IRAN WINNING! | DEFEATING ALL ENEMIES

and the rest of the

I can't

get

we're

tired of

the

I'm

a lot

and I have

I'm

the love

and I'm

a

I'm starting

and death and and I'm sorry to know I'm starting to take

the rest of the

next to you

one like to be

educated on the

uh-huh uh-huh God The No I I

Yeah

I

do I

Yeah

I I

I I do I I do I'm going to be

God again

we can't

be proud of getting I'm going to

regret

and I would know

I'm not I'm going to

love

and I'm

saying this.

I'm afraid.

I was praying my love.

That's baby.

My son of love and

say this all the memory. I was born a lot of us and say

this

all the

memory

I was

waiting

a lot

of

the

I'm

I'm I'm

I'm I'm going lady I'm

a little I'm going

and I'm

a baby I'm going to be just going to

get to

I'm trying to I'm trying to

make

I'm going

I would have

a big and I would

have to

maybe

love

and I'm

and

sing that's I'm thinking and I'm thinking The one is the world and the rest of and sing

the soul

in the place and you know never know

baby

I'm scared

tired to get you

you're tired to push

and you're not

baby that I would have

I'm going to you're standing by the song and I don't know baby I would like you know

and take

I'm sorry

to take the next

you're doing

a lot

and I'm doing

anyone

you know I'm going to

I'm going to

ask me

I'd get

to Maybe I'm sorry to say this one.

When we're next to me, I was praying my love.

Maybe I'm all that baby.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

And I'm a

memory

I'm praying

on love

I'm not a lot of Oh, baby

I'm just

I'm a love

Oh,

baby

I'm

I'm going to be

I'm going

to see

I'm I'm. I'm going to show

you're not

me

and I

remember

God

maybe

I'm going to

love

and start

take

this

and

they're

playing

I'm a to be I'm praying

a friend

I'm all the baby

I'm glad to love

and I'm saying

this one

when we're next to

I'm praying

I'm praying my love

Oh, baby

And I'm saying

I'm going to love

Oh, baby

I was praying

love

Oh, baby I oh, baby, I'm blessed.

I'm not sitting in God again.

I do not again.

Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh.

Oh! I don't know. I'm going to be able to be.

I don't know. and the I'm not

I'm going to

I'm and the other I'm going to

I'm going to The

I'm not going to be.

I'm going to be.

I'm going to be able to be.

I'm and I'm a

I'm a

Aux and the one of the I'm

a lot of

I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm The and the I'm not

I'm

I'm and

I'm I'm I'm I'm One Zipu Rolling, one's if we're rolling, one's if we're rolling, one's if we're rolling, one's if we're rolling, ones if we're rolling, ones if we're rolling, ones if we're rolling, ones if it's all good, ones if it's all good, ones if it's all good, ones if it's all good, ones if my met, Mike is you working

Assalam.

Alaykum ala-rahmatolah and Allah and Burkatu.

Welcome, cult members.

Welcome, welcome, welcome.

Welcome, welcome.

We have a lot of shit lined up.

We have a fucking debate lined up right off the bat.

First thing I want to know, who the fuck is in IGG debating?

Who, what's debating?

And what is it about?

I'll literally bring them up right now without an introduction.

Who is it?

Tell me who they... I'm dragging these people up.

Straight up.

I have no patience for nonsense.

We're just going to just get right into it without even thinking about it

who are the troublemakers what the fuck is your problem?

What the fuck is your problem?

Well, you pulled in the wrong person probably.

Who am I supposed to pull up?

I don't know. I was talking to someone in the wrong chat, I guess.

Sorry, then.

They both fucking left.

There was 10 people debating before this fucking stream started.

And, you know, and then everyone scatters to the wind when i go live i guess holy shit and it's

fucking crazy that's quite crazy actually okay well we'll we'll get to the debates. I could do the TikTok thing again.

Next time it's going to be with Jackson, by the way.

So let's get right into it, guys.

Today we are going to be doing some coverage, some exclusive coverage of the Iran War, actually. But we're also going to be talking about some very, we're going to take inventory of where we are right now. And it's in tandem with the latest post that I put on X.

And we're just going to have to talk about that.

We're going to have to talk about mega-communism, social progressivism, all the hot topics that we seem to be in hot water about.

And I'll tell you why there's an upsurge of cope and... is all the hot topics that we seem to be in hot water about.

And I'll tell you why there's an upsurge of cope and screaming and shitting about ACP and about our movement.

First things is the Reddit outcry because apparently we're stealing subredits and that's that's worse than Israel killing

children. That's worse than the Holocaust.

Okay, apparently it's worse than the Holocaust

that someone is taking

over subredits. This is all

AstroTurf shit by the fucking

federal government.

We all know that.

Okay, so there's that.

And then there's also, I don't know if you guys been noticing.

Did you know we've been popping off on X?

Not just the ACP account.

I just see guerrillas popping off all the time now.

Jesus' motorcycles, his edits are going super viral.

Ruslan made a account called Fentcom,

which overnight got like 30,000 followers.

We are, yeah, Dane, we are like popping off every other day.

We are extremely outsized influence relative to our numbers, straight up.

We are like really popping off big time.

Our influence is starting to be felt by a much wider circle and stratum of people than ever before.

It's never, it's like, they're really feeling pressure from ACP and everything.

But at this, so this is why we're getting a new wave of these like old

recycled reactions to ACP that we've been, we've been pretty much accustomed to for

four years, five years, even before ACP started, our movement was targeted by this shit.

It's like, well, the reason is because

a much... First of all, there's a few things happening.

More of the left are becoming tankies

because of the Iran War.

So these new tankies think that we're,

oh, you're a government sciop.

I was a Stalinist while you were in diapers,

you fucking retard.

Sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.

People don't know that we have OG status,

that we've been here for a very long time.

And the reason they don't know that is because we are just kind of not in the spotlight of

H3, H3, subreddit.

We're not in that milieu.

We don't fuck with that.

So they think we just came out of nowhere or some shit.

We've been here.

We've been here.

Okay. And yeah, there's just like we've

been fighting the Groyper's and fighting the right for a long time. Now that that, it was still going on

for sure, but now, you know know from our left flank it's not really

it's still a right flank but now we're starting to get uh you know a lot of cope and seething

from that direction and i don't have patience for it.

I'm not going to change.

I'm not going to be more accommodating.

I'm not going to be more friendly.

I am not Zoran Mamdani.

I am not Kate Abu Ghazala.

I am not one of these house

arabs, whatever you

fucking call them, these house Muslims,

these house arabs. I'm

not like that. I'm a fucking

asshole. I'm going to tell you the truth

and if you have a fucking

problem with it,

go grab a tissue and cry

about it, you little bitch. That's my

fucking at take. I don't have... I'm not Zoran

Mom Dani. I'm not going to smile and make you feel

wholesome and warm and shit. I'm going to

slap you across the face and tell you what a

fucking retard you've been for decades and how much you've got to get your shit together and wake the fuck up.

That's the type of Arab Muslim that I am.

You understand?

I don't give a shit who that offends.

I don't care how unwholesome that is to people.

I don't care how

brutal it is to people.

I literally don't give a shit. I don't have patience

for you.

I will tell you the straight truth.

This is why the white workers

and the black workers and the Latino workers of America,

fuck with me. Because I tell the unfiltered truth. I tell the unfiltered truth. You understand?

So today, we're going to be talking about Iran.

So basically, Netanyahu, Netanyahu building the third temple and basically the red cow and the new Hitler will rise in Malaysia.

And a lot of people don't know that the Gnostics wrote about how Iran and Russia, the Jewish Bolsheviks took Russia

for... Sorry, I just had to do that. I'm a little bit

schizophrenic.

Because I'm not going to be on

some Professor Jong shit, you know?

But...

I want to talk about some things that have been on my mind.

And really where we have to begin is we have to actually...

We actually have to...

When I talk about giving the brutal straight and honest truth,

I think about what it is that everywhere I go, I divide.

I am a disaster for this space.

In terms of people's mental health, I admit that.

You know, almost every other party member or guerrilla that I meet, who are my brothers, by the way, I take a bullet for you all, by the way.

They tell me, you know, Haas, you saved my life.

And so the sword cuts both ways, though.

The amount of benefit that I bring by giving you these sober, brutal truth pills or whatever also causes a lot of coping and mental devastation and psychological issues for other people.

I inspire the same devotion that you have in this cause,

the same devotion you have that I inspire you with,

to an equal extent and an equal proportion.

I inspire hatred and I inspire opposition.

And that just comes with, that's just the price of having a very powerful message.

Frankly, this is why we are so contentious, by the way.

And so it leads people to say, you're coins all pro, your feds, you're disrupting the movement.

And this is the crux of what I want to get to, to be honest.

Your so-called movement has had decades to get its shit together.

And I understand there's this vague idea that this is the left and you just don't quit.

This is the left.

This is everything else's right wing.

This is the left.

And I understand there's this vague.

There's this Obama psychological mental dome

people lived inside this bubble

where the line kept

going up oh gay marriage and transgender

all these things oh how wholesome

Ellen DeGeneres and all these things how wholesome

Obama

black people are equal now.

There's no more racism and everything is just getting better and better and we're progressing

and so wholesome and so loving and everything's becoming so great.

And then the dark forces, these reaction, so to speak, right?

That represents the resurgence of neo-fascism.

Because we were on course for a normal trajectory before the neo-fascist came.

You know, the people who are contradicting this hegemony in some way with these really brutal, ugly, dark things, racism, sexism, all these dark evil, really bad things. And our default is that we're a wholesome progressive society. We're a wholesome, loving progressive society that is left wing inherently,

right? Because we all put a smile on. I'm crazy. Sorry. I'll calm down. We are a wholesome, progressive left-wing

society, and there's a neo-fascist menace and threat, the dark enlightenment, the neo-reaction.

This was all an aberration that just came out of nowhere.

Totally unnatural aberration.

It's neo-fascism.

And we need to go back to our Obama safe space where we're all normal.

We're all normal here. We're in our Obama safe space where we're all normal. We're all normal here.

We're in our Obama space space.

We work in

human relations and a corporation or something.

And you work for the New York Times.

I work for the Daily Show with...

What's this? York Times. I work for the daily show with what's his name?

Stephen Colbert, right?

Whatever. Jimmy Kimmel. Whatever.

It's just like this Hollywood facade of just wholesomeness and happy, wholesome chungessness that people live and dwell within and live and die by. And it's the source, yeah, Ellen DeGeneres. She's the source of people's mental health and stability and sense that they're living in a stable, normal world and everything's fine.

And then apparently, if we want to be communists, it's that.

I love Pokemon.

It's that, like Brandon Torres.

I love Pokemon.

I love Donkey Kong. I love Mario. I love Pokemon. It's that, like Brandon Torres. I love Pokemon. I love Donkey Kong. I love Mario. I love... You love all these things.

And then in addition, we're so wholesome. We're going to take the Obamunism to the next level,

and we're just going to all hug each other and become part of...

And then here I am pooping on the party. And apparently that makes me a fascist.

I just have a few objections. That's all. That I would like to get out. And you... You're

Haas, why the fuck are you talking about Obama? It's 2026. Because believe it or not,

people still haven't left the bubble from the Obama era. Their sense of social progress comes

from the Obama era. Their sense of where everything went wrong was after Obama. This is

implicitly what these people believe. This is how they've measured progress so far. Sometimes I see

these people say we're in an era of global counter-revolution. I wonder why they're saying that.

We're living in an era after 1991, after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, after Libya.

And then I realize you're talking about the Trump era after Obama.

That that's,

this is just,

this is just the era of darkness and everything was light before.

I hate to poop on the party.

I know,

apparently being a party pooper is right wing now.

Fuck,

I don't know what I could say to get through to people i

don't know what i could say to get through to people i got to get through to these kids you know i got

like like in south park i got to get through to it but instead of kids it's like grown 25 year old autistic people.

But why the fuck do I? Because I'm trying to get through to them.

Even these retard furries and these disgusting people.

Because I know, if I bother you this much, I've caught your attention.

There's something about what I'm saying that bothers you, right?

And I would just like you to listen to that worm of doubt a little more intensively.

And, uh, Listen to that worm of doubt a little more intensively. And the truth is, is that I used to be like you.

I used to be a bog standard American leftist.

Wouldn't say bog standard, but I definitely understand that point of view a lot.

I remember the sense of revulsion and fear and shock upon being confronted with the illiberal tendencies

believe it or not

harsh what's up I had a conflicted reaction to Trump's presidency for sure

but they're Trump's presidency for sure. But there was something about it.

I found very, very dark.

And I remember learning about Curtis Jarvin and then Nick Land. I remember learning about them and I remember

how much anxiety it would cause me. I used to be a shitlib in a way, right? I remember when I was in

college, I'd be sitting on the couch looking at the wall, thinking about land on numbers, his understanding of his kind of debasement of numerology and stuff.

And I just was losing my fucking mind.

I just, there was just this overwhelming sense of anxiety that I had that, like...

Why should we be biased and believe that the material world is inherently left-wing?

What if it is true, you know know that all these things that the right

is saying uh in addition to all of the fucking memes it's like it's like what if you know what

what leads us to believe that the progressive obama society we live in is actually a reflection of reality?

And these doubts bothered me. They bothered me. I felt an immense sense of anguish and anxiety. I remember it.

I understand the reaction we elicit in this so-called liberal leftists.

It's probably the same thing.

When they see us be so politically incorrect,

when they see me so casually deal with,

thinkers and ideas that come from the right in a way that just like I show no fear and I'm not intimidated by it, there's this instinctual revulsion that what it really is is they have this security system that they call the left and they see a breach in the system.

You know, the reason we get fed jacketed all the time is because people see us as an infiltration in this kind of mental psychological security system they have,

which ultimately comes from the Obama era. And they still haven't learned why the Obama era is past us. They still cling to this delusion, that there is a continuity of social progress

and democracy and all these kind of things

that has merely been detracted

from the rise of a neo-fascist right

and I spent a lot of time isolated and thinking about what all this meant.

And the more I started to really psychologically come to terms with the direction

that we're taking as a society, as a world

what does it mean

existentially metaphysically

I mean like is land right

is the are the nihilists correct

um

the more

I realize something, I really became disgusted with leftists. I became disgusted with them because while I was being exposed to the hideousness of the right-wing ideas,

and what bothered me about right-wing thinkers wasn't that their ideas were compelling.

It bothered me that people thought this way, that this is how people reacted to existence, to life, and to the

world. And with the rise of big tech, I observe that, okay? The reason why I scoff and brush off

people talking about big tech and Palantir in 2026 is because I was freaking out about it in 2014.

Nobody gave a fuck.

DSA people did not read. They thought I was a schizophrenic lunatic when I would talk about how big tech is like neo-fascist and like, they didn't give a fuck. They just kind of looked at me like I was crazy and we're like, well, you know, Facebook's pretty wholesome.

Now every other YouTube video is one of these shitlib vox or something talking about the dangers of big tech.

And I just, you're too late.

You're way too late.

Yeah, they used to love you,

Elon Musk, absolutely.

I was the crazy, I had Trump derangement syndrome before Trump was

elected.

I was fearmongering about it, and I fell on deaf ears from leftists who were living in a bubble. They couldn't imagine it. It was like they lived in this bubble

where the world was inherently wholesome.

And don't worry, these are just some nasty, bad, bigoted people and love will prevail and

Hillary will win. And then after Trump won, I felt betrayed a little bit.

I felt betrayed by the sense of complacency and delusion and falsehood that had been created by the left.

The way that they would lie to themselves, that there wasn't a fundamental shift happening,

that they just weren't equipped to respond to in any kind of way,

this way they would just dismiss any attempt to bring it up

and be like, hey, this is a fucking problem.

You want to know how I got these scars?

Well, that's how it started.

I used to be a bog standard libtard retard leftist.

But I just had the courage of a little self-awareness

i didn't get taken for a ride after all these horrific things

in the breakdown of our overt customs and manners and ideologies happen at the public

level oh i didn't i never had this reactive knee-jerk reaction because i had the foresight to see

where things were headed i was sitting here thinking about what direction are we going in.

And it's almost as if to think in a long-term way

was to speak a language that was alien to these so-called leftists.

And then as time went on, this was during the Trump 1.0, by the way, time went on, I began to grow just more bitter in a way, looking at leftists and seeing their hypocrisy.

That's what killed me.

I became instinctually disgusted by the worldview that leftists lived in.

The world they lived in.

The bubble they lived in.

Because wait a second.

All of this shit was happening under Obama.

Under Obama, we were killing and blowing up kids with drones.

We devastated entire nations like Libya. Big Tech was consolidating first under Obama, this techno-fascism

people now talk

about.

And we were entering a very

ruthless, brutal fucking world.

A really ugly, dark, brutal

fucking world.

But we just weren't allowed to reflect

that in our vocabulary.

Because if we did that, we would somehow be accused and be culpable just by passively reflecting it.

We're reinforcing it.

The more we just create a bubble and insulate ourselves from the ugliness and brutality and darkness of the world

the more we get a self-satisfactory sense that we're no longer culpable in it but you are

there's nothing about the trump era that was more hideous than the Obama era.

Actually, it was just more honest.

