movement that was doing all of the fighting and the killing and so on and so on.

And then there was the Ben-Gurion, you know, who was touting himself as someone aligned with international progressive forces.

And he is this enlightened guy and he is so democratic and he wants a democratic state shared with Palestine and the Arabs and so on and so on.

And he would hoodwink the entire world with that front.

while Lehi and Ergun, the terrorists, were doing the dirty work.

And the Soviets were not very attentive to what was really going on, you know.

It wasn't until

The development of the Arab national movement that the Soviets realized the reactionary significance of Israel.

But that was too late.

So it was a huge mistake, I have no doubt.

But regarding Trotsky, Trotsky allied with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

I have no idea why you would think.

He would have some principled anti-Zionist position.

I well, you know, uh, it was a matter of permanent revolution for international socialism, not socialism in one country.

You know, anti-Zionist Jews are always the most interesting because it really, like, tortures them.

And he really thoroughly was not thoroughly cosmopolitan.

Trotsky's view would have been that Zionism was progressive because it's going to civilize the savages.

Because Trotsky subscribed to a linear Eurocentric notion of progress where you needed to have, you know, a Western form of modernization that needs to absolutely dominate pre-modern and backward peoples completely as a premise for proletarian politics.

You're saying he's say they can't leapfrog the agricultural right to the industrial?

That's what you're saying?

Well, no, I'm saying Trotsky very well would have supported the Zionists because in his view they would have been they would have they were creating the premise for a proletarian revolution because they're they represented modernization, quote unquote.

Meanwhile, the Arab national movement and the forms of Arab socialism.

Those were closer in proximity to

Marxism, Leninism, just in the sense that they relied hugely on more rural freeholder bases that Trotsky considered utterly reactionary.

And Trotsky, you know, Trotsky has regarded these as Bonapartists.

Uh yeah, Jacobite even, as Lennon used to say.

Jacobite, not Jacobite.

Yeah.

Jacobites were the opposite.

Anyway, it doesn't matter.

So.

That's my response to the question of Stalin and Israel.

It was a huge mistake, but it did not reflect a Soviet investment in Zionist ideology.

It was just uh a blunder made

In lieu of the idea that it was happening anyway and that they wanted a seat at the table, um, just as a way of projecting power.

But they did not pay en uh close enough attention to what was going on in the region until it was too late.

So that's my answer.

Uh let's bring

Who should we bring on next?

Eddie.

Uh let's see here.

I got Christian Figredo Murray.

Anyone who seems like they're a hater should be prioritized.

Let's see, this guy's probably.

It doesn't follow me or anything.

connection issues.

Let's try someone else.

Christian, you're up man.

Quick question.

It's for you, Eddie.

So what's your thoughts on the on the transgender communist movement or the what is it of the LGBTQ people who are like act like they're like a part of the communists where act like communism is liberal, where it was like more so back then, you know?

Yeah, I just wish we could keep it as two separate things because it causes a lot of confusion for people and it can be repellent to a lot of members of the actual American proletarian class when communism gets confused with LGBTQ politics and the fight for trans rights or the push for gender ideology to be taught in schools.

This stuff has nothing to do with communism.

If that's the battle you want to fight, go fight it.

But it has nothing to do with the Marxist tradition.

I think what's happened in the West is the two things have gotten mixed up.

And I think the CIA has played a hand in this through their Congress for Cultural Freedom in basically trying to mix these two things up.

So a lot of people, and you see this with ideologues like James Lindsay, who I've been going at it with recently, he basically points to this identity politics based politics and says that is Marxism.

Marxism equals wokeism.

And it couldn't be further from the truth.

Marxism is about class struggle.

It's about materialism.

It's about anti-imperialism, right?

All these things.

And that's what it's always been about.

But now in the West it's kind of become mixed up with all this other stuff.

And that creates a sort of pseudo false version of Marxism that's not very appealing to American workers.

So I just think the two things need to be kept separate.

Yeah yeah.

Uh then another thing is what's your view on the Second Amendment?

Um pro

Yeah.

Which I get the first and second mixed up is the the first amendment's the free speech one, right?

Or that's the main thing in it.

And the gun one.

Yeah, the any any effort to disarm the working class should be frustrated by force if necessary.

That's what Mark said about it.

Um I think it's actually one of the more revolutionary and based aspects um of the America's founding documents or or of the amendments that have been added, the the fact that we have a right to a militia to defend ourselves from the the state.

Um so yeah, support.

What's your thoughts on the uh on how America it's like how we orig how uh how we're kind of hypocritical because it's like in the eighties everyone like demonized Che Guevara, but we all saw Osama bin Laden as like a heroic freedom fighter.

What's your thoughts on uh how America is like Alright, switch and swash?

Uh sorry, Eddie, I had to disconnect him because I know you're very patient and you are very understanding, but some people just talk way too long and really it's mud it's very boring.

I'm sorry, sir.

I'm sorry.

But

I do not enjoy conversation.

I enjoy getting things done because I'm an anti-social freak.

Sorry about that, Vidya.

Someone had to No, I was about to cut him off too.

Let's bring on the next person.

Alright, let's see here.

Oops, try Carl again.

And then

All right, Clara.

Can you hear me?

Yep.

Okay.

I just wanted to ask, how do you think that the ACP sort of like, you know, charity work, mutual aid stuff differentiates from the it's not mutual aid to be clear.

Yeah.

How would you describe it is really my question.

Like, how does it differentiate from the people?

Yeah, it's it's uh it's Maoist serving the people because mutual aid is mutual.

You know, we're not getting any aid.

We're not we're not nobody's aiding our party with with supplies or anything.

It's not mutual.

It's one-sided.

We are aiding the communities in service of them.

Uh and that's standard not only Maoist, but it's standard in the CPC today.

They do the same thing.

Serve the people.

They go and volunteer and they help communities with l they lend a hand.

The Economic Freedom Fighters does the same thing.

It is a standard procedure, standard practice for modern

Progressive parties, especially Communist parties.

So that's my second question was just on the topic of like unions, like Teamsters and big like state unions.

Do you think that workers in these unions should be struggling against the bureaucracy that exists within them?

Or should it be more so of like a boring from within type of strategy?

Well look the the primary contradiction is the strengthening of l the labor movement.

The primary contradiction is to fight the companies and the capitalists.

If in the process to that union burea bureaucracies prove to be a problem, proved to be incapable, proved to be betrayal, you know, betraying that,

Then we can talk about it.

For now.

When it comes to the Teamsters and other union movements, there appears to be a a

A willingness and a commitment.

by the Union movement to bring things forward.

And there's an awareness

That it's not in a good place and that there's a lot that has been lost.

And so we don't want to preemptively declare war on union bureaucracies or leadership.

We want to work with unions.

Um if they are guilty of of what they are usually accused of, they'll be guilty in the course of struggle.

I don't know if Eddie, you have anything you'd like to say on that?

Yeah, I think it it varies by union and the the most corrupt workplaces from my understanding, which is somewhat limited, but uh i the the most corrupt union bureaucracies are in places where the rank and file aren't involved, which is a lot of places in America 'cause people don't know um you know the history of the labor movement and what unions can do for them, but the more involved the rank and file members of every workplace are, the more they can hold the union reps accountable.

I wanted to ask like um what do you see as like the practical steps forward towards you know rebuilding an American labor movement, you know, that actually has like a fighting capability and is class conscious and moves even if you know not launching into immediate struggle against union bureaucracy, but moves past backwards ideas which they may have and you know launches into all around struggle for the working class.

What do you view as the practical steps?

I'm so sorry, could you repeat that?

No, it's all good.

Uh I just said um what do you see as like the practical steps towards you know rebuilding an American labor movement which has uh combative capabilities, you know, is class conscious and works along the basis of trying to organize the proletariat into structures and formations that exist?

If that's a union movement?

More so like the labor movement in general.

I think it's a little vague what you're saying.

I mean, like, I feel like right now the labor movement is at a standstill.

I mean, historically, the amount of people who are in unions compared to, I mean, decades ago is at an all-time low.

So, what I mean is, how can the union movement expand?

How can the labor movement expand?

What do you view as the practical steps for the market?

It needs to be combined with social media.

That's really it.

I'm not even kidding.

It needs to be combined with social media and modern information technology.

Information is everything.

If that can happen, then it can get traction again.

One of the main reasons unions suffered the defeats they did was because of mass media.

And that was a huge factor.

Absolutely, it was.

It was a huge fact.

Mass media emboldened the Reagan neoliberalism.

Neoliberal ideology was from mass media.

Even pop culture, Rambo and all that shit.

Reagan got the upper hand.

He's a Hollywood actor because of mass media.

Which undercut the New Deal, you know, labor movement gains.

And that was all from the top.

Empt all that neoliberal poison and crap.

Convinced people to reinvigorate the Republican Party.

And then the Republican Party just did a clean sweep.

And there was no way to hold him accountable for it.

'Cause no one cared, 'cause it was cool, you know.

Uh, you you no one wants to be a pussy who's voting Democrat, you know.

And just things like that, you know.

But now with social media, all of that, there's a discursive feedback mechanism where.

You can hijack these processes in any direction.

Um there's a lot of freedom to push back.

And just like the elites did their top down engineering, we can do our own.

You know, we can have our own not engineering in the sense of manipulation, but we can have our own vibe shift now.

And that needs to be conscious, methodical, and it needs to be organized.