And what does that say about these liberal leftists?

They are not more left wing than Trump.

They're just liars. They just sanitize and purify their fucking language.

They create a mental safe space and they isolate themselves from the ugliness and brutality and ruthlessness

of the world.

And they think that makes them morally superior,

as if they're not equally culpable in the state of the country.

But the fundamental question remained.

I mean, how can you maintain faith in the communist cause, in Marxism, in the broad left-wing tradition,

without this copium

mental safe space security system,

which was not

reflective of reality.

So how can you embrace the real?

The reason I spent so much time and contemplation and introspection and stuff is because I wanted to know what does it really mean to give way to the real? You know, liberal

leftists, these Redditors,

they believe that

there's

that like, ultimately they do reflect

the truth of reality.

You know, like, oh, well, the science,

Neil deGrassey-Tyson agrees with us, and they just, they never question it.

And so there's this kind of passive guarantee in the institutions that rule society.

It's fundamental trust in them.

Sophia, what's up? Thank you for the five and uh there's no authentic encounter with the real

with nothing without any mediation in a sense you, okay, what about outside of your safe space?

Can you just honestly face the truth of the reality you live in without a filter?

And this is what I tried to do for years, you know, and I guess the, you know, origins of the, the restored faith I have in the revolutionary tradition and in Marxism and in the good, really more broadly, this is what we're talking about, is that I started to understand and accept that the reason there is an alignment between the innate sense of justice and good and whatever that we aspire toward and the real the world as it really and truly is

is because that's where it comes from it doesn't come from these institutions it doesn't come from these institutions that

protect our democracy it doesn't come from these fake inauthentic safe spaces we create it comes from

the real.

And it's on us to rediscover that.

And when I really embrace that fact, when I

embrace the fact that, you know,

we need to face reality without a filter and still

have the faith in the confidence that reality aligns with even at the most vague possible level,

our deepest human aspirations which to me was the whole

secret of Marx's materialism all that anxiety and fear I had about the far right disappeared.

Totally disappeared.

I started, I was no longer intimidated by the right.

I mean, it was just like, I kind of

now could understand what

it was. What was the vital source

of power that it

drew from?

And some people say that,

you know,

you guys are part of the

far rights cultural

hegemony. And I'm like, you're a fucking retard.

What you're looking at since 2016

has been the breakdown

of liberal hegemony.

The absence of political correctness and the absence of these

guardrails on acceptable forms of thought is not, you know, the positive consequence of some

ideology.

Ideologies are not materially real.

That's fundamentally idealist.

There's nothing neo-fascist or far right about emancipating yourself from the liberal Obama safe space copium bubble that you live in. There's nothing far right about that. You're embracing the wilderness. You're going out and embracing the real, the wilderness.

If you don't have the faith and the confidence that as a consequence of this encounter, you cannot read, you cannot discover the essence of the revolutionary tradition of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc.

You're unworthy of the name Marxism.

Stop calling yourself a Marxist. You're not a Marxist.

Not honestly, at least. You don't believe in it

and so i'm trying on a i'm being very good faith about the source of people's problem because

it's not rational it's something deeply psychological we are coded

as far right because we are outside of a safe space we're not trapped within a discursive and

semiotic prison and for this reason outside of the prison they say that's only the far right is there

but it's not just the far right that's there it's also the potential and the possibility of a

real left wing the real left wing the one that lennon was a part of the one that robespierre was a part of the one that Lenin was a part of.

The one that Robespierre was a part of.

The one that Che Guevara was a part of.

It's outside of the safe space.

Not within. It's outside.

And the potential is there. It's not just the far right the far right is filling a vacuum that the left

should be occupying but it's this abominable disgusting liberal left safe space that they dwell and live and eat and breathe within.

That is the far right, objectively. You are the far right. You are the sanction. You are the

veneer. You are the justification. You are the kind of fantastic

whitewashing

of an extremely hideous,

brutal reality

that you are culpable in for

no other reason than the fact you're

unwilling to be honest about it.

You're not anti-racist

because you're unwilling to

confront the reality of racism

through humor. You're more

of a racist. You're unwilling

to confront the reality you're part of.

You haven't created some avant-garde society devoid of the evils that our society is victimized by.

You're more culpable in them because you're repressing them.

You're ignoring them and denying them.

You're a liar.

You are the far right.

You are the right wing.

And all these alt-right whatever people,

they're just fake revolutionaries.

I mean, Logo came to understand this himself.

These are people you could qualify in the same way,

you know, like reactionary socialist, utopian socialist, whatever.

These other varieties of people who had a problem with the system.

And I just want to make it clear that we haven't broken ranks from the left because we've left this semiotic and discursive safe space that they live and breathe and reside within.

An ordinary person doesn't automatically live in that safe space. An ordinary person is very politically incorrect, says bad jokes, and tells it how it is, how they really feel.

The burden is not on us to prove that, you know, we've adopted some far-right ideology.

The burden of you is to prove what is so left wing about your Obama safe space that you live inside?

And I want to talk about I try to be patient with God. I try to be patient in the sense of, you know, I try to be patient in the sense of, you know, I ask God that, you know, please, whatever outcome comes of this, just make it aligned with something that's just a just outcome.

And I try to have the patience to understand why things are the way they are.

But I can't shake off a fury and a rage I have inside of me, no matter how patient I try to be, an extreme hatred and rage I have within me, that we are isolated as this, we're these outside

infiltrators. We are this far

right menace. We cannot

tolerate you within the left. You're not

part of our left. Anyone who hates

ACP on the left, you're my friend. You're

this big problem. ACP

is this big issue. Let's freak out problem ACP is this big issue

let's freak out about ACP

like you are clearly some

you're like a thumb sticking out

you're a big fucking problem the line is

drawn here you're far right and we're

the left

and I look at your left I look at your left and we're the left.

And I look at your left.

I look at your left of Kate Abu Ghazala.

I look at your left that is not even united on the basic issue of what is your attitude toward the Russian special military operation?

What is your attitude toward the one China policy? What is your attitude to the so-called state of Israel?

What is your attitude to the key fundamental issue of actually existing socialism and U.S. imperialism?

What is your actual stance concretely in relation to Iran and to Hezbollah?

There are fundamental divisions on the so-called left that are not regarded as fundamental by these

leftists they're non-antagonistic contradictions what are the antagonistic contradictions

that's my fucking problem do you understand understand? It's not even transgender.

Because truth be told, we don't give a fuck about that issue.

It's how we talk about these things.

It's the callous way in which we just speak like normal people.

We don't have this filter.

We don't have political correctness.

We aren't intimidated by...

We don't mind making fun of and memeing right-wing ideas if it amuses us and we find it funny.

It's not like we take it seriously but it's like

we are very brutal and realistic about about the world i mean it's just like an extreme

brutal understanding uh of what is reality right without a filter and um that is the antagonistic contradiction for them

that they are paranoid about acp inside their walls but inside their walls are supporters of the Kiev regime in Ukraine and inside of their

walls are supporters of NATO inside of their walls are supporters of separatism within China inside

of their walls are people who are Zinus.

That never rose to the status of an antagonistic contradiction for them.

So yes, we insist on a division.

If we have to represent the red line, so fucking be it.

But your left is fake.

Your left is a facade that comes from fucking Obama.

It's not a real left.

If you're fucking uniting NATO supporters with self-proclaimed Marxist, Leninist-imperialists who are pro-trans, I guess.

If you guys consider yourselves part of some vague milieu that you share that's distinct in some qualitative

way with us.

You're not Marxist.

You're not part of the revolutionary tradition of history.

You're a bunch of spineless pieces of shit united, very cynically, by a common-class interest of these petty bourgeois professionals who live and work and shit and breathe inside of these fucking bubbled in, you know, safe space, corporate environments that you you mistaken for the real world digital artists and

fuck you literally fuck you i don't understand it.

We're the red line.

I'm honored.

We should be honored.

Don't you fucking dare call us far right, you piece of shit.

You are literally getting fucked inside your own ranks.

You don't give a fuck, you cuck.

There's a fucking, there's fucking NATO supporters in your fucking ranks.

There's fucking Ukraine supporters.

There's Israel supporters.

There's fucking Janus Verofuckus who's against Iran.

Call for regime change in Iran.

People that fucking called for regime change inside Syria.

People who fucking denounce the actions of resistance.

You don't fucking lose your mind about those people like you do about us.

Fucking Kate Abu Ghazala and that fucking Zionist bitch,

Zoran, you don't give a fuck about that.

You don't lose your fucking mind and get paranoid about that.

It's only us that trigger you.

Why is it only us that trigger you? Why is it only us that trigger you? Inside your own fucking camp, inside your own fucking ranks where you're all

fucking holding hands and your fucking safe space coping together about how much you're united against the

ACP, who the fuck are you holding hands with you, piece of shit?

You want to be fucking pure?

Be fucking pure.

Look to your shoulder side to side.

Your fucking NATO supporters, Israel supporters.

Enemies of socialism worldwide.

Enemies of the CPC.

Enemies of the sovereignty of the Russian people.

Enemies of the Islamic Republic.

This is who you break bread with?

Oh, we're just not sectarian.

So why the fuck are you sectarian when it comes to us?

Because admit this.

Admit this, you piece of shit

your fucking red line

is some nebulous bullshit

political correct language

tone policing about transgender

rather than children

being mutilated and

blown up by the fucking bombs your politicians sign on to sending.

Your politicians, the ones you fucking promote. By the way, none of these people have been held accountable.

How many fucking Hillary staffers were held accountable? How many of these people have been held accountable. How many fucking Hillary staffers were held

accountable? How many of these fucking Kate Abu Ghazala Zoran Shills? How many of these fucking

people have been canceled for their past? No, I've learned. I've become more mature. I've learned. Really no I've learned I've become more mature

I've learned really you've learned

they dare

they dare try to denounce

maga communism

maga communism was the most

vindicated strategy in the entire history of the 21st century U.S. left. Why? Because the MAGA base, where has it shifted? What is the shift going on? Anti-Israel, anti-war, anti-Trump, anti-regime. How has the Democrat base shifted in the past two years? Well, they've doubled down, increased support of NATO. They become more Zionist. They become more interventionist.

Like that bitch, Kate Abu Ghazah, they become more in favor of the regime.

Without Trump, of course.

But fundamentally, they think Trump is a troublemaker within an otherwise good, well-oiled regime that they support.

Because transgender rights are non-negotiable, right? So we'll bomb your country and

we'll invade your country and attack you. And that's, that is how they've shifted. They have shifted more towards support of NATO and the imperialist state machine.

How has MAGA shifted?

MAGA shifted in the opposite direction.

So tell me how MAGA communism wasn't vindicated, you fucking idiot.

The Democratic Party has shifted more pro-imperialist.

MAGA has shifted in the opposite direction.

And they'll try to pull up, by the way, if you clip this without showing this part,

they're going to pull up a poll of, oh, what about MAGA? Yeah, everyone who still calls themselves MAGA,

of course, supports what Trump is doing. But how many people used to call themselves Maga now agree with Tucker Carlson and Candice and the rest of them?

And he knows something.

Hassan Piker said some crazy shit recently.

Okay?

He's like it's like it's

I couldn't believe how

how blatant he was about this

I know the devil

man

trying to find the short

it was a YouTube short

he calls it the worst

he calls us the worst This is it.

He calls this the worst possible outcome.

I'll explain exactly why. You want to know the worst possible outcome for 2028?

Tucker Carlson runs on an anti-Israel platform in 2028,

and the Democrats put forward a pro-liberal Zionist,

pro-defending America's military might candidate.

But why would that be the worst outcome?

Like, what if it was, why, because Hassan inherently believes the Democratic Party is better?

But why...

Honestly, I want you to think about that lineup.

The fact Hassan is entertaining that as possible proves he needs...

He should admit Maga-communism was vindicated.

Who saw that... who saw the possibility of that coming?

That there would be a significant among enough electorate and base that would support that kind of platform that comes from MAGA.

Look what else he admits.

Tucker Carlson wins by Ronald Reagan numbers, not only by winning over the MAGA crowd, which he has complete control over, in my opinion.

So, apparently, MAGA is no longer Trump because Tucker Carlson has complete control over the

MAGA crowd. So how are we

not fucking vindicated about MAGA communism? Veronica, try stop being retarded for two minutes and then come back.

Anyway, because even if you even if you're a pro ukraine retard my rage is still justified

because there are self-proclaimed mls who do understand who do share formally our position on that issue, but for whom it's not an antagonistic

contradiction. If you understand what's going on in Ukraine, then it should be an antagonistic

contradiction for you. But for them, it's not. Transgender's are.

Anyway, regarding Hassan Piker and what he's saying here,

look... look I want you to understand something

if this happens

Tucker Carlson versus Gavin Newsom

and Tucker runs on an anti-war

anti-Israel platform

which is obviously if tucker runs i promise

you the democrats are going to field the most aggressively pro national security establishment

pro imperialist candidate of all time the democrats will say ah yeah see, the MAGA people have become pro-Russia, pro-China.

I promise you the Democrats will become super patriots if that happens. And if it does, say goodbye to the so-called

conventional left. That will be the final nail in the coffin

to kill the fake Obama

left for the rest of our days

on earth. It will be dead forever.

Because that

political campaign,

that presidential election

will draw a line in the sand. Obviously on a

principle, we're not going to endorse anyone, but objectively speaking, what it's going to do for

the political alignment in this country of what is left and what is right, all leftists

are going to have to make a decision. Do I want to be in the same

broad demographic and camp of people who are pretty socially conservative on the trans

issues or whatever, but are simultaneously very anti-Zionist?

Or do I want to double down on the transgender LGBT obsession, which the Democrats will never abandon,

but they're going to be like aggressively pro-NATO and aggressively pro-Israel.

You're going to have to make that choice.

You're going to have to choose and get your priorities in order.

And that's really my message.

The day is coming that you're going to have to get your priorities in order.

And that's going to redefine what it means to be on the right versus what it means to be

on the left.

Being on the left is no longer going to be defined by having a metrosexual accent and

sipping lattes in a cafe with your legs crossed and being a sensitive

fucking low testosterone male

who is just a moral whiner

all the time whining and bitching

and and

with an air of fake

moral superiority. Being left

wing is going to be like,

I'm literally against the regime.

I'm against the Epstein regime.

We tell some bad jokes,

as all working class movements do,

there's some toxic jokes here.

There's some toxic language going on, whatever.

At the fundamental level, we are against the regime, right?

Versus the Kate Abu Ghazala pro-Nado Democrats.

That's going to be the division that matters.

And people talk about intersectionality as if that that is as if intersectionality makes it possible to avoid having priorities

how is this not common sense you have to have priorities.

You do have to decide whether or not an effective anti-war opposition is more important than creating a safe space where everyone agrees about transgender rights, whatever that

fucking means.

You do

have to choose. If you're unwilling to

work with transphobes,

you're unwilling to work with

50% of the population

that may very well be against

Israel. You're unwilling to work with them because your priorities are not in order.

If we have, I'm going to teach you about Marxism. Crossbred, what's up? I'm going to teach you about Marxism.

If we live in a material world of material determinations then our world

is structured in such a way that is not intersectional materialism means material reality isn't

intersectional material reality has a base it has a fundamental material base and foundation

and then on top of this base yes there's superstructures and so on and so on but there's always

fundamental antagonistic and primary contradictions.

Intersectionality means we're going to put all the secondary contradictions and the primary

contradictions on the same dimension. But that's idealist. That's just about do I have the

correct ideology. How is our material world actually

structured? Well, the way the material world is actually structured is that the system has a

foundation in imperialism, in a concrete imperial global system.

Now, some so-called leftists are smart enough to understand this, which is why they support Iran.

But if they took their criticisms of us to their actual conclusion, they would be hard pressed to admit that they're being inconsistent.

Either it's intersectional and it's either everything or nothing or there are priorities.

And then they may reproach us by saying, well, you're the Vanguard party.

You're supposed to be correct on every single issue fundamentally.

You're supposed to be... I say, who the fuck are you to declare that these issues are resolved?

I've always wanted to know that.

Who are you to declare

unanimously, based solely on ideology,

what is liberation, what's not liberation?

Who the fuck are you to declare that?

Who are you to say that there's 72 genders and if we don't, who are you to say this?

I'm not even closing the door to you. I'm just telling you, you don't have an inherent advantage

versus a fucking random trucker who has his own opinion on that.

You don't have any advantage.

You have to prove your case according to the logic of civil society itself.

There's nothing about Marxism that is biased toward your conclusion about things.

So for you to say that, oh, this is the liberate, no, no, who the fuck are you to establish that?

Who are you?

What authority based on what?

They say, the right-wing hegemony.

So what's the left-wing counter-hegemony?

Where's your workers' movement?

Where are your counter-hegemonic institutions?

Because all I see on your front are a bunch of billionaire-backed NGOs and billionaire-funded

organizations all aligned with the Democratic Party.

Academic institutions, media institutions, where is your actual independent working class counter-hegemonic base?

You don't have one.

So shut the fuck up about Gromsky if you don't have one, so shut the fuck up about Gromsky, if you don't have one.

Since Trump, they've been backtracking from the woke extremism.

HCP, Chan, I thought that, too. I swear to God, I thought that too.