And that is one of the most decisive factors.

There are a bunch of others, I agree.

There's a ton of other factors, obviously.

But if you go

Your typical

Shop floor, your typical industry or factory, whatever you have it.

And what's stopping people from even wanting to hear about unionization?

It's always some psychological bullshit they got from the media, or even mass media and social media.

It's always some you know, it's always some crap.

that they heard about from somewhere that convinced them that was the right vibe.

You know, that's the oh, you don't want to be one of these union people.

You don't want to you want to be independent.

You want to be a real man.

So it's so psychological.

It's so um

There's so much psychoanalysis involved, even you know, and social media has a way of tapping in directly to the source of all that.

So, I hope that answered your question.

Now, I'm going to bring up Rambly just for a second because my Intel tells us that Rambly wants to talk about Pokémon.

So, Rambly, go ahead and talk about your question about Pokémon and Imperialism because you wrote in your group chat that you were going to confront me with that.

And I want to give you the opportunity to do that because you told all your friends that that's what you were here to do.

So, go ahead and do it.

Oh, you wanted me to talk?

Yeah, what you to what you said in your group chat about how you're gonna talk about Pokemon and Imperialism Oh yeah, nah Does it serve Imperialism?

Does playing Pokemon serve Imperialism though?

I think you just wanted to hear yourself say that and you thought it was really funny.

So I'm why don't you No, no, no, no, no, answer the question has: does it serve imperialism or no?

I want an answer.

Uh, you should ask the group chat what they think.

I don't know, answer the fucking question.

Don't So that was the him, and we were, you know, we obviously all these people's chats are infiltrated by us.

And, you know, I was told what he wanted to ask, and um, I gave him the opportunity to ask it, and he did.

And that's it.

I mean so there you go.

Uh Wodie, go ahead.

Go ahead, Woldie.

Yeah, unmute yourself.

Hello?

Yeah, what's up?

Oh, dang.

I must hit that button on there.

Hey, um, yeah, I was uh looking over that program and uh I really do have an issue with that 16.

Can you can you expand on that?

The abolition of the drug trade in criminal enterprises.

As a standalone phrase, it doesn't sound bad, but you know, going into the description, I was wondering if you could expand on this.

A lot of this seems pretty harsh.

Can you go into that a little bit?

What do you take issue with in particular?

Some of the words that are used, you know, the Communist Party stands for the swift and merciless prosecution of criminals who terrorize American communities and families.

I mean, there's some interpretation there and socially harmful vices, you know, wholesale shutdown of pornography.

I mean, I'm not I mean, I'm not going to s die on this the hill of defending pornography, but also here, you know, talking about elimination of gangs.

It seems a little rough from where I come from.

I'm originally from the danger class before I reformed and became political.

I just wish you could expand on some of this a little bit.

Well, I don't know what there is to expand on beyond what it what's written, so I need to know more about what what you take issue with.

What does elimination of gangs mean?

Uh, it means the removal of these anti-social, you know, ad hoc forms of organization and paramilitary groups, violent groups, and um groups that have formed that have circumvented the social norms of communities as well as the laws.

Um

Shared by the communities they live in.

So that's what it means, you know?

It's the removal of these kinds of.

These forms of organization that stand above

Yeah.

social mores and laws of the people.

Okay.

But uh you know so the the the swift and merciless prosecution of criminals.

You know, in America we have a real problem that stands out and that is our incarceration rate.

Um I would say that uh it it's actually uh people that are terrorizing innocent people.

If you're terrorizing innocent, hard working, honest Americans, and you're engaging in violent actions against them,

violent, you're assault you're just beating a woman on the street out of nowhere.

Things like that.

Terror terrorism, that's what it is.

You're terrorizing American communities, kidnapping, rape,

I think for many of these things, these are committed by people that have declared war against

Everyone

And

I agree we have a very high incarceration rate and for a lot of for these violent crimes, especially against women, I believe in quick trials.

Okay.

Well, I w would you uh i i is is it uh any thoughts?

I believe it's two things, quick trial and labor reform.

These are the two things I believe should happen to criminals who terrorize American communities and families.

One of two paths, depending on the severity of the crime, quick trial or labor reform.

What about integration into the party and politicizing and mobilizing people that have been on call?

Labor reform would hopefully accomplish that.

Oh cool.

All right, thank you.

Yep, thank you.

Be fast.

We got a new one now.

Go ahead, Henry.

Oh, I have nothing specific to say, I'm just, you know, listening.

Then why the fuck did you request speaker?

You know, so I can like chime in if you know a topic comes up.

So that's, we don't do that here.

You know, I don't know what, I don't know where you got that from.

You just hang out, it's like a peanut gallery, that's not how it works, all right?

I don't know what that is or what

You think this is like a Mario Knoff all space or some shit?

Where we bring people on with nothing specific to say, but that's just not how it works.

Anyway, Eddie, is there anyone else?

Yeah, we got two more.

Mike and Emperor Shao Kahn.

Bring in Shao Kahn.

I I want to know what Yeah, you already know.

Go ahead, Shao Kahn.

Heidi there, Haas.

Um, yeah, I used to be actually a big critic of yours.

I used to go by the name of Kyle Pofloski, but for a while right

But uh I've actually sin at the last two weeks I've actually

decided to not attack the ACP thanks to Eddie actually explaining some things and me actually deciding to like, you know, engage in like an actual rational discussion and actually considering actually

joining the ACP.

I I just have a question about like I've read the party program.

I just want to know what exactly is the strategy to get to the point where these things can be implemented, if you know what I mean.

That's all I have to ask for a confrontation.

The program is just to give an idea about

What vision do we have for the future of the country?

What kind of policies?

What kind of ways in which we would.

we would set about the course of socialist transformation.

But the only way to accomplish it would be acquiring political power.

And the only way to acquire political power for the Communist Party will be if the existing political power collapses.

You know.

And I I I say that because I think there's a misconception that a lot of people have, which is that

Grand states and empires can be overthrown ad hoc.

And we've never seen that in history.

What we've seen is these states collapse first, and after they collapse or after they're in crisis, that's when Communists have been able to seize power.

But never have Communists been able to seize power in big states, think about big ones, you know.

When there wasn't already a fundamental crisis, and we just so happen to be facing such a crisis today.

Uh in the United States.

You know, we're facing a constitutional crisis and the country will be reconstituted.

And I don't think it'll do so without trouble.

I think it will be unsuccessful.

I think Trump.

Um he has some very, very radical changes he he's planning in terms of

Causing trouble at the highest reins of power.

And one's the old order.

collapses, I don't think he's going to be able to reconstitute it successfully.

You know?

So I think that that is that's the context really that we have in mind for for seizure of power.

Okay, I get you.

Thank you for the explanation.

Anyways, you can go and move on to the next person.

That was all I had to ask you.

Thank you.

I would actually, if, Logo, I don't want to pressure you.

Th thank you, Kyle, by the way.

I appreciate it.

A logo, if you want to come, I would be very honored.

But it's up to you.

You don't no pressure.

But

Um that would be very

That would that would spice things up 'cause so far it's just kind of

Any anyway, Eddie, do you want do you know anyone else who's requesting right now?

Um, I don't know any of these people, but

You want Mike Paul or is he a

Uh you can choose.

Alright, we'll go with the one who doesn't follow me.

Yeah.

All right, Aziza.

Um okay.

Yeah.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yeah.

Okay.

Um my question is um uh in massist analysis um there is the agent of change.

Change don't just happen because of uh contradiction or material interest clashing.

So in in the United States, who is going to bring the change?

Um is it the Communist Party?

Are you going to be the vanguard?

Are you going to actually do something?

Or are you just going to wait for history to play itself out and the state collapses and then you take power?

Are you going to actually actively as an agent intervene in the process and bring about the change?

That's my question.

Yeah, that's a good question.

So

The way to reconcile the two seeming contradictions within Marxism, right the one main contradiction.

Like, on the one hand, there's the Leninist need for political intervention, and on the other hand, there's an anticipation

that the development of history will result in contradictions coming to a head and the transformation of the existing mode of production.

So what how are the two related?

Well, the first thing is that

It is absolutely true that the change is inevitable, and it's absolutely true that the contradictions coming to a head is also inevitable.

But the need for a Communist Party lies in a responsiveness.

There's a need to respond.

There's a need to intervene because there's a need to respond to it correctly and scientifically.

Of course, people will inevitably respond, but they will respond in ways that.

are not characterized by knowledge of the object, right?

So this will be obfuscation, it will be confusion.

You know, historically, in the transformation of modes of production,

People saw these changes as the doomsday, the end of times.

They saw them as the day of reckoning.

They understood it in terms of superstition.

And they either happened or society collapsed, you know, in madness.

Today, I think we are in a unique circumstance.

Where the only way for history to move forward is if there is scientific knowledge of what's going on.

Because if there's no scientific knowledge of what's going on,

Then there's no way for the contradictions to be reconciled.

There's no way for the con the real cause driving forward these contradictions to be understood.

And

Um that is because of the unique nature of the capitalist mode of production.

Can I just jump in here and give you a concrete example?

So during the 2008 crisis, the financial crisis, I was doing my at university then, and one of my Marxist professors were like, oh, this revolution is going to come.

The working class is going to take over because the financial system is collapsing.

But what happened?

The right wing actually took over power.

I mean, Europe, I mean the United Kingdom.