But how come in the last week or so?

I don't even...

I'm shocked.

Have you been seeing on X?

These crazy things?

ACP... I saw a tweet the other things ACP

I saw a tweet the other

ACP transphobia something get 5,000

likes. What the fuck is going

on? Like we're stuck

in 2021 forever.

Hassan liked a tweet that said maga communism was a failure.

It's so funny because he just, first of all,

Hassan takes two L's.

First of all, he hosted Yanis Verofocus,

who himself literally endorsed Maga Communism on his own stream. So why didn't Hassan confront Janus about how wrong Maga Communism was? Second of all,

Hassan here admits that Tucker, not Trump, has control over the MAGA movement right now.

And that if Tucker was president, it would be an anti-war, anti-Israel platform.

So doesn't that mean the MAGA movement is inherently anti-Zionist and anti-war in the same way that we said they were in 22. Doesn't that vindicate our position?

So what a ridiculous thing for Hassan to do, frankly? What a ridiculous thing. Of course,

Maga-Communism was absolutely vindicated.

You think Kate Abu Ghazala represents

the future of anti-imperialism?

The future of anti-imperialism are Tucker

Carlson's audience. I don't care what you think about Tucker.

You can call Tucker. See, I don't care.

The people that are listening to Tucker right now, who used to be Trump fans, are against Israel, and they're against Ukraine, and they're against foreign interventions.

And they're extremely skeptical of everything that corporate America peddles and pushes on us.

And they are pretty receptive

to socialist ideas, frankly.

Meanwhile, let's look at

the opposite camp among the liberal

so-called liberal left. How many

liberal leftists are against

rent control now?

Do you know how many are?

It's such a unanimous.

Oh, well, the economists, the experts say that rent control is bad.

That's literally the type of Fauci economic shit that they're on.

We got to listen to the economic experts.

These YIMB types, right? Let's get rid of the zoning laws and just kind of, you know,

like that's their priority and their focus. Instead of the obvious, which is let's proverbially,

not literally, slit the throat of the speculator landlord class, the hedge funds and BlackRock and so on, let's fucking decapitate this parasite that's driving up the cost of living on all levels.

They say, no, no, we just need to be yimbies.

What is this fucking metrosexual nonsense they're pushing now?

Abundance.

Economics. abundance economics

abundance The guy who looks like the Flash, right? Or he just has the same name.

Yeah, the Ezra Klein.

Let me just show you the...

This is the Democratic Party right now, you know, and versus MAGA.

Okay?

This is, by the way, this guy will never get canceled because he doesn't have a beard like me.

And he looks like he menstruates.

So this is who read it is okay with.

And this is the Bible of the Democratic Party.

So tell me how mega-communism wasn't vindicated.

This is you. This is your side, you know, so to speak.

You don't have your own side.

Shut the fuck up. You don't have your own side. You're a fucking Democrat. You don't have your own side. Shut the fuck up. You don't have your own side.

You're a fucking Democrat.

You don't have your own side.

So this is you.

By the way, if you claim that you have your own side based on what?

What resources?

What base?

What demographic?

What organization?

What do you have?

The DSA, that's it.

Democrats.

Over the past

year, has there been any

independent left-wing force in American

politics besides ACP?

We've had Zoran Mamdani, Democrat.

We've had Kate Abu Bichbala,

Democrat. We've had

literally CPSA

members run for city council

as Democrats, if you could believe

it.

So what are if you could believe it um so what

what are you talking about

don't come at me

you little bitch

I will slap you into the ground

you go home crying

shut the fuck up

I've been the same mean motherfucker that I was since I started this shit in 2021.

I will never fucking change you, but you have to riddle me with bullets to stop me, bitch.

All the trauma and mental pain that I cause in people, you fucking deserve it.

Because if you've isolated yourself and insulated yourself as a political, now, if you're some apolitical person, fine, I don't give a shit.

If you're calling yourself some revolutionary, some Marxists, some leftists, and you have this fucking safe space copium fucking circle jerk desanitized of all the brutality and horror of the world.

And you think that makes you morally superior

and that, you know,

you encounter one of us, you know, this is a far right...

You used to be bit slapped into the ground

you call us far right, you fucking pussy.

Think about how disgusting that is.

They think that because they've created a fake safe space,

which materially depends upon the hideous, immoral evil,

of the same system they claim to be opposing,

that this makes them superior. Oh, we use,

we don't tell bad jokes. We don't

we don't say bad words.

Because we're

good people.

This is how they think in their head, meant, like, I fucking understand psychology.

Like, when they're thinking in their head about how they never use bad words, they're like, we're good people.

And they have like an inflection in their voice, like the tone goes higher and they look up, we're good people.

Like Superman. We're good people like Superman we're good people I'm a good person

right that's how they do it right I'm a good person I look up on and transgender They think they're good people.

Fucking hypocrites.

They think they're good fucking people.

They materially live in the same system as the rest of us.

Well, we never use bad words.

And Hakeans' discord, liberation for all.

And they have that Mickey Mouse inflection where they look up, what are you talking? Where's your,

what is materially the basis of this? Nothing. It's a pretension. It's's a pretension it's just

a pretension it's just a pretension. There's nothing, but it's based on nothing. um

um they just they have that thing they they look up

you think you're They just, they have that thing. They look up.

Do you think you're better than us?

Because what?

Because you fucking lie to yourself about your own feelings and your own intrusive thoughts? Um Alright

How fucking dare you, you piece of shit? how fucking dare you you piece of shit

how fucking dare you

as somebody who

honestly I'm at the point you come up to me

and you call me a far right infiltrator

base populist

what's up saved by the bell

honestly

it's such an infuriated Populous, what's up? Saved by the bell, honestly.

It's such an infuriatingly disgusting thing to say.

When in your own ranks, you have Kate Abu Ghazala.

Nobody fucking raises a shitstorm over it, right?

Um... over it, right? Y'all should never stop fighting. We have to fight forever. We're going to be doing this forever. Thank you. Yo, hello.

Ons.

Ons, ones, ones.

All right.

Look, guys, we're going to have to fight forever.

Until reality gets... Honestly, if Tucker and Gavin have a show off in 2028, everything is just going to go our way in terms of how consciousness is going to shift.

And we will never have to do with these people ever again.

I fundamentally believe the day will come.

We don't have to deal with this wicked, disgusting perversion of Marxism that tries to gatekeep against us.

You're not real communist. Who the fuck are you, you piss,

and I stomp on you.

Who the fuck are you?

You're not suspicious of him?

Talking head, you're kind of retarded.

Should I be patient?

Should I be patient with stupidity

who gives a fuck about who Tucker is

it doesn't matter who fucking

oh yeah we're it's almost like we're back

at Maga communism oh so you're not suspicious

of Trump

oh my god guys Oh, so you're not suspicious of Trump? Oh, my God.

Guys, do you not understand by now?

It doesn't matter necessarily who's occupying a space.

If I can name a space and identify that space exists, that's what fucking matters.

Okay.

Tucker can be CIA.

Trump could be a pedophile.

There's a specific space.

There's a specific space. there's a specific space that's there. There's a depth, there's a, there's a, there's a sizable population of people in this country who Tucker represents, just like Trump used to, I guess, who are left-wing on foreign policy.

And there's a huge convergence of the left, the traditional Obama left, with them.

And that's going to lead to a new political realignment, where we will no longer have to deal with this ridiculous suspicion on the part of leftists that we are our right-wing op.

Do you understand that?

Ones if you understand that.

Politics will be so aligned that being left wing will no longer inherently and nebulously and vaguely, psychologically, be identified with the Democratic Party in the way that it currently is.

When that is gone, when that veneer disappears, we are not going to have this aroma and air of mystery and suspicion surrounding us. We're going to be

recognized as what we are. Legitimate communist, Marxist, Leninists in the era that we live in.

The reason right now, on Reddit and all over social media, in addition

to the artificial Fed manipulation

shit, which is obvious.

But the fundamental reason is because

we're fundamentally

just not within

the spectrum of Democratic Party

politics. So they say you must be Republicans.

There's no recognition of an outside. You must be some fringe cult like LaRouche. You must be some far right thing.

Now, if I'm a good leader, I am anticipating that there's going to be a shift in U.S. politics that does justify and make sense of why we have this awkward position that we do, which is frankly not a lucrative one. I'm not a grifter.

And if I was one, I wouldn't be a good one.

Because we're in an extremely awkward position.

We are left-wing, we're communists, far left, but we just don't have anything in common with any of the other people who use those labels.

We don't sound like them.

Don't look like them.

Don't have their aesthetic values.

Don't have their cultural values.

Don't share their sense of humor.

Don't have their taste in culture, anything. Like, we have literally nothing in

common with them. And, like, that's why they call us Nasbolts. We have, we just don't fuck with

those people at all and have nothing to do with them. We're not furries. We just don't have the

cancel culture and the woke scolding We just don't have the cancel culture

and the woke scolding. We don't have any of that shit.

They say, oh, you're far right.

You know? So this is an extremely

awkward position we're in.

If I'm a good leader,

then this position

that we're in now will be vindicated in the long run.

We're not going to be in this awkward corner forever.

And I've always believed that.

I always believe there's something true about our position, fundamentally, that will be vindicated by reality itself.

Autistic potato.

What a...

Honestly, great name.

So... Honestly, great name. So, yeah.

Look, I think things are going in our favor,

but there's a narrative that they're building up that you should be attentive to, which is, look, very seamlessly, a lot of people on the left are

joining us. We're getting flooded with support and enthusiasm, and that's why the intensity of the attacks have increased in the way they have but the narrative that we're this deceptive force that's infiltrated the left and we're not the real left that's's the narrative they're going with now. We haven't changed.

We've been here for years and years and years before a lot of it. While these people were in

DSA, we were here with the same position we've always had. And they call us infiltrators, and they call us inauthentic.

And, you know, the thing is really Fed Jacketing.

They say CIA, CIA, CIA, Fed, Fed, Fed, Fed, Fed, Fed, Fed, Psiop, CIA, CIA.

By the way, anyone who says that to me in person, by the way, find out.

Please find out.

No, no, find out.

Call me or Jackson that in person.

Find out what fucking happens to you.

No, no, because I'll fucking go there.

Honestly, how much... Just forget me.

How much Jackson has fucking sacrificed?

How much fucking struggle I personally have been through in this fucking bitch?

And you're going to fucking call me that You're gonna get the prison treatment

So please test me

Because in prison you can't just say shit

Without proof

You can't just say shit

And just say shit and get away with it right

so fuck it you know like and they think i won't do it they think i won't do it they think i

won't literally beat the brakes off of somebody who tries to say that shit to me.

Whatever. like nobody can look me in the eyes and say we're an inauthentic movement and that I'm not a

true believer and that I'm a disingenuous actor say that to my look me in the fucking eyes and say that to me.

Yeah, you're dealing with a crazy person.

So sit the fuck down.

Fucking retarded ass Redator. These spiritually Israeli rats

I look retarded right now.

Because I'm, you know, these aren't even real people.

I'm here angry and, and, like, having this wrathful reaction to literal Mossad sock puppets.

And they're fucking laughing.

Because the real people that we talk to have never said any of these things.

Uh, it's just crazy.

It's just fucking crazy.

Now the closest we got was at Emory, these bitch-ass al-Qaeda, free Syria supporters.

These Al-Qaeda, Free Syria, Jolani fucking lobuboes, right?

And they would not say shit to either me or Jackson.

They would not say shit to us.

They did back channel and go behind our backs and express...

We walked around their campus, and nobody said shit to us, but they went and they reported that we that we our presence made them

have anxiety attacks we they had anxiety attacks and they were so uh traumatized uh so this happened

you know they never say it to you they'll go and they go to

yeah you know what

boot camp I don't know what to say to these fucking people

you are

you disgust me.

You are subhuman filth.

A human being has a minimum degree of thick skin.

Minimum. Minimum.

Minimum.

I'm talking about minimum.

Where you can tolerate the presence of people who represent worldviews that bother you.

Mentally, right? no but it's never happen

well we are we wrong to cause the division and chaos that we do?

Peak under the floor of the so-called U.S. left.

A culture of venality-called U.S. left. A culture of

venality, corruption,

immorality, hypocrisy,

brown-nosing, career climbing.

Our positions as Marxist

Leninus aren't taken seriously. Even the people

that have them that are opposed to us.

In the DSA, for example, like that

fucking retard on X.

My DSA is adding Stalin emotes to our Discord.

Oh!

They don't take it seriously.

It's just a joke to them.

They take that DNC money seriously.

When the Zoron's come around,

when the Kate Abu Ghazales come around, oh, they got that discipline.

They take that shit seriously.

Oh, we got to, come on, guys.

Let's go canvassing.

No, they take it seriously.

No, they really do.

It's that money.

That money, that Democrat money money they fucking worship it is Stalin's is the

Stalin have even 5% of the do they respect Stalin even 5%, how much they respect money?

The way that they degrade and mock Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Engels?

In sexually depraved ways, by the way.

Are they that callous and free-spirited when it comes to money and structural power?

No, they bow and they revere it and they have this unspoken respect and worship even, you could argue.

Nobody raises...

Nobody raises...

I just want to know this.

Why does Leninism never rise to the status of an autistic crash out?

Why is it that cultural issues will always rise to the level of an autistic crashout.

Jackson's tweets will rise to the status of an autistic crashout, but nobody has love and

passion and anger and rage in their heart for defending the immortal science of Marxism

Leninism, among their ranks, because they don't take it seriously.

It never rises to the status of being a problem or an issue for anyone.

The mere presence of Jackson somewhere is an issue for anyone the mere presence of jackson somewhere is an issue for people but it's never rising to the status of an issue that there's a ukraine supporter in your ranks

that there's an is Israel supporter in your ranks

never rises to the status of being a fucking problem, right?

No, they crash out all the fucking time over any pet cultural issue they happen to have, not over imperialism. It never rises to that status.

There are Zionists in the DSA.

There are Zionists in the DSA.

But it's okay to be part of DSA, not ACP, though.

We're Nossboles, right?

We're Nossbols, we're fake.

We're a CIA Sciop.

But the DSA is okay.

Just look at my face right now.

However much you guys are giving these people a hard time turn the volume up

by 500,000 percent

they deserve worse

they only respond

to one language

they want to victimize us like they you know to one language.

They want to victimize us.

Like they,

you know,

they want to make, they want to make us like correct,

morally correct,

but victims.

Oh yeah,

you guys are correct,

but we're just going to laugh

and mock you.

And yeah,

we're going to be unjust,

but you're just going to be the victims who are morally

correct but no no bitch we're gonna make it a fucking problem we're gonna make it a

fucking problem we are invading your spaces you will not be safe from us you will never know peace

we will not be victims we will not be uh you know we're going to be a problem for you for sure

if you're redlined we're going to be a problem for you, for sure.

If you're red line, you're not going to draw a red line at Zinus in your organization,

but you're going to open your fucking mouth and make a problem out of ACP.

We're going to make that a problem for you and that's not much for these people you know know, you just got to keep being present.

Don't be hostile.

Don't be hostile. You don't have to be hostile.

You just have to be present.

I'm not saying be hostile because they interpret our mere peaceful presence as hostility.

So just be present. That's all you have to be. Just be present.

We'll keep being a thorn in their side. And yeah, we will. Because then why will we? Because we go our own way and you won't leave us alone. so we come to you. It's simple. Maybe I'm just too spiritually Shiite.

Is that what it is?

Maybe I'm just too Shiite.

I'm just too Shia.

It's supposed to kind of just shut your mouth and accept the wicked, uh, injustice, right? But I just can't do it. I just can't

fucking do it. Like, if I was a smart person, according to these people's understanding of

intelligence, I would have just shut up and went with the flow. Don't go against the flow. according to these people's understanding of intelligence.

I would have just shut up and went with the flow.

Don't go against the flow.

Don't point out the hypocrisy and the corruption.

I don't have it in me to do that.

I just don't.

You know, and people could say, well, maybe the Shiite position's a losing position.

And I say, well, look at Iran and Hezbollah right now.

Maybe that's some of the energy we need to be channeling, you know? Yeah, guys, today at the gym, I destroyed my back.

My upper back.

I was doing bench pressing and... Fucked up my back.

If you want to know what I did,

do you think I went home?

Because I'm like you.

I'm a little bitch-ass.

No.

No.

What I did is I went.

I used the thing to, you know, kind of massage my back a little bit.

Did some stretches.

And then 15, 20 minutes, I'm back in the fucking ring, bitch, because I don't quit.

I really fucked it up badly, though.

Like, hurt really bad, right, guys guys i think i sprained something but i

respond to the injury by quitting i'm not a quitter i'm a bolshevik bitch i'm gonna finish my

fucking shit and then i'm gonna go home home. But, uh, trying to fucking remember the shit I needed to say. You know, Oh, yeah, I remember.

So another thing I, you know, I want to keep harping on this issue, but there's another thing I feel like we're being gaslit about, which is the origin of tankies and all these communities. Like, take the D program, for example, Hakeem and Co. came from the same fucking discords that RTS co came from

the same fucking discords that

RTSG came from.

Finball.

Okay?

And

I distinctly remember

in

the 2010s and I would say like before the D program became and and Luna OI kind of started sanitizing it.