The right wing parties actually took over power and the Communist Party did not succeed.

Jeremy Corbyn, I don't know if you know of Jeremy Corbyn, he came in, but he was defeated.

So I don't think history itself is blind.

I think there should be an agent.

This is Kamasi's contribution that the working class is the agent of change.

He actually specified the group that is going to actually change, bring about the revolution, bring about the change.

And that group is the working class.

I don't see you I've looked at your your programs.

I have not there is no there is no you don't seem to put weights on the working class.

There is no working class, there's no your class analysis is not very sharp.

It's not like the working class is going to bring about revolution in America.

I've not been able to get that from your analysis.

Well, our party's slogan is that the future belongs to the working class and the working class is enshrined in our party constitution as the subject of our politics and it is a given regarding our programme as well.

So how do you define the working class concretely?

The working class in America today can concretely be defined as those whose labor valorizes capital.

Those whose subsistence rests on the laurels of their labor.

And nothing else.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah, I agree with you.

Because I think the Bernisanders kind of people, I think they are obfuscating communism.

I think the whole, I don't know if you remember the one percent movement, I think it's actually making people confused.

We are not fighting the one percent.

We are not fighting the billionaires.

We are actually fighting the ruling class, which is the capitalist, people that have share, stock, crypto, people that actually don't work for their subsistence.

This is the difference.

So if even you are so-called middle class and you don't have to survive by actually working, then you are part of the ruling class.

It's not the billionaire.

It's not just the billionaire.

I think the whole idea of the we are fighting the one percent, I think that is actually part of the problem.

That is actually neoliberalism.

It's like, don't look at us, look at just the Elon Musk.

Well, I don't believe in the idea that.

I think there is a hegemony.

There absolutely is a hegemony.

And what I mean by that is that there is a hegemonic capitalist class, a monopoly capitalist class, because let's remember Lenin's imperialism was a hundred years ago, and he was writing about the tendency toward monopolization.

And since that time, it has only gotten unfathomably worse.

So the prolet the real industrial proletariat is always a minority.

It always is a minority.

But the broad strata of the masses should be judged to what extent they are outside of the hegemony, to what extent do they depend on the hegemony directly.

So hegemony is an important concept.

We cannot say that

We cannot say a guy who's trading crypto is on the same level, a guy who's trading crypto, you know, who came from nothing, is on the same level as Mark Zuckerberg.

One is part of an institutionalized hegemony, the other is definitely economically benefiting from these new opportunities and so on and so on.

But they still retain a degree of independence from the hegemony, and therefore their loyalties are not necessarily concrete.

So this is a very important distinction in my view.

And then the second thing I would say is that regarding this question of agency, it's important to understand that the content of agency needs to be defined by responsiveness toward the development of material reality.

So, agency is not when you voluntarily act because you have superior ideas or a superior vision of the future or even a pre-conceived notion of change in your head.

The changes are happening.

They absolutely are already happening.

The breakdown is already happening.

You mentioned 2008.

That was an example.

There are many others.

These things are happening.

What's necessary is responsiveness.

And that's what the left did not have.

It wasn't responding concretely to material conditions.

It was rather.

But can you give me a concrete example how the left should have appropriately acted during the after the financial crisis?

What would have been, according to your own theory of change, your party's theory of change, what is the correct intervention?

They should have absolutely rooted themselves in the popular majority, the rural working classes, the actual real working classes, and formed a stronghold of anti- or counter-hegemonic politics.

But what did they do was the opposite.

What they did is they rooted themselves in the universities and in Hollywood and in the media and in the main institutions of bourgeois society and they alienated themselves from the masses and they became the face of the hegemony themselves.

And they committed suicide because what they did is that they kept ostracizing the masses for being too backward and not progressive and advanced enough because they weren't because they were outside of this bubble, you know?

And they got too arrogant because Obama was President and the Democrats were in charge, so leftists who were sitting in universities and in in the citadels of the hegemony, they were thinking to themselves, Oh, it can only get more progressive from here.

On the premise of the hegemony, they articulated that they wanted to push things further and further to the left, right?

At no point did they adopt a counter hegemonic position, which is rooted in a fundamental rejection of the existing institutionalized hegemony

and a full and unconditional wage wager on the popular masses.

And this is exactly why they failed.

Do you have a success?

And some, by the way, some did do this successfully.

For example, in South Africa, the economic freedom fighters very successfully

Very successfully responded to the international economic crisis.

Yeah, so do you have a critique of the one percent movement?

I don't know if you remember the one percent move, the occupied movement, the occupied, yeah.

Do you have a critique of them?

Do you think that their conception of the problem that the billionaire class, the whole Benisanders kind of thing, the billionaire class is the problem?

Um, if you ask me, the Marxist analysis is Carmen is not critiquing individual or the units, the human unit.

I think he's deciding the social relationship of production.

So, it doesn't matter if you're if you're if you have if you look at the social relationship of production, you've got the capitalist class, those are that is just that is the theoretical that's the theoretical dimension of Marxism.

But in order to concretely apply the theory, you have to comprehend the formation of hegemonies.

So, theoretically, within Marxism, there is a fundamental class contradiction between capitalism and proletariat, and this is a contradiction that is irreducible, it's fundamental at the level of the relations of production as they emerged within capitalism.

It has nothing to do with villains, it has nothing to do with being morally good or morally bad.

Yeah, it has nothing to do with being greedy, it has nothing to do with the content of your consciousness, it doesn't have anything to do with it.

It is a material contradiction that will form inevitably, regardless of the subjective states of mind and positions of anyone, right?

But on the other hand,

The bourgeoisie, because it is a concretely and materially existing class, tends toward the development of monopolization and the creation of institutionalized hegemonies that in fact represent the dictatorship of a very specific subjectivity.

a specific outlook, a specific ideology, a specific consciousness, for example.

And a specific type of corruption, institutional corruption.

So all of the things that populists attack the system for corruption, greed, all this it they're not wrong, that's all real.

The problem is that they don't always correctly have a scientific understanding of the root causes, and that's where it becomes a problem.

So, in my view, the problem with the Occupy Wall Street was not necessarily that it was against the 1%.

That was something that was able to resonate with a lot of common people very intuitively.

But when it came to correctly understanding the root causes,

There was a lot of confusion, and that's where it that's where it collapsed into confusion and failure.

Because people started to say that the root cause was a subjective, uh, a subjective failure.

The bad billonia and the good billonia, a failure in subjectivity, right?

Yeah, and then the logical conclusion from that was identity politics.

Because if this is a failure in subjectivity, then, okay, well, the billionaire may be oppressing me, but I'm also oppressing minorities.

I'm oppressing transgender people, I'm oppressing fat people, I'm oppressing this people.

So that's intersectionalism and all that was a logical conclusion in a lot of ways of an inability to have a scientific understanding of the cause.

But all I would say is you should be careful not.

To say it should be just Marxism and no populism.

Because the

The dominance of a theory, which is Marxism, will always necessarily accompany the dominance of a specific institution that has a material basis.

And for a very long time, Marxists in the West, that institution has been academia and it has been the Democratic Party and the hegemony.

And to whatever extent the masses were not receptive to that specific theory, that's how they understood who was progressive and who was not progressive.

Yeah, and so I've seen where me and you've serious disagreement.

So you believe that the theory of, I don't know if you remember Antonio Gramsci, he's the one that brought the idea of hegemony.

He articulated the idea of hegemony and a lot of people have run with it.

I don't think we that is the Western Marxism.

I actually think that that is a corruption of Orthodox Marxism.

The idea that you need you the idea that you need populism, you need majority, you need a lot of people to

Bring about revolution or or or bring about socialism.

Why do you need the major?

Where does it where it's a it's a liberal idea that the majority should rule?

It's not a it's not a socialist idea.

It's it's a material fact that the only strategy for the victory of the proletarian class is populism.

And all no, no, no, no, no.

But historically, tell me which it was was the um was the uh uh was Lenny, did Lenny um um start with majority, even did Mao peace line?

No, it is that.

No, no, no, no, no.

Uh Lenny actually actually the um what was the name of his party?

Actually in Russia actually if you translate the name of that party, I forgot the name now, actually means m the minority.

Um what was the name of the Bolsheviks?

The Bolsheviks were the majority.

Yeah, yeah, the b yeah, the bol yeah.

It actually means minority.

No, no, it's Bolshevik.

Bolshevik means majority.

Menshevik means minority.

No, the but the Lenin the Leninists, they were the actually the minority when the apart is split.

And also there's no one is look, no one is talking about the liberal democratic idea of a majority vote necessarily being what's essential to the truth or to the correct position.

What I'm trying to say is that Lenin's whole strategy was this idea for Russia, a revolutionary strategy, which he said should culminate in a revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the workers and the peasants.

And the Mensheviks, on the one hand, said that we must wait for the city bourgeoisie to win and overthrow the autocracy.

And once the city bourgeoisie wins, then the peasants will all be proletarianized and then we can have our pure class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie.

And Lenin basically was saying no, the city bourgeoisie is part of the Tsar's imperial hegemony.

They are the beneficiaries of the system.

They'll never take the revolution as far as it needs to go to really topple and shatter it.

So Lenin said we need to make an alliance with the peasant majority, the real, real masses, the real people.

And we once we make that alliance.

We can topple not only the bourgeoisie, we can also topple the autocratic system.