And kind of before 2020, honestly, with the PSL

and that whole thing

Tankies were always

like bigoted.

Were they not?

To be a tankie was to be in a community

where yeah, I mean like

every, if you were in a tanky discord

or a community, every other person

was like a nozerist, a boffist.

There were Russian

Oswalds in those communities, for sure.

There were Paul Potts

supporters. Like, they were all

sort Maoists. None of these people

were ubiquitously

socially liberal.

Actually, most people were pretty

socially conservative. They were

pretty homophobic and trans.

I remember what tankies used to be like.

There'd be like a very harsh anti-identity politics.

Yeah, they were so fucking edgy.

And like, it was like, it used to be like the norm.

And then what ended up happening is that hakeem and luna oi went into the mainstream and they just made it politically correct but before them

it was a wild wild wild type of milieu.

And so, like, the idea that we came here and were these right-wing infiltrators who are hijacking left spaces.

First of all, you little stupid bitch.

Do you even know what a tankie was

an Assad support? Tankies used

to have more in common

with

like a dissident right

Assad supporter, nationalist

you know like a Bulgarian nationalist or some shit, who's like an ortho, I don't know.

They used to have more in common than with a Libtar leftist.

They did, okay?

I remember what it was like when there was actual tankies.

I also remember Caleb Mopin.

However, he was always cringe.

His presentation was always cringe.

He's a boomer.

But let's be a little honest about something.

What did Caleb Moppin actually get canceled for?

Do you remember when he debated Vosch or Destiny, whoever else?

And he was, like, considered a kooky

cuckie wacko freak

because he supported

China and North Korea

and defended

Putin

and that was enough to

ostracize him

and suddenly

I don't know how it became mainstream

but then they came and they're trying to gatekeep it

when back in the day to be a tankie

was to be ostracized

he was ostracized.

He was ostracized. No, that's not true, Harold.

That was when we jumped into the scene. Before we,

you know, we always tried to look for the red line.

Because, look, Mow said you have to draw a line. That's what it means to be a revolutionary, to draw a line.

So we were always looking for the line to draw, so to speak, proverbially, right?

And the first line I think we drew

was socialist patriotism.

Because we saw

that tankies were being infected

by Obama social liberals.

And

we wanted to

draw a line

in the sand

be like

okay

this fake

bitch shit

get it

the fuck

out of here

because

we are

going back

to our

Marxist

roots

dark

Marxism, right?

But then we realized the patriotism thing was not a good red line because there were so many opportunists who were pro-patriotic, who were social democrat, institutional patriots.

The position we were coming from was an asymmetrical guerrilla patriotism.

And so the next red line we drew was the mechatanky thing, right?

I guess that was around the barista discourse.

We wanted to distinguish ourselves from the PMC Patriots.

And then months after that we have

Maga-Communism

and that's the lineage.

That's where it went.

This guy's a very retrospective stream,

kind of a throwback stream.

Because why am I doing a throwback stream?

I want you guys to remember our tradition,

our lineage, and our heritage.

It's getting to that fucking point.

And as we are running up against the same tired talking points and retarded forms of consciousness that form and

reaction to us literal reactionaries by the way remember the lessons of the past remember where we

came from and who we are well we i i i you know what can i and i tell you why i'm being a little introspective

um shortly after the founding of acP, I felt some regret.

I said, I was too divisive.

I was too toxic and divisive and it's not the way to go.

And maybe that's why we were running into issues and I said

you know maybe we should just be more unifying and we tried that for years but

suddenly I remember why we wanted to draw red lines in the way that we did.

Because internally, there's a corruption.

And we need a wakefulness.

We need our own woke.

We need our own wakefulness to the internal corruption of the so-called left we need some way to distinguish the principled line the bolshevik line from pan-leftist sludge monster of opportunists and corrupt

Democrat pieces of shit. Now, we need to be smarter about how we do that versus how we did in the

past. Because how we did it in the past was basically we would litmus test. It was all about

litmus testing. But the way, yes, the Shra-Sand, the way we wake from Jahlia now is that instead of

litmus testing, we need to just continually affirm the positive line the party line the positive position of our movement and simultaneously we need to deal with the enemy only when they rear

their head, meaning

what we used to do is we used to go on

campaigns, offensive campaigns

against Hakeem and Luna Oi

and the rest for being sellouts

and stuff. We were

Maoists. Make a critique of it.

Bathroom. What do you

Radius? Radimus.

What the fuck are you talking about?

What is this like doctor disrespect at TwitchCon?

What are you talking about?

Literally, what are you even talking about?

Anyway, I just see some stupid shit all the time.

Anyway,

um,

no,

we,

we don't,

we shouldn't go out of our way to litmus test people.

And,

but we should,

we should assert our line. And whoever has a problem with it we fucking

stomp them into the dust simple as that somebody blew up the bathroom that one time.

What are you, I am really thinking hard trying to even conceive what you could be talking about, and it's just blanks.

Just completely. conceive what you could be talking about and it's just blanks. Just complete blanks.

I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. blew up a bathroom who blew up a bathroom at one of the events

did that happen

did that happen

I don't that happened?

I don't, I don't, yeah, I don't think that happened.

What are you talking about?

Ah, my back hurts.

Fuck! You know, Well, in any case, five years ago,

bro, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Anyway, in any case, guys, I'm just so, I'm just so,

it's crazy because it doesn't make sense.

I'm inspired by the ACP. I mean, I'm just so, it's crazy because it didn't make sense. I'm inspired by the ACP.

I mean, I'm the chairman of ACP, but

I can't believe it.

It's like we have this

red banner that we're flying.

And everybody's coming for us.

Everybody's attacking us.

And it's like that shit is still lying.

Like we're still fucking here.

We're still standing against overwhelming fucking odds, holding the fucking line like lions.

Beceased from everywhere.

Fuck we're beceased from everywhere.

It's fucking crazy

besiezed by these fucking shit libreditors

besieged by these fucking right wing retards

and our shit is still flying in the same fucking way it always has been

and it's same fucking way it always has been.

And it's like, I see y'all in the fucking trenches,

fighting every single fucking day.

We will never fucking give up.

We're going to put our fucking symbol on tanks and we're going to fucking mow down

our enemies one day.

Like at this point, when I

see the ACP symbol, it's like the

logo of Hezbollah, psychologically

and spiritually

not in terms of what

we've done in action

yet

I'm talking about a Civil War scenario

but like

it's just like the vibe

like we stand defiant

it's that defiance at point, the ACP logo is a logo of defiance.

Like the Hezbollah logo, straight up. Like the amount of faith and confidence and belief that comes with this and reppping this shit unapologetically, fuck everybody who's not ACP.

Honestly. see. Don't you guys to understand that? I mean, this is a fucking miracle we have this shit.

We have the sign.

I might say some blasphemous ass shit.

They say the word ayatollah means a sign from God.

We got the ayatollah.

You understand?

I mean, when I see our logo, I think of a giant bomb that's just dropping.

Like a 10-ton fucking...

What are they called?

Those forges that you you uh you beat the swords on what they called Smith like a giant fucking Smith just like slamming on the fucking ground an anvil yeah

I think of a fucking anvil,

a metal anvil, smashing on the

fucking ground.

Type of shit that we're on.

Like, our shit just triggers people by nature.

Like seeing our shit.

It's just like it's a big fuck you to everybody who deserves to be told fuck you.

You know?

Our shit is a giant fuck you to everybody who deserves to be told that shit. so i'm very proud of how far we've come i mean it's oh i want you understand overwhelming odds guys

overwhelming odds and if you Overwhelming odds.

And if you think there's too little of us,

think otherwise.

Because PSL has

1,400 members.

DSA,

its members are just passive NPCs.

They're not actual, like, militant cadre of an organization.

They are basically, like, random NPCs on the street in GTA that are, that are, like, you know, have a certain certain outfit or something it's like they're not actually

like a disciplined militant cadre of any kind so don't worry about DSA they're nothing

I'll tell you DSA is so fluid and so loose I could go to a DSA meeting right now

and convert 15 people to just come to ACP.

It'd be that easy.

They're just literally normies.

There's nothing,

there's nothing like,

they don't have an antagonistic

they don't have a backbone

you know they don't have anything

so don't worry about that

and people say them, you know, I always vacillate in between this.

Sometimes people say, Haas, what about the fundamental task of getting Normies and getting right-wingers to convert to communism,

which we focus a great deal of time on.

But as somebody who's focused a lot of time, selling communism to the average Joe,

we don't need to sell anything, guys.

We need to sell...

We don't need to sell anything any more than the Kizelbos needs to sell their tribal

identity.

We're a tribe.

Let's be honest.

We're a tribe.

If we get our house in order and we do things in the right way, and we set the

example and we just own what it means to be a communist, by example, people will be interested in us,

inevitably. Don't worry about anti-communists no one will care if people see what

communists look like they open the door so right now this is what's happening you know how you

open the fridge and you close the fridge when you see there's nothing? Right now, when people open the fridge to see what's behind, what is communism, they open the fridge and there's a furry talking about gore fetishes.

And they just kind of stare and they go

they open the fridge. It's literally a literal piece of shit

on a plate, a fucking actual turd on a plate.

And not only they close,

they slam the door shut.

Because the first thing they want is to get their nose back,

their senses back.

Their sense of smell back.

And... Uh, even and

even then they say this isn't what

wait Stalin wasn't like this

so they just kind of baffled and confused

and if we can fix that

and have when people open the fridge and they see a great beautiful steak or something, right?

Oh, this is communism.

Okay, that makes sense.

This is an actual viable possible position you can have in the 21st century.

They will come to us, guys. Have that confidence. People will come our way.

Communist ideas are inately and inherently attractive.

Of course they are.

What compels people and draws people to communism?

I hope you have the right answer to this.

Well, if they have a revolutionary disposition and they're angry at the system, they'll come to us.

It's as simple as that.

You say, well, what about, why have they been going over to the far right?

Because the self-proclaimed communists were sellouts that's why why did hitler win because of the spd the communist party of germany came too late before them it was the social democrats who tarnished the name of Marxism in the eyes of the

German people, and so Hitler took advantage of that. Today, AOC and so-called progressives

and leftists are doing the same thing.

So this is why people originally went to the far right in the 2010s.

They went to the far right because the so-called Marxists were not a tangible option.

Some guy wearing a scarf in some university with glasses was not a revolutionary position.

So they went to the most edgy possible thing, forbidden things of the Obama era.

And they just kind of went with that.

If we can be faithful, consistent Leninists and principled revolutionaries.

The masses will come to us.

We don't have to sell a fucking thing.

They will come to us.

We just have to articulate the revolutionary consciousness of the people.

Fuck this Epstein system.

Fuck this Epstein pedophile class.

You guys already got it.

That's the type of shit putting us on the fucking map.

By the way, we're going viral as fuck every single day.

Look at the ACP main account.

We are coming for PSL now.

We've already lapped the so-called CPUSA We don't got to sell anything

We just have to get our own shit in order Thank you. All right y'all, you want to do TikTok? all right now

all right be patient then.

Be patient because I'm not going to be able to...

I'm not going to inherently have viewers, you know, because I'm my TikTok account.

By the way, guys, you see the pinned thing right now, join my

fucking telegram right now. Why am I saying this? Because I don't

shill my telegram ever. I never push my

telegram. But we've been having a mass exodus

from telegram. I don't know what it is.

Mass exodus is

happening from telegram.

We have lost like 50

people from telegram. So, fucking fill that shit up. Join it from Telegram so fucking fill that shit up

join it

Telegram's a very important place

to join so everyone join the telegram right now

click that shit. Not even kidding.

Not a joke.

And I gotta grow up more. I gotta grind that shit

for sure.

Alright, I'm gonna do this...

The right way.

Alright. The right way. All right. I'm just going to call it Maga Communism Vindicated.

All right. to call it maga communism vindicated all right uh how do i fix this fucking camera The Yo, Kate, what's up? Appreciate you.

Hold on. Let me try to fix this shit.

All right. My shit is dark.

Shit is dark as fuck. fuck yeah the problem is that to have to exit out of the studio and do it again.

Yep, the reason is you got to refresh that camera.

Kate, thank you so much.

I appreciate that so much. Yeah, we're good now. Oh, man.

All right. oh man all right now All right. All right. What's up?

All right. so we're here

back is fucking killing me

somebody wants to join his guest

what's going on somebody wants to join his guest what's going on

somebody wants to join his guest

yo

what's up

is the book almost done bro

yeah

there's a book almost done

bro

there's an echo it's crazy

yeah that's not my fault it's your fucking fault

oh let me fix it real quick

is my book almost done no it's not

fuck

uh

uh

no no No.

I'm working on writings every single day.

The original book I'm going to be getting back to when I'm finished with this.

And, uh, it's just been one thing after another, you know?

Kind of a pointless question, though, if I'm being honest.

If I'm being completely

honest, it's a little bit of a pointless question.

All right.

And guys,

uh, uh,

uh,

uh, are going to work. I'm totally not also.

Can you imagine the people that only know I'm live on TikTok?

They're just like they join my TikTok.

They're like, what?

Jackson asleep. like they join my tic-tok they're like what jackson asleep i don't know

shit Yeah, of course he's asleep. What the fuck?

My back is killing me straight up. Fuck.

Oh, man.

Seeing the same shit y'all seeing. bro i'm on tic talk i'm literally on ticot right now you can't say swear words you can't say nothing i'm on ticot no you can't You know, I got to put on the filter for TikTok.

What are you talking about?

Damn, can y'all not do that shit?

Can y'all not?

Can y'all not?

I can't swear, my bad.

From the long march to the long TikTok stream, proletary is cooked.

You know what's even more embarrassing is that you have this idea that it's not going to be like this

no no this is how it's going to be like

because

okay

the the Yevgeny Progoshin

TikTok

right a barbecue TikTok like the actual people You have Genie Progossian, TikTok, right?

Barbecue, TikTok.

Like the actual people that are, that still are fighting on the ground.

What can I see on TikTok?

Even they're on TikTok, right?

This is just the world we live in.

It's just the world we live in.

Like, what do you think?

Would you ever go to Cuba to give aid?

I would.

But I'll tell you why I'm not going to Cuba.

Because we probably, we didn't make the effort to reach out to the influencers who organized a trip.

Because we knew for certain that our presence there would be a problem for them because we are not well liked among

left, put it this way,

Nathan J. Robinson is in Cuba.

I don't know. I mean, we're not going to be

accepted by this influencer

gatekeeping

flotilla all right

I don't know

I don't know

what you expect

they're going to be like

then there's going to be

every time we try to do

something

something like

ACP why are you so divisive

we're not

we'll try to join an event

a broad big tent

coalition

and then there's going to be someone in there who goes,

this is giving me an anxiety attack, this is fascist, there's, and then we end up causing a problem

just by being there, by having a presence, right? Our mere presence is oftentimes a problem. This is infrared on TikTok. No one debating?

Not yet.

Not yet.

Yo, thank you for that.

But, you know, if you want to support me don't do it here uh because i don't get

they i don't get that so I don't know what that is.

Thank you for it.

If you want to support me, go to the other place that I'm at right now and support me there.

Yeah, TikTok is like 50%

that was a 20 no way

it's saying uh wow it's not saying that on my estimated

well thank you

you don't get it i think i only get half of it or not saying that on my estimated. Well, thank you.

You don't get it?

I think I only get half of it or a third of it.

I don't know.

On the other place that I'm at right now,

if you know, you know, then I get everything. But, uh, so we should just be going there.

I'm here mainly just like a Twitter space, you know, for debates.

You think Iran will strike Europe? Hey, we're on TikTok, everybody. What's up?

You can't, you can't report me for something I didn't say. What do I think about Kim Jong-un? Unconditional support.

Unironically, unconditional support.

Unlimited and unconditional solidarity and support. Maybe we should put some music on for TikTok, right?

There's a new song that I like.

Spotify.

This is a Mali song. This is like the, this is like the, this is like the, this, this is like this is like the this we're gonna enter the white house this just gonna be playing it's gonna be so atmospheric and scenic the prophecy complete complete.

I don't think anyone can request right now.

No, don't tell me that.

Can no one request yeah people can request

the guy who's name libertarian

Stalinism

people can request

okay People can request What's going to happen?

What's going to happen next to Maduro?

Well, hopefully we will... This song is not good for the live

it's actually doing much worse

um Thank you for whatever that is.

Change the layout so it appears on the bottom right.

I don't know how to do that.

What is Maga-Communism? So,

Maga-Communism basically was an acknowledgement of the fact that there was a conventional so-called left pipeline from the Obama era.

Obama, Bernie,

and whatever, right? And then the post-Bernie

disaster that ensued

from the DSA and whatnot.

And there was this perception that the

electorate and the demographic base

of communist ideas

is going to be coming from the Democrats.

And MAGA communism was an acknowledgement that there's a political

realignment that happens after Trump gets elected that causes political chaos in the country

and the alignments. causes political chaos in the country and it, you know, the alignment of the various

kind of wings, I guess, right, left versus right, and that the future of the left wing and the

future of communist politics is going to come from the MAGA base.

And that's been totally vindicated because right now the MAGA base has shifted into an anti-Yyanist.

I don't know if I could say that word position, anti-war, anti-intervention, anti-regime, anti-Trump, anti-Ebstein. And the Democratic Party, for some of its milieu, there hasn't been a change. But the only observable change that's happened within the Democratic Party is they become aggressively more defensive about the national security state. They're more pro-NATO. They're more pro-Israel. They're doubling down on that. And that is basically the shifts that are happening.

So if we have a Tucker versus Gavin Newsom lineup in 28, many people who are conventionally considered left are going to be for Tucker,

and the real right wing will be the Democratic Party.

I mean, the Democrats will field a candidate that defends, you know, in the name of a so-called patriotism, the national security state, U.S. foreign alliances, and the kind of status quo, per se. And Tucker will be painted as a Russian and Chinese operative.

Can you talk about how the Russian Federation is anti-imperialist? if we're going to define imperialism by a big country, I don't have a problem with it.

When I'm using that word, I'm talking about it in the sense of the actual world system we live in, where the Epstein regime centered in Wall Street and London and New York and whatever,

dominates and holds back the development of the entire world,

destroying the sovereignty of all the nations of the world, basically,

at the barrel of a gun,

locking them in a specific developmental, economic, political, civilizational paradigm.

Couldn't connect trying to read. Did I just get banned?

So there's like a specific global empire, okay?

Does Russia resist that global empire?

And in doing so, defend the sovereignty of all nations?

Of course.

Of course it does.

Um... of course it does um so

some people have a problem

with Russia because it's a big and powerful

country and they would prefer Russia to be a small

victimized country and it's not going to happen.

But a lot of people, they hate Russia, they have a problem with Russia because Russia's big and they don't like big countries that are

not the U.S.

and its allies.

So that's my answer to you.

It's like early infrared streams.

Yeah, it is.

Why not? how does Tudas stand against your goals? They have no basis among the Iranian people. They are purely diaspora living in France or the UK, and they collaborate with imperialism in order to affect outcomes in their own native country that they could not through any kind of interaction with the Iranian people themselves. It should change the stream name. You know, You know, You know, How's it now? How's it now?

Once we're good.

We're good.

Uh, yeah, so, um, hasn't stream forever. Yeah yeah i totally haven't streamed forever you're right this is the only

place i'm streaming right now you're right uh yeah in the obama era there's been there was

just a degradation a very traumatic degradation of people's way of life

since 2008 throughout this whole administration. And while this was happening, the Obama

administration, united with the media to create this kind of cultural hegemony

where there is just these constant feel good stories

about how love wins and how everything's great

and there's no more racism

and Ellen DeGeneres is uh the new Jesus Christ or something she's so

moral and she's so good she's so pure Steve Colbert and uh whatever is doing his uh metrosexual tap

dancing and there's celebrities are all, there's fan cams, and there's just this kind of world of happiness and progress and wholesomeness.

Unfortunately, the reality was that for the majority of people, this was just a spit in their face. It was an insult to them. People were losing their ways of life, their jobs, their livelihoods. And structurally speaking, society was becoming very dark and twisted with the rise of big tech and mass surveillance.

And the abominable crimes that Obama was committing around the world were unspeakable, horrific crimes, the destruction of entire nations like Libya.

And then Trump came, and I guess he was the worst guy in the world because he just said plainly what was actually happening without faking.

And apparently there are people that call themselves leftists and they're on the left who consider us far right because we refuse to confine ourselves to this Obama world of delusion that they still live in for some reason 10 years later he didn't say plainly what was happening yes he did he was

openly using the language befitting of the actual U.S. Empire.

He was openly saying, for example, that we went into Iraq for the oil and that we should have taken the oil, like he said.

Is it true?

Morally? No, but he's just being honest

about what Obama was lying about.

What do you think about the criticism that China, Vietnam, Russia are not doing anything in Palestine?

Why are you upset at Russia and Vietnam for not doing anything in Palestine and not at the so-called Muslim world?

Isn't the onus kind of on the neighbors of the Palestinian people?

The Arabs?

Doesn't the onus fall on them to do something about it why is it

Vietnam

why Vietnam is responsible

for Palestine

no

the Muslim

and Arab world

is responsible

for Palestine

and they failed

Palestine

Iran alone and its allies stand up for Palestine.

Is political realignment possible? Yeah, it's going to happen for sure, but in the meantime, we're going to have to keep fighting.

Fuck my back hurts what happened what happened to internationalism?

You tell me what happened to it.

You know what internationalism is?

Have you considered giving Constantinople back? Constance and Opelback. Thank you. Hello?

Yep.

Bro, communism is not good for American society and you know that.

Why? You know it's not good

for us.

Western society was built

on capitalism.

America was built on capitalism. America was built on capitalism?

Yes, and it's good for us.

It creates innovation, and we get money off of it.

So what's the problem then? It's just going to keep going like this forever

Exactly and I'm telling you to stop

No

Why if you know communism is not good why try to bring it to Western society?

You're indoctrinating our children.

Is this a fake one?

Like, is this someone who's? Like, uh,

is this someone who's just playing a character to bring content?

I'm so serious, bro.

You have people with communist flags.

You have people with the hammer and sickles in their bios.

Stalin killed billions. Yeah, it's a troll

This is a troll

I could tell it's a troll

It was a good effort

It was a good effort

You're just too

Yeah, see he's

It was way too obvious

I could tell man I could tell

I could tell he's just troll

he's just trying to bring some content

he's just trying to bring some content

that's okay

and he said billions, you know.

Well, yeah, anyway,

uh,

I, I, I honestly honestly at this point,

I want to talk to the so-called leftists

that call us a sci-op

or call us Nasbol's,

just because I want to know

what even made you a Marxist?

If you're just going to be this conventional,

bleeding heart liberal,

why are you calling yourself a Marxist?

What about this tradition even attracts you?

I genuinely find it fascinating.

Why even call yourself a Marxist?

Like, what are you getting from this?

You know?

You know a bunch.

Bring them, bring them over.

You know, I don't know what the delay is. Bring them. Bring them over. You know? I don't know what the delay is.

Bring them on over. You know, the mag communes me has been off-putting to many

i think that uh people that claim to be revolutionaries should be exposed to things that are off-putting.

Why should we

placate the sensibilities

of people and reinforce weakness?

Shouldn't revolutionaries have thick skin

and confront things that are icky to them and are mean and are brutal if that's actually a reflection of how the world is?

Can someone explain to me what left comms are

left comms are basically people who are age 14 to 16

and then 1% are like 50 years old who are groomers.

And basically, left comms are basically, there are people who think that real Marxism only exists in a fart.

So in real life, no, but in a fart, that's where communism lives.

Communism exists in a fart.

Nothing else.

That's basically the essence of their position.

The more farts, the more that they were close to a revolutionary outcome.

Go ahead, Tristan. is this haze

yeah

uh is it true that uh that nadia girl was a massad honey pot

uh it's just like what a stupid thing to massad honeypot?

It's just like, what a stupid thing to say?

What an absolutely stupid thing to say?

This is why, yeah, some people are just not human.

Is it true? That is it true? There's just something I just made up, but is it true, though? Why do they die on the hill of transgenderismism i think that because a lot of them are transgender

and they're insecure about it maybe and they just you know actually i had one of them send me a

message and they're like if you guys take power, would you, would you round me up

and send me to the camp

for being a transgender?

I didn't respond to it.

I was just baffled.

I was like,

there's just a intense sense of

um

persecution

going on

that I don't I don't know what

justifies it in reality

but uh

you know I mean for the record

if that if something like that was ever happening, we'd be against it.

Okay.

If people were being persecuted for such things, we'd speak out against it, but it's just not happening. Thank you. You know, That's just national socialism.

Yeah, because everything's just like an ideology on Discord, right?

It's like, yeah, there's just like all these, like, different, like, ideologies you could just choose from on Discord.

And this is like the pullet ball of the, forget about the context of how the Nazi party. Can you say that on, yeah, you can't say that on TikTok, holy shit.

Forget about the context about how they were an institutional, like, fake opposition

to the socialist movement

that was the word

national in that

name

connoted institutional allegiance

to the state

not the asymmetrical patriotism allegiance to the state.

Not the asymmetrical patriotism that we

get from Maoism. Go ahead,

truosophy.

Oh, I didn't know it was going to be accepted.

I didn't quite know what's going on.

Is this a panel?

Yeah. Like, what's being discussed?

Magna communism and the ACP and all the things that Reddit hates us for.

Okay, okay. Um, so what we got, let's talk about like, uh, see, one thing, uh, what do you guys think of, uh, what do you guys think of, uh, Phanan?

France, Fanon. Yes. I, I, I like Fanon. Yes.

I like Fanon. Why?

Do you think some of his procedures are necessary for the United States?

Could that be something you guys are potentially lacking on?

I don't think he described any procedures in the strict sense.

Like a reconstruction of society?

Was it

getting rid of settler culture, replacing it

with something new, led by the colonized

group?

Um... replacing it with something new led by the colonized group um what do you mean what does that look like in america yeah you know in a sense uh fanon is

He's an interesting thinker

about the contradictions

of the

anti-colonial struggle

and he's kind of exploring those because there is already an anti-colonial struggle and he's kind of exploring those

because there was already an anti-colonial struggle

before Phantan wrote a word.

He was exploring the various

contradictions and the ways

it affected consciousness and so on and so on.

Now, translating that into the American context is not direct.

It's not a direct process of trying to find some third world equivalent marginal group in America.

Whether it's the United States or France itself or any other kind of Western society, you're talking about

a comprehension of whether or not there exists, if any at all, a distinction between the state and civil society that can be meaningfully related to the relationship between the colonial core and the periphery. I think that such a relationship exists. I think that in many ways,

the federal government does act as a occupying colonial power to the American people, and that

there are many regions of America, ones that are neglected by the federal government and by the latest developments of

the sphere of economics and culture and so on and so on that are kind of like a periphery

that are treated as a kind of um um uh population that only exists as a nuisance with respect to the extraction of resources or

the extraction of financial rents and debt. So I think that there's, it's not that there's no place for Fanon in America, but it's just to understand these things would require more than just Fanon, I guess.

Hmm.

Uh, right. Right.

Um, are you guys going to be, um,

paying attention to, like, uh, parts of the, of the culture that,

of the culture of the United States, I should say, or at least, like, the settling part of it, that of the culture of the united states i should say or at least like the

settling part of it that uh are perhaps like constructed to justify the structures of extraction

you know like that's what they're reflecting.

What do you mean?

By the way, you know, when I think about it,

Fanon, my takeaway from Fanon,

actually, if you want to blame someone for my so-called misogyny, blame Fanon.

Fanon was all about the rediscovery of a new signifier, which he associated with the revival

and rebirth of a new revolutionary masculinity.

And this is where my so-called misogyny actually literally comes from.

Blame him for that, by the way.

I just kind of occurred to me, and it's such an irony that I remember.

No, it was Fanon, actually, who just kind of...

Who's...

Fanon basically

psychoanaly I'm going to simplify it big time

he psychoanalyzed the relationship

between colonized subjects

and the colonial core

and he basically said

that the colonizers

seek to kind of strip from the colonized peoples the master signifier so to speak if you want to put it in lacanese and thereby stripped them of their masculinity,

and,

you know,

and the reason

Fannan,

by the way,

supported

the veil in

Algeria,

even when the

FLN didn't,

the Burka or

whatever,

he said,

well,

the,

the colonizer

wants this

kind of

unlimited

noetic and epistemological access to colonized women. They want to be able to kind of have this full transparency where they can kind of categorize them and situate them within their cognitive universe, right?

They're mapping.

Fanon is a very kind of toxic, problematic,

masculineist thinker from a conventional liberal left perspective.

It's so funny, you know, you go back to the black panther party

and everyone forgets how the black panther party

kept promoting masculinity

masculinity we need to create a new man

we need to rediscover manhood

and

they completely

ostracized

effeminate tendencies among men.

That was the Black Panther Party.

Which they got from Fanin. Who else?

So I do remember one other concern I had with the, and is this like about the ACP in particular or just your

like anything literally

anything. Okay yeah

I mean I guess I'll bring up like the party

could I guess I mean I don't

I guess I got to look at how different

like parties did this but like

the United States,

it's very, very, you know,

it's designed to be very

reactionary

and, um, and even

on the liberal side, just outright misleading

on how to, you know, fix stuff.

So, with that, with that with that like sort of a labyrinth of

sorts that you have to like figure out just to get to solving social issues do you think that

makes it somewhat important to start to

try to

posit something on social issues

in the party space?

I don't know what you mean by that,

but I'll say this.

I think the source of why people identify us as culturally right-wing comes from the Frankfurt School's idea of the authoritarian personality.

The authoritarian personality is a closed personality. They're conservative. They're not open to new trends in culture. They're more patriarchical or masculine or something. And the kernel of truth is that we believe in an alternative center of political authority, an alternative center of discipline, an alternative center of power.

And in the absence of that, you will have two possibilities. You're going to be a self-proclaimed

anarchist who says, I'm beyond all the power and the authority. I'm a free individual.

Fake, okay. Or you're going to be subservient to the authority of the Democratic Party and the U.S. regime.

So the process of standing on business, which is what they call it, you're standing on business.

The process of building an alternative authority corresponds to specific cultural tendencies,

ones that make you less of a free-floating jellyfish and more of somebody who is grounded

and realistic and no-b-s. A harsh, brutal worldview corresponds to the

principle of building a party from scratch, which, by the way, it's funny, who has built a party from

scratch? I don't hate the PSL, but can I ignore the fact that

the libertine free tendencies within the PSL culturally? Do these not correspond to the fact that the PSL

only exists because of the beneficence of a billionaire named Roy

Singham who gives them tens of millions of dollars for free? How can I ignore the fact that the

DSA is an appendage of the Democratic Party, which doesn't have an independent center of authority,

and which openly promotes factionalism. How can I ignore the fact that the CPUSA is an organization, which its members have no respect for, which they collect the card of along with a in their wallet with a million other

cards there's no party discipline in there

nobody respects the party

and it's just a kind of place

for networking for activists who are

ultimately trying to career climb

and become Democratic Party politicians

so I think that the tendencies that they associate with us, which are not correct per se, but vaguely the vibe we give off that they don't like, they don't like we're too much like bros or something.

That is a, in a fanonianian sense that's because we're building an

independent authority we're not colonized subjects and this is what effectively this is the problem

if we put on address and we act domesticated and feminine,

what does that actually signify in people's unconscious that you are,

you're not a threat.

You're like, you're going to roll over for the the demand of the democratic

party you're going to roll over and and and you know acquiesce to some other authority it's a passive

it connotes passivity does it not so? So we reject this, and this is what has made us a problem for so-called leftists who are contend with being Democratic Party appendages.

Yeah. Yeah. appendages yeah um

you know

I feel like it's

um

I might

I might try to take this to try to segue to something

uh that's right

um

I feel like what they're gonna

strike what what's going with the i guess the united

states are going to try to do next because i feel like it um perhaps uh climate change or um

eastern shifting geopolitics.

I don't think that would change anything.

Sorry, I think, I think there will eventually be a boiling point where, um, we will stop, we will no longer have to be so,

or we will have to no longer

be so, sorry.

Like

um

oh my god

I'm still working this up. Like I

uh, I think eventually the pendulum will swing on specifically immigration.

And it'll be because we will be able to, um, reprogram other cultures into just, uh, copies of, like, American culture on the inside but on the outside they have the food and the traditions.

Yeah, I don't know about that. I think that the immigration issue is very carefully controlled. There's a lot of discourse about it in politics,

but behind the scenes materially,

it's a totally set and done case of

the reason ICE is ramping up its efforts

and becoming more aggressive

is because they're trying

to set the precedent for the expansion of

the powers of federal

agencies to be used against

the population at large in general

which is

a tendency that's been consistent across

administrations by the way.

And it's not actually going to lead to the mass deportations of tens of millions of people.

It's going to ennoble them with arbitrary police powers that will inevitably be used against us.

But thank you for coming on.

I want to bring on the next guest that requested.

Okay, whatever.

Hi. Okay.

Like, what you can you. Okay.

Like, would you consider yourself an American nationalist?

No.

Why?

Because the paradigm of the nation state is, um, from the 19th century, roughly, and corresponds to the era of bourgeois civilization.

But, so the paradigm of a nation state is a narrow paradigm.

The paradigm of a nation state is a more or less kind of homogenous, universally state, a single nation with a kind of single nation, language and a sense of shared lineage even, in some cases, blood lineage in the case of an ethno state. But I wouldn't say I'm a nationalist because

nations are not the fundamental

and final horizon of a collective existence. That being said,

is collective existence. That being said, is collective existence concrete?

Meaning,

can we speak of collective existence solely as a voluntary community of people

who simply decide that they are, you know, committed to a certain ideology or something like that.

And can that suffice for a collective existence?

No.

Collective existence is concrete.

If you read Frederick Engels' origins of the family, he speaks about the concrete development of collective existence.

And although we are beyond the era of nation states per se, nations have evolved. And the concreteness we associate with nations, which is a

concreteness not reducible to a specific institution or ideology, remains.

There's things that unite people together, culturally and sociologically and so on and so on.

They're not reducible to politics or institutions or ideas or ideologies that are materially real.