So, you can have both the bourgeois revolution and the proletarian revolution combined basically into one.

Okay, let's apply this analytics.

Let's apply this analysis to the United States.

What I believe the idea of populism brings about in the United States of today is that you, um, so-called masses or socialists in the United States, it's just hegemony because, as I told you, hegemony.

Just let me up.

Look, hegemony does not just come from Gromsky.

Lenin had a comprehension, he didn't call it this, but Lenin had a comprehension of hegemony.

And by the way, so did Mao when he talked about bombarding or encircling the cities from the countryside.

It's the same strategy of besieging establishments and institutionalized hegemonies from a counter-hegemonic position where there is ambiguity.

It's not necessarily inevitable that the peasant or rural, real masses are going to usher in socialism, but that's the only opportunity.

See, it's an opportunity.

It's a possibility.

There's no possibility of that happening within the hegemony.

So

That's why populism is important everywhere, in my view.

Okay, this is what I was going to say.

If we decide to look at the United States today, the vast majority of the people pretend that they are so-called middle class.

So they refuse to see themselves as working class.

They think that it's too beneath them, is the meaning it's something to be ashamed of.

So they want to be middle class.

And the politicians always say, oh, we have to make sure we take care of the middle class and the middle class.

So that idea of the middle class means that they're distancing themselves from the idea of the working class.

I could explain the middle class.

The notion of a middle class is a consequence of the post war period in which certain concessions made and forms of recognition to the working class became institutionalized by the state politically.

Not necessarily by the hegemony, but by the state politically.

So it became part of the political and economic infrastructure of countries that workers were given minimal rights and standards and regulations.

And that became part of the fundamental material operating infrastructure of entire countries, you know, not just the hegemony of regulations and so on and so on.

But a premise of all economic activity was this

Was this institutionalization of the welfare state?

You can call it, yeah.

Some people I don't like the term welfare state because when most people think of welfare, it's applying to the unemployed and people who aren't working.

So, I think I like the regulatory state term more where it's like there's more there are regulations, there are standards for labor, and there are it's not just a free-for-all like it was in the past.

So, there are but in Europe, welfare doesn't mean that I understand in the U.S.

I'm just talking about the U.S.

So this is this phenomena that gave rise to a working class.

That it wasn't just given concessions, it was also institutionalized, you know, into the machinery of the state.

And as a consequence of that, the working class

became um

Uh how should I say?

They adopted a way of life that was not purely just based on survival, but based on subsistence, based on a specific culture and way of life.

But why don't you just say they were co-opted into the capitalist class?

Because it's not necessarily because I'll tell you why I have a problem.

Okay, go.

I don't think so, no.

Because it became a material fact and a premise materially of economic intercourse.

that these regulations were made.

They weren't made just as a way of appeasing and giving the workers a breadcrumb, like in the labor aristocracy.

It became a fundamental premise of production.

For example, the rise of the light industries, the automotive industry as well, that's a big one, depended upon the ability for the majority or masses of people to be able to afford it, to afford these goods.

So, this was something material.

It wasn't just that they were co-opted.

As a material fact,

They um became integrated with um a new logic of production.

And they became more similar to how peasants were actually in the past, where they were based in subsistence, not necessarily just survival for wages, but subsistence, which means a basic ability to reproduce their conditions of life.

And for the content of those conditions of life to preponderate in terms of the nature of that reproduction.

So basically, peasants subsist.

The subject and object of their production is their own way of life, it's their subsistence.

Proletarians survive.

They sell their labor for a wage, they're thrown into crowded slums.

We don't see the subsistence of a specific way of life, we don't see the subsistence of a specific culture and a specific um family or anything like that.

We see social chaos, we see the breakdown of social realities, just like it's described in the Communist Manifesto.

So if you're going to be a populist movement in this setting, in this environment that's going to be...

All I'm saying is the subject of politics is always a positive way.

That's why we credit the economic freedom fighters, because their demand is for land redistribution, which sounds petty bourgeois to someone, right?

They're not advocating for the state to own all the agriculture and everyone work as an employee for the state.

They are advocating for people to be given land, plots of land, that they can subsist off of.

And that's the same thing Lenin promised the Russian people, peace, land, and bread.

Yeah, yeah.

And the same thing Mao promised.

So the subject of proletarian politics.

In terms of what way of life, what real aspiration and demand is always the subsistence of a specific social form, and it's never just we're going to completely recreate everything from scratch on a new specific thing, there's a specific argument I'm trying to draw at.

In a situation, if you live in a country where everybody thinks that they are middle class, how does the socialists or the communist people?

Because even if that position that they're clinging to, which their grandparents had in the 50s, is dying, it's unsustainable, and it's not working for them anymore.

People should not be faulted for having the reasonable expectation of being able to support a family on a single income and being able to reproduce a normal way of subsistence in life.