I'll finally say this.

I think most liberal leftists accuse me of nationalism because they are anxious about the idea of a collective existence that is outside of institutions.

And this is why they call us Nossbles and stuff, because it's like a, what we're really talking about is asymmetrical collective existence, right? Asymmetrical patriotic reality of

what the people actually are versus how we want them to be in our institutions where we can control

how they speak and how they, what words they use and what values they have and so on and so on.

What would you see as like an alternative to a nation state?

Alternative to what? So like the nation state. Alternative to what?

So like the nation state.

Well, and the alternative to the American

state is that we have to

create the foundations of a completely

new

political authority from scratch.

So, first of all, we need a communist party or some equivalent to that.

And then we need to build dual power.

We need to have alternative forms of popular

representation and expression

that are

befitting of the era that we live in

and simultaneously, more

directly express

the popular will

like the Soviets in

Russia did

and like to add to that

like on like communism

like what's your relationship

with like dialectical

and materialism

because

I see it as, like, kind of complex.

You see what?

Dialectical

materialism.

Yes, so, I mean, I'm a dialectical materialist.

I mean, but you also would stand for, like, for the whole struggle. I mean, but, like, you also would stand for, like, for the whole struggle.

I mean, spiritual struggle.

Like, you support, like, the regimes, like, Iran and...

Yeah, well, no, it's an interesting point. Um, the key word, I think, is dialectical.

And I know dialectical can't mean whatever we want it to mean, and sometimes people use it to mean that. But I think that

we need a new understanding

of religion that

focuses on

the religious unconscious

versus the more conscious

methods of explication, which are kind of secondary interpretations of religious revelation and inspiration.

So philosophy, I think, is inherently idealist. I think that interpretations of religion, philosophical

interpretations of religion, are

idealistic. Why?

Because they associate the intangible

objects of reference within religious

language to be thoughts

and ideas. That just kind of maybe are the thoughts of God or the ideas of God, but which just kind of exist out there. But I think that that is not a necessary conclusion of how we interpret religion.

I think it's possible that when we interpret religion on the side of Revelation,

which is just this kind of encounter with a fundamental structure of reality and i mean nothing

like inherently upfuscatory about that we're talking about the nature of social reality or of civilization of how powers rise and how they fall or how to make sense of the fortune and misfortune that befalls people in their life. How do we make sense of our life and our existence?

And how does that get expressed within our society?

I mean, this is honestly what religion deals with.

If you read the holy texts of the Quran, the Bible,

they're not talking about, like, arbitrary abstractions and supernatural, like ancient aliens and reptilian space people. No, they're talking about very concrete ways of coming to terms with why the world is the way it is

and i think that's an inherently materialist disposition from religion now the kind of

interpretation of religion i i agree is mainly ideal. But I think there's a fundamental religious unconscious

that is not affected necessarily by this, such that religious meaning can come to the surface,

even in the absence of idealism. In the great patriotic war when Soviet soldiers were fighting the Germans,

the meeting of the religion suddenly made sense to them in the trenches.

Something about it just totally clicked, made total sense.

In Palestine and in Lebanon

and in Iran today, when people are

fighting, they're not thinking about

philosophical

idealism. The religious language

means something to them that I

think is material. I guess that would

be my answer.

So, like, what do you, like, see, like, spiritual struggle as, like, a counterpart of, like,

dialectical materialism and even as, like, a higher level in that sense.

Yeah, a higher level, absolutely.

I would say that.

I mean, but like what do you think should happen to like communism?

Because like communism in like communism like in like marked terms it was like they were all around the

material like rather than yeah but what is the material the material the material just refers to

the essential, okay, the content of things.

Material means that there is a materiality that is not reducible to form,

which is ideal form,

the form of an idea, an ideality.

So the material content doesn't mean necessarily

things that we can

on a direct

experiential level

physically interact with

that's not what

that's not what a material object

necessarily is within Marxism

for example

the capitalist mode of production materially exists, but is the capitalist mode of production a direct physical object that we can directly experience as individuals? No. Of course not. There's a material reality of social existence.

That's what actually led some Soviet philosophers like Evaldilienkov to identify social existence itself with ideology.

Because social reality is not reduced. existence itself with ideality because

social reality

is not

reducible to

individuals and

yet it's real

right

so he said

well it must be

that this is what

this is

really what

corresponds to

the ideal

is a social

form but in any case within what corresponds to the ideal is a social form.

But in any case,

within Marxism,

vulgar materialism is impossible.

So the reason it's dialectical is that

it has a much more expansive understanding

of what a material thing is.

And, like, what would you think of, like,

like, aside from, like, the right-wing views of, like,

a lot of, like, spiritual philosophers, like,

what would you, what do you, like of like people like joyce Ebola or like

because they're like more like closely aligned with like new idealism and like dey game who

ivola yeah i'm not i don't really like evola i'm not i don't really like evola who Ivola Yeah

I'm not

I don't really like

Evola

Actually I think

Gwynon is a much

More interesting

thinker

I don't fully agree

With any of them

But Renee Gwynon

Is a more

interesting thinker

To me than

Evola

But

Um Um Um thinker to me than Ivola. But, uh, um,

well, what can you say?

Uh,

Ivola falls within the same category as kind of the

Ossophis and

Blavatsky and others

maybe even Elylister Crowley

or something. I don't know. I don't

I don't think there's any body of thought

that can within the

framework of Marxism be dismissed outright. Always there's a

kernel of a rational kernel to be salvaged. What that is in the case of Avala, I really couldn't

tell you off the top of my head, comprehensively.

But I am wary of the notion that we can just dismiss thinkers entirely, who almost everybody is always on to something.

Now, to what extent that something should be...

Take, take Marks.

Any given body of work from Karl Marx

will reference such a diverse array of different thinkers

with whom he almost had nothing in common with

politically but we should pay homage to people who explored the same problems we

as Marxists will inevitably run up against in a different way it's my view

I agree I agree way. It's my view.

Yeah, I agree. I agree.

So, like, I have no more questions. Thank you.

Got you. All right. We will bring on Paul. thank you got you all right

we will bring on

Paul

hi how are you

good how are you

my question is that Hi, how are you? Good, how are you?

My question is that I've seen your videos in which you speak against capitalism.

I understand it has many flaws.

But you also supported China China economy which is literally state capillars is

you know it if you look at their economies like 60% of their economy

GDP comes from private sector. So why you are hypocritical?

You think socialism is just when state institutions directly manage every aspect of the economy?

I guess if you look at Soviet and Cuba.

Okay.

But the Soviet Union

accounted for its economic

units

by way of prices

and wages and measured the efficiency of state enterprises in terms of profits.

So is the Soviet Union also state? Where do we draw the line?

I mean, you can see...

Why is it that in the Soviet Union, they can measure...

Mao made the same point, by the way, at the end of his life.

They're measuring the efficiency of enterprises through profits.

They are accounting for the value of goods through price.

They are paying laborers through wages, through monetary forms of compensation.

So why is it impermissible to make the next step and simply just decentralize the system,

such that it can take care of itself more efficiently than having the state institutions directly manage and everything?

If at a fundamental level, if at the level that matters to the proletarian dictatorship,

there has been a comprehensive, strategic alignment of the fundamentals of the economic base,

the land, the natural resources, the nation-scale-level kind of infrastructure, the industry. If all of this is under the political control of the proletarian dictatorship, What's wrong with decentralizing the economic system?

Why does that make it less socialist?

Hold on. There's someone in here named Lorax party on on TikTok who I'm sure will feel

special by the fact that I called him out.

Lorax, the only

landlord communists are the

CPUSA who have 50 million in assets and have prime real estate in New York that they actually lend out and lease as landlords.

We don't have rental properties.

So who are the FBI agents?

Do you feel smart?

Lorax, I want an actual response.

Directly respond to what I'm saying. You're not talking about me.

All right. Anyway, Paul, go ahead.

Yeah, that's was my question.

Okay. AMR, what's up?

Hold on.

Atra, Haas, you literally said being a landlord Hold on.

Atra, Haas, you literally said being a landlord is fine.

I watch you say it in stream.

No, what you watched me say,

and you saw socialism for all, the anonymous Fed,

you saw him make a hit piece about me through a clip where he took out of the context when I said they're all cooperatively owned. Every enterprise is cooperatively owned.

So I wasn't using politically correct language, but the landlords in question would be a tenant

owned

a tenant owned

housing complex or something.

We don't have anything like that.

I said, is it possible?

Yeah.

But what's the immediate?

It was an offhand comment I was answering.

I didn't say being a landlord is fine in the sense of what kind of economic system we're trying to build.

Do you think child labor is fine, Atra?

Because you use and depend on child labor through the atra because you use and depend

on child labor through the iPhone

or the smartphone and computer that you use

so is african child labor

is that what you're fighting for

so

so atra don't don't be saying stupid

things someone asked the base few members can be landlords okay in the context was yeah so Atra, don't be saying stupid things. Someone asked if

ACP members can be landlords. Okay, in the context

was,

Y, Emmer, can you shut the fuck up for two seconds?

The context was Atra

that

every chapter

enterprise is cooperatively owned

so the Fed

Social and For All

removed that context

and why did he do that?

I'm going to put that question on you

Grifters

What about

us are grifters? Can you actually

consistently

can you consistently

defend Howard grifters?

The ACP is a money pit.

We don't make profit off of it.

We don't make money off of it. We don't make money off of it. We're putting all the money we're getting in. We're not making up for that we get out. How do you make your money by live streaming from donations? That's how.

Yo, yo. So, bro, I just wanted

to ask, what do you think about the Green Party?

I think it's for losers and

simpletons. And I'll

bring you back. I'll bring you back

after I deal with Atra

Atra's in Israeli

No way he's in Israeli

No way

Atra you realize if I sold out

And joined the chorus of

woke leftists

I would be a millionaire right now

You know how fucking easy it would be for me

to get hired or to get promoted in the Hassan

streamer network if I just followed the rules?

Don't call me a fucking grifter.

Okay. rifter. You're too short.

Yeah, it's just like...

So you don't have a line of attack.

It would be easy, piss easy for me to be in. That meme itself comes from the fact

that they had beef with me. That very meme that you're talking about, that you're referencing,

would not exist if I just played it safe and was a conventional Hakeem leftist like you.

So if I've sacrificed this much, how am I a grifter?

You're not making sense.

Lull, do you have any response?

Do you have any actual response?

How objectively am I a grifter?

If I was a grifter, wouldn't I just pander to people like you?

You've already admitted that you make your money from streams do you think

that's the most lucrative way and the best potential I have for making money

you realize I had a full ride scholarship in law school which I completed my first year while live streaming.

You realize I had a really good life set up for me.

The fact that I make money off of donations from live streams, you think that makes me a grifter with all of the potential

that I not only had, but even still have, because if I sell out, either just becoming a right winger

or a conventional leftist, even as a streamer, I will do 10 times, 50 times better than I am right now. You can't explain how I'm a grifter. Nobody could explain how I'm a grifter. It doesn't make any sense. There's all these other ways I could be making money right now.

If I sold out on my values and principles.

And what do you spend it on?

Cigars, travel, and suits.

Yeah, you're right.

All the travel is right out of my pocket.

You're right.

And I'm buying suits all the time.

It's not that I have one suit.

I'm buying them all the time.

I'm sorry, I have two suits. Literal grift. Atra.

I don't know how you...

I don't even know if this is just a troll.

You know how easy

it would be for me to just become a sponsor,

aligned conventional leftist and make so much money?

You know how much opportunities have been thrown my way as far as making money?

Do you have any idea how easy it is for me to become a millionaire if I didn't have

principles?

Jackson can't even come back to the U.S.

Why is Jackson, by the way, in ACP?

Let's talk about that.

If Jackson's a grifter, wouldn't he just join the right wing?

Wouldn't he have aligned with Nick Fuentes and the right instead of ACP?

You know, ACP is the small thing, right?

This movement.

How could Jackson be a grifter if he has the positions he does?

Why would he want anything to do with communism?

The only communists that follow Jackson are the people in this milieu, this small community.

You think Jackson's winning

Reddit, Hassan Piker fans? He's not.

Best news

I've heard in days. Yeah, because you're a Zionist.

Hold on. Socialism or barbar're a Zionist. Hold on.

Socialism or barbarism, there are no other options.

So you're a Zionist who supports U.S. citizens being unable to return home because they've shown solidarity to Yemen.

You're disgusting.

You're calling us grifters. You're spineless and unprincipled and disgusting. Helomeo. Ha ha ha ha. Atra, have you actually,

would you, would you go to Yemen and show solidarity with them putting your life on the line?

He's got no argument.

Yeah, what a disgusting creature this is.

I can't these Redditors, this is what these these Reditors are like, by the way. Atra, how about this?

I'll put my height in the chat if you request and speak and show us all your face and we can hear your metrosexual voice.

Atra, just request to speak and let us all hear your voice and see what you look like.

And then I'll be happy to, uh, I'll be happy to, uh, you know, lower myself to this, uh,

I don't know if this is what your version of looks maxing.

Go ahead.

Just request and let's see what you look like.

I bet you're obese.

I bet that you are, you know.

Go ahead.

Show us your metrosexual voice.

Your low testosterone,

metrosexual voice.

Go ahead, Atra, do it.

No, he won't.

Okay, so you're conquered and you're defeated for the rest of your life.

And I know you think you're just trolling and you're anonymous and it doesn't matter.

You're going to go to bed tonight knowing you were conquered.

Sorry.

Anyway, just totally fucking defeated.

Totally conquered.

There's no recovery.

What's up, man?

I'm in ACP, Oregon.

So if you're just looking for ops,

I can back out and wait for somebody to hop back we'll just wait for the ops you know what's funny

even if I was 5-5

isn't that Lenin's exact height

like what is the own

support even if that was true

isn't that the exact height of Lenin?

I have, who are you owning by accusing me of being that? I would be completely fine

being that. Do you have any line of attack that actually matters?

Comparing yourself to

Lenin.

Why would it matter?

What do you mean?

What is, what's wrong with that?

There's literally nothing wrong with it.

I, you know, I don't know what you're trying to say here.

And famously a grifting streamer, you're literally an NPC.

Can you, okay, you know, no, I'm going to be just totally like,

I want you to rationally explain how it could be possible that I'm a grifter. Go ahead.

How could I possibly be a grifter? Go ahead.

At least Chairman Gonzalo's slime people before comparing himself to Lenin. No, you're right. That's totally what I was doing. I was saying that I have the same historical significance as Lenin does. We're trying to get to the bottom of whatever line of attack or critique that you have,

and you're bringing up physical characteristics that are absolutely immaterial.

If, unless, oh, well, in Lenin, we make an exception, I guess.

How does that even work?

So when Lenin was a nobody in 1903, when he was a nobody and he had accomplished nothing, would that be a legitimate line of attack then?

What about Lenin before he became Lenin, right?

It's just going in your pocket.

Okay, how much have I given

to the ACP

versus how much have I made off of it? Do the math. And then let's see who a grifter is. Go ahead. How am I a grifter and Hassan Piker is? Let me ask you a question. Are you a Hassan Piker fan? show us the receipts

you should you should honestly join because i want to run a hypothetical if someone wants to participate

or partake in the communist movement effectively in 2026 how could they do so without being a grifter

in your mind because they can your mind? Because they can't

be in public, they can't live

off of doing full time

spreading the message,

they can't build a party that actually

has resources to support itself.

What can an actual

principled communists do in 2026 to fulfill the revolutionary

mission of the proletariat? Please explain. I'll give you the opportunity. I'll give you the

opportunity to just explain that. how could you actually be an effective

revolutionary in 2026 please explain that okay when you read lenin's what is to be done the first thing he talks about is the centrality of the

newspaper why is that atra do you think it's because newspapers are sacrosent did they have

any other effective means of mass communication over 100 years ago?

So in an era where you can just instantaneously communicate your message to people, you don't have to go on town squares and yell at people with megaphones.

I'm pretty sure that

communists over 100 years ago would

be pretty receptive to live streaming, actually.

Any member of the working

class can be an effective revolutionary.

Okay, hold on. Atra, are you a Marxist

Leninist? Yes or no? Because

this is going to determine everything. Do you

consider yourself a Marxist Leninist?

I'll school you. Do you

consider yourself a Marxist Leninist? Yes or no?

No? Leninus. Yes or no? MLM, no way! So let's go back to the basics. What is the distinction that Lenin insisted upon that was the foundation of the Bolshevik-Menshevik split.

What distinction was the foundation of the split within the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party?

Go ahead. You can chat GPT it if you want.

He calls himself an MLM.

He thinks all members of the working class are simultaneously and seamlessly the same thing as a cadre of a communist party.

When the very distinction between the working class and the cadre was the thing that Lenin insisted upon so fundamentally that it led to the split of Russian social democracy between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. And what was Lenin's position? The working class are not directly.

Party cadre. There is a distinction between cadre and the class so if you don't know

that why are you larking as a leninist? Any member of the working class can be revolutionary.

Not according to Lenin.

Lenin distinguishes the class from professional revolutionaries who are cadre.

No, not everyone can be a revolutionary.

Only a minority of people can fully dedicate their time and effort

to being professional revolutionaries.

So if that's what they're going to do, and that's the path they choose to embark upon,

how do you do that the most effectively, according to Leninism?

This is the question I asked you.

You call me a landlord when the CPUSA is a literal landlord.

When your own Maoist organizations

are landlords, yes they are,

that own property and rent them out, yes, they do.

When the Communist Party of Germany,

do you even know the story of the anthem of Yatsi Germany?

A communist, the Communist Party of Germany literally owned a, they were like a slum lord

who owned a collection of apartment buildings and the landlord came and horse,

horse, whatever his name was,

there was some dispute and he got shot.

Even if it was true,

your argument wouldn't stand.

But how are we landlords when we don't own any

rental properties why are you pivoting now you said first you said first oh no no no anyone can

be a revolutionary while calling yourself a leninist now you're saying

oh you're the landlords no no stay on the topic you called me a grifter how in 2026 can you not be a grifter

according to your definition if you're committed to Leninist principles?

Please explain.

I will happily, happily take you to task on your own self-proclaimed principles.

Go ahead.

Okay, let's talk about my landlordism. What landlordism exists in the ACP? Let's talk about it. What landlordism? Did I say that chapters can be tenant, can form tenant-owned housing cooperatives?

Yes, I did.

Is that the cross you want to crucify me on, Atra?

Really?

Go ahead.

Is this the cross you want to crucify me on?

Because I said chapters can have tenant-owned housing cooperatives.

Yeah, I didn't say housing co-ops because the context already had established that they are cooperatives.

Watch the video that Socialism 4 all clipped.

Watch the entire video.

I can show it to you right now.

Type Hasald Dean on YouTube, go into the YouTube, find the video where I talk about Chapter Enterprises run it through chat, GBT, and ask

Chappi T, hey, did Haas say they're all cooperatives? You have the video. Okay, show me the

video. Link the video in the comments. I could literally pull up the video right now on stream. I will happily pull up the video right now on stream.

I will happily pull up the video right now on stream

where Socialism for all clipped one segment where I responded offhand to a commenter

where the context before that question was asked had already been established they're

all cooperatively owned.

Okay, join the live and show your screen.

Okay, how are you going to see if I pull it up?

I'm going to pull it up on the other place, the green place.

Go to the green place and comment in the green place to make sure that you can see when I pull it up.

I can't pull it up on TikTok.

I can pull it up on the green thing that I'm streaming at right now.

You know, it's also this easy.

All we have to do is just look at this it's super easy Article 11, Advancement of Community Work and Enterprise, Section 2.

Chapters will establish small businesses or cooperatives owned by the party chapter with the intent of funding the chapter and party.

Small businesses or cooperatives,

meaning these are words for the same thing.

That's literally in the ACP

Constitution. The ACP

Constitution itself. Okay,

why would the video contradict what the Constitution says?

Okay, bring up the video.

Okay. in an inauguration yet all I want to clarify something before going forward because the first

piece of confusion I think is about the relationship between infrared and ACP. A.C. A. A random person, you need to understand that to apply to ACP, you have to apply as a chapter.

You can't just apply as an individual.

We are not here to just have individuals sitting on their ass so that we can collect dues from them.

And they can just sit on their ass and do nothing.

To be a part of ACP, you already have to be in some kind of association

and has demonstrated the minimum

that you're capable of socialization.

Why? Because we don't want antisocial psychopathic individuals

in our party, for one.

We want you to have already been vetted by a group of people.

We want a sense of collective responsibility toward that end.

So this is not just for individuals. You need to prove that you can form groups and collectively work out how you want to get things done and choose a decision-making

process that works before you're considered eligible to join as a chapter and simultaneously as the individuals who are part of that chapter.

But we have already, we already have a lot of people that we're basically going to vet,

who we do know, who have been doing on the ground work, if you can believe it, for the past year.

It's just that the on-the-ground work that they have been doing hasn't been publicized anywhere because it's informal.

It's not on behalf of any official organization.

But all across the country, there are people, whether they're former clubs of the CPUSA,

or whether they're people that have just been in an informal association organizing world. You know, You know, You know, Thank you. at the direct

at the direct transcript right now.

Do you want to, you want me to play it?

Because I can read it to you directly because the AI has a transcript of it.

Okay.

It is going to be cooperatively owned by the chapter.

It's going to be chapter entrepreneurial enterprises.

This is the direct transcript right here.

It's not that you're going to generate revenue to fund your activities.

We also want to generate revenue to fund your activities. We also want to generate

revenue in a socialistic way to reflect communistic values. You know, whether it's a co-op,

but it's something like, and you take, everyone takes care of each other and owns it collectively.

It's going to be collective ownership.

Okay, it's going to be cooperatively owned by the chapter.

It's going to be chapter entrepreneurial enterprises.

So, first of all, before I pull it up, Atra, no, no, Atra, you're not going to worm your fucking way out of this.

You said, I never said they had to be cooperatively owned. Here I clearly established all chapter enterprises are cooperatively owned. Do you deny that I said that? Yes or no? Someone asked, I asked if chapters chapters when i had already established a context and that chapters have to be cooperatively owned and collectively run then if someone asks if chapters can be landlords what

they're asking is whether chapters, within our legal framework,

could be cooperatively, can cooperatively have a tenant-owned housing complex.

So what's wrong with that?

That's the context that had been established.

Okay, one's in the chat if Atra just got fucking mugged, big time.

They asked if an individual can be a landlord.

Okay, let's find the transcript.

Let's see if I said an individual can be a landlord.

No, they said, can ACP businesses can be landlords?

The question was, can ACP businesses be landlords?

And I said, yes. Okay. Can ACP businesses be landlords?

And I said, yes, provided obviously the context is established that they're cooperatively owned, tenant-owned housing complexes.

That's what I said.

You got destroyed, dude.

You will never recover from this everyone find

Atra find their account in all their socials

they will never forget

this ever you got so

mocked so comprehensively

destroyed you'll never

fucking recover I promise you got destroyed so fucking

badly holy shit like actually

mugged and destroyed

comprehensively.

First he said,

you said individual landlords.

No, I didn't.

I'm looking at the transcript right now.

Anyone can find the transcript.

It's on the infrared

archive. It's the infrared content catalog. Anyone can look at the

transcript. It's right here. I also have the VOD right here on the infrared archive

from Rumble. So there you go. You got destroyed. You got destroyed. Did you or did you not claim we said that individual landlords on behalf of the party

can rent out properties.

Atra, you're destroyed forever.

You'll never recover from this, I promise.

You could cope about it for the rest of your life.

You're going to go to bed knowing you got destroyed multiple times.

Rasputin, go ahead.

Hi, so I'm not here to do the whole old landlord thing. I was

mainly here to contest one specific

point I've heard from

a lot of your guys online

and stuff. The point that

DoorDash drivers would not

under a Marxist framework be considered

productive labor laborer.

Yeah, we'll debate about that in a second.

Hey, Atra, guess what?

Even if it's true that Halali's a landlord, which is actually not, by the way, he doesn't have tenants.

He doesn't have tenants.

But wasn't Frederick Engels

a literally exploiting capitalist

who owned a factory

oh you're comparing the lowly to Engels

no it's the principle

can Marxists do what Engels did

or not? What are the exceptions

Frederick Engels owned

a factory

how do you account for that? Frederick Engels owned a factory. How do you account for that? Frederick Engels owned a

factory that exploited proletarians. But Halali isn't Engels. So logically, give us to, under what circumstances and conditions

is it appropriate and

permissible for someone to be a

capitalist who owns a factory according to you

we know halale's not angles

so define the parameters that

establish whether it's acceptable or not

to do it if you're famous enough, if you're

successful enough, if you're known throughout history, if you're well-known enough,

either atra or this fanning idiot in my chat, establish clearly the parameters.

Under what circumstances and conditions is it acceptable to be a capitalist or a landlord to you?

Because clearly there are some that are acceptable to you.

You regard some exceptions to your principle, right? Engels being one of them. So define why angles?

Go ahead. I'll give him time. I'll give him time. He's not, he's not Engels

define the meaningfulness

of that define why

like oh he's not Engels okay

why does that make an exception

to the principle though

that you're trying to stand on

I'm not the issue

Atra you're fine with Frederick Engels owning a factory I'm not the issue.

Atra, you're fine with Frederick Engels owning a factory and being a capitalist.

Yes or no? Are you fine with it?

Atra, are you fine with Engels being a capitalist?

Fanon, are you fine with Engels being a capitalist?

Historicism, what does that mean?

You think in the era and the time that Engels lived in, there wasn't a proletarian movement?

There was.

This is not historicism.

Oh, there was a relative.

There was nothing about the time Engels lived in that made being a capitalist less abnormal and less disruptive of the ordinary social life.

In fact, it was much more brutal and disruptive in the time Engels lived in. These are people who are not bots that you typically see them on Reddit running their mouths.

I want to have the opportunity to confront them with the

inconsistencies in their worldview. Yeah, the factory Engelzone had brutal living conditions.

Brutal, brutal living conditions he lived off of it. And he funded, Marx was

funded by it. Carl Marx was funded

by the factory that Engels owned.

You call yourself

a Marxist and you're okay with that

according to your principles?

Why did Atro silent now?

Just ignore.

No, why is he silent now?

I want to know why he's silent now.

Where's Fanon and where's Atra?

Where are they now?

Individually own...

Why are you not answering

okay he's just trolling

at this point

individual i never said that

that's not a real quote but i get it you're trolling

halali doesn't own rental

property no he doesn't he doesn't have tenants to have rental property. No, he doesn't. He doesn't have tenants. To have rental property, you need tenants. Answer the question right now where you get banned. Is it okay for you for Marx to live off of the exploitation of the proletariat through Engels? Is that permissible to you for Engels to be a literal capitalist who exploited as workers?

Yes or no?

Yes or no?

You have to answer it.

You can't avoid it.

You can't run away from it.

Yes or no?

We're waiting.

Yes or no?

You have to be kidding.

Yes or no, Atra.

Yes or no.

Do you accept Engels being a capitalist?

Because you're crying about an accusation that Halali owns rental property, that he doesn't.

But let's turn it around on you.

Then why do you excuse Engels being a capitalist.

Yes or no?

There's no way. He has no answer. He has no response. I accept your defeat, you bitch. I accept your defeat.

Actually, everyone in the chat just keep spamming him with that question until he

responds. If he tries to detract or deflect,

keep spamming him with that question.

Rasputin, go ahead.

So, yeah, my main contention

is, I think I've heard you share this take um but i've also heard it

door d'ordash yeah because okay marx's theory of value where value comes from first of all labor

does not produce value

on the individual level why

because there's a division of labor

there's a division of labor only when

the division of labor is regarded as an

integral totality

can we speak about the creation of a surplus value, an asymmetrical kind of relationship of value in inputs and outputs, only in the aggregate. This is what Marx makes this clear in Capital Volume 3

when he tries to explain why there's an average rate of profit.

And according to him, in certain sectors and certain enterprises,

the profits that are being generated, the revenues being generated,

can be the consequence of surplus value extracted from an actual productive enterprise

or a segment of the economy,

and that it itself is producing no surplus value.

So this is how Marx explains the average rate of profit.

Now, this is just to establish the baseline that a relationship of employment does not inherently,

employment and profitability for the enterprise, does not inherently, employment and profitability for the enterprise does not inherently mean that surplus value is being generated.

Doesn't inherently mean that.

The case of DoorDash drivers and so on and so on.

There is no way to explain how the profits of DoorDash could possibly be a consequence of the creation of surplus value,

because the profits of Uber and DoorDash are not organic consequences of the revenue generated in the first place on the shop floor by people buying into them. Instead, they're propped up by speculative finance, which is why they were operating out a loss for the majority of their existence.

I bet they're still operating out of loss in some level, probably.

So no, DoorDash and Uber, Uber Eats, whatever, do not produce surplus value.

Instead, they show the existence of consumer demand to hedge funds and speculative investors,

and the demand serves as proof to get the investments they need to prop their whole enterprise and company up.

This comes from financial speculation and credit printed, by the way, by central banks from scratch, X-Nehalo.

Effectively, there's a form of central planning going on where credit is being printed

X-Nehalo, regardless of any value, and being allocated to enterprises and firms

on the basis of their demand among consumers. Where is that value actually being produced?

Is not a set and done clear question from the perspective of Marxism in today's economies of scale okay so my main

contention with that would be i would agree with you on part of it large parts of door dash revenue

about um i think i looked this up it's about 40 percent of it DoorDash revenue about I think I

looked this up. It's about 40%

of it is from like IP and

stuff. I'm not just talking

about IP. I'm talking

about the

shareholders, you know,

the investment

that comes from

shareholders,

and I'm talking

about the loans

and so on

they get from banks

and financial

capital.

I mean,

well,

I just looked this up.

DoorDash is

profitable at the moment.

I know, but the profit cannot explain the capital.

The capital that DoorDash controls and has is not justified by the profits.

If DoorDash had to live only off of the profits that they make, they could not be solvent, so to speak.

That's any company. That doesn't, that doesn't...

No, no, that's exactly the problem. You're right. That's any company.

But what I would push back on is the fact that I would agree that financialization.

Hold on. Hold on. But that's the problem. In capital, Marx is talking about a process of capital accumulation, where profits are creating and initiating and initiating uh the creation of capital profits partake in the creation

of capital that's what capital is about if our if that doesn't explain enterprises and

economic activity anymore in our economies, if the actual revenues being

generated at the shop floor and profits do not justify the capital at the disposal of the

enterprises in the first place, we have to rethink a lot of our assumptions about how we can

apply Marxist analysis to 21st century economies.

Well, I would agree with you that financialization, it does add a new layer of development to this.

But I would say the core dynamic at the core of capitalism

and Marx talks about cases like DoorDash drivers or transportation workers and stuff

in Capital Volume 2, Chapter 6, where he outlines how, even though these workers are set in um finance in like

yeah no no no no he you're conflating a lot of i've got he talks about he talks about

multiple different categories which chapter and which book is this?

Capital Volume 2, Chapter 6, Part 3.

Are you talking about the transportation workers?

Yes.

Yeah, yeah.

And I understand.

Transportation. He talks about how these are productive laborers.

Yes, because it adds value to the commodity.

And he defines trends. Yes, but, adds value to the commodity.

And he defines trends.

Yes, but, but Marx also regards commercial workers as unproductive.

Yes, but commercial workers in the sense he's saying, because he spends the entire chapter talking about multiple different categories of circulatory

cost, and he singles out transportation

as the one circulatory

cost that does, that

has a double function of also

generating surplus. The um so the physical the physical the physical

directly changes the physical movement of the commodity from one place to another closer to its

target or whatever yet it partakes in the uh adding a value to the commodity so But the process of marketing and selling the commodity, like a store clerk or something, would or a commercial worker.

Or yeah, yeah, somebody who is working at the shop and helping sell the thing off of the floor,

that doesn't create any value for

Marks. So that would be a service

worker in this case. If nobody thinks a truck

driver is a service worker, by the way.

And now... Yeah, but a DoorDash driver

does that on a smaller scale.

There's actually, no, there's a qualitative difference.

DoorDash workers do bring the goods to the doorstep of people's homes, but the actual, like, value-added transportation labor, as per Marx's definition, is actually being done by the truckers who are bringing it to the restaurants or the facilities and the back end, the warehouses, and so on and so on.

Well, it's not just one.

Like, it's a multi-commodities go through like multiple stages of production.

The problem is the door dash is not actually adding value to the commodity.

What it's doing is it's helping market the commodity and the added value in the strict non special sense of the term is being

pocketed by doordash itself not the actual enterprise which produces the commodity so the

commodity itself is not its value doesn't increase. DoorDash

extracts rents through

IP and then also there's a

fee that's given to the driver.

That doesn't go to the commodity

at all though. Well, the

fact that the DoorDash driver

spatially changes the commodity means he's directly

no no yeah no i know but if if that led to an increase of the price of the commodity maybe you

can make that argument well it does it does. They sell delivery.

They sell delivery fees.

Yeah, but you understand something.

You're paying for the service and the convenience of having that commodity whose value is not

changing in this case show up right at your doorstep.

So it's a form of commercial work,

which is, yes, a kind of marketing

because it's making you more likely

to buy the final product

than you otherwise would.

But it's not actually adding value

to the final product.

The service he's selling.

The service DoorDash is selling

is the commodity.

I understand.

That's exactly my point.

It's the service.

It's not the good itself.

So he's not transporting a good, adding value to it as bars would put.

But he is still generating surplus for capital at the behest of capital.

He's really not.

In the same way commercial workers don't generate surplus value, neither is DoorDash.

Well, the commercial worker isn't directly changing the use value conditions of any commodity with what they're doing.

But they are

changing the conditions under which that

commodity is more likely to be sold,

which is the same thing a DoorDash driver does.

No, it's not because, okay,

the fact that transportation

makes unusable commodities

physically usable

by spatially changing.

They're absolutely not. They are finished

products. They're not unusable. They're not unusable.

They're not unusable by the person who

wants them. That's the thing.

Okay. But if I go, if I go to a

shop and a guy who's trying to huckster me into buying something persuades me and convinces me to buy it, he has changed the use value as well. How is value being created? How was value being created?