There's nothing wrong with that.

Even in Russia today, when they're nostalgic for the days of the Soviet Union, they're nostalgic for the same thing, a specific kind of form of social subsistence.

There's nothing wrong with that.

People should not be faulted.

Rather, they should be educated about the fact, which I think they already know, by the way, but this needs to be, they need to be here it to know that.

That their suspicions are confirmed, that that is no longer possible, that that is breaking down.

You know, that that is being disrupted and destroyed and people are being reduced to serfs.

They're not being turned into classical proletarians as in the first time around.

This time around it they're being grinded into destruction, you know, they're they're losing everything.

And they're becoming jobless and homeless and lumpinized and declassed and addicted to drugs, whatever.

It's really the destruction of humanity.

You know, the first time this happened,

The dawn of capitalism, you had proletarianization, which was a devastating thing, right?

But this time around, there's no proletarianization.

Rather, it's a destruction of human life, humanity as such.

And that's what's at stake.

So my last this is going to be my last intervention.

There's this you can you can summarize the historical Marxist approach this way.

One, you've got the state Marxism or state socialist where the state actually drive development.

The state actually tries to there's no contradiction.

You see in in in both Russia and China

They did not only have state property.

In Russia they had the kolkhozes, which were historical a historical continuation of the peasant form of ownership that that was before serfdom.

And that was not owned by the state.

In China, the situation is slightly different.

The people's communes were not owned by the state, but they were very big.

So they were at the scale of a state.

But with Deng Xiaoping's reforms, what happened?

What happened was the household responsibility system.

And from there, you know, we see China today where, yes, it's basically peasants who own land, um, subsisting off of it.

Um that's kind of changing a little.

It's it's changing and they're being recompensated with home ownership, but that's a different topic.

But in any case, the state plays a very active role in development in all the cases I mentioned.

It's just that you don't the Trotskyist dream or the old social democratic dream of the state just or bourgeois socialization eventually reaching such a point.

Where everyone is completely landless and completely cut off from any kind of social existence, and institutionally everyone can just be re engineered from scratch and everyone's gonna be an employee of some new big institution that's socialized in one way.

That is has nothing to do with the concrete experience of communism.

It's completely no uh the opposite of what happened.

So your program still depends on private property and entrepreneur entrepreneur running the economy.

And the story just there was there were there was entrepreneurship in the Soviet Union, okay, and an enterprise

Is not necessarily first of all, an enterprise is not necessarily for profit, so that's the most important thing.

And according to Karl Marx, property takes the form under capitalism of capital.

Okay, that's the fundamental form of property.

Capital.

Which is money for money's sake.

That is not necessarily the only thing an enterprise can do.

An enterprise is principally an economic endeavor.

Economics that is not directly

uh created by the state does is not necessarily for profit.

Okay.

Anyway, I'll I'll I'll I'll let you go now.

Thanks anyway.

I I really appreciate your your effort and uh thanks for coming on you guys should keep it up.

For sure.

See you later.

Cheers.

Yeah.

Alright guys, there's no one else requesting that I can see.

I think Eddie had to go.

So I think we're gonna wrap it up there.

So guys, we'll be back next week.

Bye bye.

I am so.

Thomas with the five.

Thank you, brother.

I appreciate it.

I am so fucking tired.

Um, which I woke up tired today.

I don't know what it is.

I woke up super tired today.

Super tired.

Anyway, y'all, we're gonna wrap it up.

I'm so tired man.

I got eight hours but I'm just like I woke up so fucking tired it's crazy.

Thank you, whoever that was, thank you.

Oh man.

I just got a stretch here.

Yeah, it really d no, it feels like that ciproheptidine.

That's what I feel like.

I feel like I took ciproheptidine, but I didn't, so somebody fugging spiked my shit with it.

Ugh.

All right, y'all.

See you guys.

I'll see y'all.

Sometime.

Tomorrow.

Actually it may not be tomorrow, I don't know.

The Patreon will do that.

Soon.

I don't know.

So, guys.

Sorry, I'm so tired.

That sounds so ominous.

Depending on what happens, I may not be able to stream for another week, like seven days.

Depending on what happens.

So yeah, that's um but very exciting stuff is gonna is happening.

So just keep that in mind, all right?

I'll see you guys sometime.

I wanna go live tomorrow because tomorrow's my last opportunity to go live.

And then for seven days I won't be able to.

So that's why I'm saying.

But I may not be able to tomorrow.

We'll see.

We'll see.

Anyway, if you reach the fucking goal, yes.

All right.

If you reach if you boost the tweet, maybe.

That'll definitely influence my decision.

That will definitely do wonders.

Anyway y'all.

Do you think about me?

Do you think about me?

Goodbye to the