Well, part of the, part of what the dasher is being paid.

Part of what the commercial worker is being paid.

Commercial workers are also paid.

Except what the commercial worker does does not generate any revenue for the capitalist. What the commercial worker does does not generate any revenue for the capitalist what the commercial worker does is noted as a lot to sell the commodity marks yeah they're not not about this they're not but hold on two things one yes they're not generating any new revenue. They're just an expensive production.

But they're an indispensable expense of production.

Now, from the standpoint of the commodity itself...

Well, yeah, they're an indispensable expensive production.

First of all, from the standpoint of the commodity itself, in this case, the commercial work that the DoorDash driver is doing would be an indispensable kind of thing for the sale of the commodity. Now, from the perspective of DoorDash itself, no revenue is being generated that can justify the accumulation of capital in the first place.

That's the problem.

That's the hill I'm dying on.

There's no capital being generated here.

Therefore, there's no surplus value.

But how is there no capital or profits being generated when like...

Because the capital is... Because the capital is entirely a consequence of consumer demand,

only justified by consumer demand.

And the capital is being...

That's any product throughout all the history of capitalism.

Not true. Not true. Not true. The capital that Marx was describing was capital that was generated by the profit. So you have profit, you have a surplus. That surplus then goes into the expansion of the profit generation. That's capital. The whole expansion of capital

rests upon that. Today, we have

centralized financial systems with

nearly unlimited capital at their disposal, who allocate the capital on

the basis of whether or not a enterprise or a business shows promise by way of consumer demand, or for another arbitrary reason. Maybe the state decides this is a strategic sector of the economy that we need for

national security reasons. So the central

banks will go and they'll pump it with liquid

credit to prop it up.

Lenin, I mean, Lenin talks about this

in imperialism. And this

doesn't undermine

the fact that the actual laborers He actually doesn't this doesn't undermine the fact that the actual labor lennon actually doesn't he doesn't

um well he talked about he talked about the merger of finance capital and industrial capital yeah but i'm not

i'm not even talking about that i'm talking about how financial capital has become entirely

autonomous from industrial capital and represents basically unlimited. It's basically central

planning in a way, unlimited credit allocated to it. How is it autonomous from industrial capital

when finance capital dictates the decisions industrial capital does and makes?

Because finance capital is fully in command and industrial capital has no independent.

Well, yeah, that's that's what letting me predict.

In fact, to speak, no, no, but to speak of industrial capital is almost impossible today.

What industrial capital?

There's just finance capital.

Capital today only exists in the form of...

Yeah, in the U.S., yeah, our capital has been largely financialized or service-based.

No, no, not largely entirely.

We have a tiny manufacturing sector, but yeah, I'd agree with you there.

The manufacturing sector doesn't generate capital.

But I mean, American capitalists also hold capital

in other countries and hold manufacturing

own factories and stuff in other countries.

They don't generate capital. This is all

to keep the...

Wait, wait, wait. How do

how do they not generate capital?

How do like factories in like Bangladesh and India not generate capital or surplus?

I won't speak for Bangladesh and India right now, but what I say is that in terms, first of all, you're talking about American investors who own these companies.

That's what you're saying.

Well, yeah, because America, I mean, the bourgeoisie and capital is global.

Basically, there's no capital being generated. What there is is an infinitesimal degree of approximation with which initial

capital loans

that are given, that are the foundation of the enterprises

are being paid back to an infinitesimally

lesser or greater extent.

And this is what

basically, this is the new standard in which you can, you can say whether

something is profitable or not, basically.

But it's not actually profitable.

Under your framework, if like, if there's no, if it's no if it's if

everything's been financialized

um man and fan and fan and you're such

an idiot you're such an idiot

you're such an idiot you're such an idiot get schooled right now

and then cry to bed when you got schooled about this

no profit isn't reinvestment but

capital is.

Anyway, continue.

And surplus value,

to be clear,

value, surplus value, the labor

of the working class

valorizes capital.

Not simply profit. Prof profit has always existed since before capitalism

the thing that's new is the accumulation of capital which only proletarian labor valorizes

according to this framework marks establishes in capital.

No, yeah, I'm not this.

I'm not. I'm talking to Fanon.

Oh, okay.

Go read volume one again. This guy,

holy, keep going.

So my, so my question here would be

then at that point, if like our entire economy is financialized and all of these, is your argument that like production decisions and allocation decisions are being made like ahead of time in like a large scale plan and this undermines the fact that the actual labor is productive and generates surplus for capital?

I have a theory about how we can understand today meaningfully,

I'm still working on it,

what is productive labor that meaningfully generates value?

And the place I thought maybe we should start

is what labor

valorizes or props up

the

revenues and sources of accumulation

which

collateralize

financial capital. So that's still a

Leninist framework. It's not even yet a Hudsonian

framework. And it's

a little even outdated.

So those various monopolistic

industries, like in Lenin's

time, this would be the railroad industry,

the Rockefeller, oil industry,

and other

kinds of monopolistic forms of industrial capital that collateralize

the issuing of loans and the creation of a financial capital. But I think collateralization is key to understanding today how value is created.

What does it mean for something to effectively be a collateral for the widespread creation

of credit?

How does that fit in within the dollar system as well

that michael hudson describes in super imperialism um the kind of simultaneous dual role of the

united states is a global creditor and also a debtor. The role of the dollar as a reserve currency, as a kind of stable store of value, an ultimate collateral, if you will, which is basically collateralized by the U.S.

military at this point.

And then in addition to being a reserve

currency, the

way in which the kind of

endless expansion of credit

in the form of printing of new

money and so on and so on,

what is that ultimately collateralized by, right?

So it's like, I think we don't have easy solutions or answers,

but I just think that the conventional Marxist analysis doesn't apply anymore.

I mean, I just, I hear what you're saying, and I just, I agree

with you that you can build on it.

Obviously,

capitalism progressing. I don't think we can build

on. I think we have to fundamentally

rediscover everything from scratch. And only we can build on. I think we have to fundamentally rediscover everything from scratch.

And only we can be

we can hold. Why would you why would you

rediscover like the whole

the whole we we we have Marxism is

you re-evaluate the historical trajectory of modes of production and of the social totality of capitalism and how it's developed.

So I agree with you that we can look in and we can analyze new development.

We have so much work to do at this point. Since London, it's

been over 100 years and there's basically almost been no work done besides Michael Hudson and so on.

And even then, there's not not Hudson is not necessarily

someone who is rediscovering

the implications this has for the fundamentals

of Marxist theory

so

we have a lot of work to do for sure

I mean yeah I'm not denying, but what I'm saying is, why would you scrap the whole thing and redo it?

It's not about scrapping it. We're keeping it in mind for sure. It's the fundamental, like, logos of our whole position. I get it. But we can't lazily, one for one,

apply it to reality. We have to blindly, like from scratch, understand how the world works and

establish the resonance between the world today and the world that existed during the time of Marx, because

it's not the same world. And is there a resonance between the two? Yes, but what form that

resonance takes we haven't discovered yet? It's basically my position. Well, I mean, I would say

the resonance and the form that resonance takes is, I mean, the core contradiction still remains the same. There's the owning class and the working class. The owning class and the bourgeois and the dynamics of bourgeois political life

have largely shifted, but the dynamics

of proletarian political life globally

have also, I would agree,

but the core contradiction between a class that owns, has power, owns capital, whether it be finance capital, industrial capital, and the laborer still remains intact. So I would say like... I agree, but the

vast vast majority of...

I agree, but the owning class is now a conspiracy.

Meaning,

the structure

of the, of, um,

capitalist social relations

are no longer being materially reproduced at the level of civil society. Instead, they have culminated into the form of a state dictatorship which collateralizes the monopolistic rule of very, very small capitalist cartels in terms of like the size of the owners that own everything, basically.

And that is a power maintained at the barrel of a gun now. No longer an organic material relationship of civil society, as in the case of Marx's time.

Isn't that, but isn't that like the natural progression and conclusion of the body of work that Marx and Lenin put out that the owning class and the bourgeois class

Yeah

Well if if you want to if you want to

Well can I finish there's competition over time

Competition turns to monopoly but in 19 and there's competition over time competition

turns to monopoly

but in 1915

16 when Lenin

publishes imperialism

I may have gotten the date

wrong on that.

When he publishes imperialism, you're dealing with the situation where Lenin is claiming we are imminently imminently about to transition

into socialism

objectively.

The economy is going in a direction of socialism.

Okay, it's been

100 years.

So, Lenin was right

or he was wrong

well what I would say I've said I've said that there's a chance he could have been right actually

I mean what I what I would say is I don't think I don't think he was wrong or right. I think he was making those predictions based on

right or wrong. I mean, if this is the highest stage of capitalism, it's either the highest stage

or there's a stage after that. We are in a different stage than the one. Yes, I agree. So that

that's that.

But Lenin wrote that, and Lenin that, Lenin developed

that theory with Bucharan.

And I actually think

Bucharan side of the theory

about how the state

itself functions in imperialism holds really well today.

But Lenin developed that theory with Bukhar and at a time when global tensions were extremely high,

where class struggle But let's not

I know you're class

I know you're trying to create

It's kind of like I'm trying to

I'm trying to enlighten and entrench the historical dynamic

But that's not why That's not why at all and it's not true to enlighten and entrench the historical dynamics.

But that's not why.

That's not why at all.

And it's not true.

It's not true.

Okay?

At the outset of World War I,

these explosive tensions were not yet

manifest in the way they were after the war. First of all, second of all, the reasoning Lenin employs has nothing to do with his belief in the imminence of a proletarian world political revolution. He was using economic logic to describe how capitalism is economically becoming socialism. He used the German state as an example of that. He thought the post office was an inseptial socialist institution, for example.

And so Lenin used economic arguments for why we're transitioning into socialism.

Now, the political question of the supremacy of the proletariat politically is a different question.

It's not the same thing.

Lenin is talking about the material relations of production changing into socialism. That's the argument he uses.

But how would the material relations of production be changing into socialism if the proletariat wasn't gaining any because because the material relations of production change before the superstructure changes

they're not the same thing for, the capitalist relations of production were setting in probably centuries before the era of bourgeois political revolutions.

So there's no simultaneous coincidence of proletarian

political revolution and

the course, the change

of the mode of production that justifies

it.

Yeah, but

And that was Lenin's, that was the

compelling kind of argument Lenin was making.

Hey, you know what?

The time for the proletarian revolution is now because the material relations of production now justify it.

Capitalism is dead.

Well, I would agree. He said, i would agree that he was arguing that the

material base for socialism had been developed um at least with his at least like barring the original plan, which was, at least what Lenin thought would happen is there would be a revolution in Russia than revolutions were.

That did not. Lenin thought imperialism was the highest stage

of capitalism because there was an economic evolution going on

that had nothing to do with politics.

Yeah, that's what I said, because the material base

for socialism had been created precisely

but what i'm saying is the reason socialism didn't happen then was because the hot point it was a hot point of class struggle.

And that class struggle...

Let me ask this fundamental question.

Lenin believed, as Marx and Engels did,

that there was a process internal to capitalist,

the capitalist mode of production that

because of its own economic contradictions we're driving the relations of production towards socialism increased socialization of labor the increased centralization of the forces of production, the increased role of planning in production, rational planning, and so on.

Engels describes this, and Lenin describes it.

It's been 100 years.

Has there been any kind of qualitative change with respect to the development of that tendency?

I think it's a fair question.

Of what tendency specifically?

The tendency of capital is the capitalist motor production to transition into a socialist motor production?

Well, the tendency, I mean, no, I think the material base for socialism has already been developed, at least across all of the West.

We have the material base for socialism.

What I'm trying to push back on is the idea that Lenin was making some deterministic point about that when it was like more a analysis of the class struggle going on.

But that's the problem. Imperialism, the highest stage is not a work of political speculation.

It is it a work that

meant to describe and initiate the

understanding that there is a new

qualitative stage of the capitalist mode of

production and that

the next one will necessarily

be socialism, not because it's making the contradictions

with respect to political class struggle too intense but because there is no way for capital

or the capitalist mode of production to reproduce itself within civil society anymore

because it has evolved into something distinct.

And it's been a hundred years now.

I mean, yeah, I would agree that that needs more developed.

Like Lenin thought there's no going back and capitalism cannot replenish its existence beyond this point.

It has a point of no return in which a new mode of production and new relations of production have acquired dominance and supremacy over the old ones.

I mean, but would you still say we live in imperialism or we live in something totally different? Because I would agree. We absolutely live in something qualitatively different. That's a fact. Michael Hudson, I think, is the closest to describing what that is in his work super-imperialism.

Lenin didn't anticipate something like super-imperialism. What is super-imperialism, by the way?

And how can we even justifiably call it capitalist?

What is the phenomena he describes in the work?

Actually, I've never looked into Hudson's work.

He's on my list.

Well, Lenin described imperialism as the process of the export of capital, basically.

And super imperialism is distinct because it

establishes a center that has the simultaneous role

of both exporting and importing

and importing capital

which is

something different

but how is that any

how is that

qualitatively different than what Lenin

outlined? Because the imperialism

Lenin was talking about was that

the basically he was using

as his model, the German universal banks.

Do you know what those are?

In light and neon,

so in the late 1890s, early 19th century, the Germans pioneered this model of the universal banks. These are basically banks that integrated themselves with heavy industry and traditional industry to create a permanent source of collateralization and the issuing out of loans. So these banks would basically gobble up like pretty much every industry you could think of to be permanent appendages of the banking institution apparatus to ensure that

there's unlimited sources of credit, basically. And Lenin was very much still describing a world

where constant and

steady streams of revenue for monopolistic

industrial capital

were still being used to

collateralize

the issuing of finance capital.

After 1929, the problem is that uh... the issuing of finance capital after nineteen twenty nine

the problem

is that the collateral is no longer justifying

the creation of credit and financial capital meaning financial capital

especially after uh... breton woods comes to an end in 71, becomes fully autonomous, basically, from any kind of collateral industrial base.

It has this magical ability of creating itself from scratch on the basis of what, the U.S. military?

So you're saying that...

Something political, right?

So,

well, Lenin was very much still...

You're saying finance capital

has completely divorced from industrial capital?

It uses industrial capital as a means to an ends, but it's no longer collateralized by industrial capital or revenues of industry.

How is finance capital

able to generate profit?

It doesn't.

That's the thing. We're 40 trillion in debt.

There's no profit.

I mean, for companies and stuff, there definitely

is. No, there's an illusion.

In the short term, there's a, there's a, you zoom out, there's an illusion of in the short term there's a

there's a, there, you zoom out, there's no

profit. The companies are

in debt and the people the companies

are in debt to are also in debt.

I mean, most

the Fortune 500 seems

very profitable.

I don't think you could...

They're profitable in a very relative

sense of the word.

Ultimately not profitable.

How are they

ultimately like, how are these oil

corporations, these tons of American corporations?

I would agree that largely...

There's a relative frame of profitability that they're talking about, which is usually measured by the degree to which, you know, the kind of inflationary pressures are being kept at bay, and, you know, there's this kind of steadiness of, you know, in the short term, the revenues that are being generated. But when you zoom out and you know in the short term the revenues that are being generated but when you zoom out and you look at the economy as a whole you have 40 trillion in debt and ultimately the idea is that there's like it's always just a bunch of ios we're going to ultimately generate this to pay back

the banks on the interest rates.

And there's

an infinitesimal approximation to

whether that is being done

to a greater extent or a lesser extent.

But to be clear,

the debts are never being paid off. What's happening is there is a

greater or lesser extent to which the debts are being fulfilled and paid via interest rates.

Yeah, but I wouldn't say that because the who's in debt is one in the fan is truly a subhuman he says it doesn't mean

anything if the government is debt in debt okay it's not it's not the

government though okay it It's not the government though.

Okay? It's not just the government.

The entire world economy

is in debt.

When all is said and done, it's in debt.

Uh, done. It's in debt. Okay, anyway, he calls it

Neo-Kanesian, too. It's not my fault that

Marxist, besides Michael Hudson and Co., have never

bothered to even care about the implications

of this.

Anyway, continue, Resputin.

Yeah, so what I would say is, though,

these companies and stuff still are like engaging in commodity production they're still

generating surplus for themselves and profits for themselves

i mean most of the not they're not real

surpluses they're not real surpluses. They're not real profits.

They are rel... What you're talking about is really just a transfer of wealth.

Yes, there's a transfer of wealth in control over material wealth happening at a rapid pace, unprecedented.

But is it profit in the traditional capitalist sense that is being accumulated to the extent that the wealth is being appropriated? No.

There is a kind of transfer of material wealth that is happening because the claims on the material wealth are being transferred to banks and through foreclosures and other kinds of things, which give the title to the ownership of the various material wealth and property

to financial institutions like Black Rock and so on and so on.

But no, there are no profits that are justifying the inequalities but how are there no profits

though i'm still largely the one that's in debt is the american government and doesn't most

american debt come from internal government spending.

So the,

uh,

the government,

no,

not,

not not,

yes and no,

because look,

the American government is in debt because when the,

when the, when the federal reserve central banks,

which are not,

by the way,

government banks,

they're private banks, okay, they, by the way, government banks, they're private

banks, okay, they trace their

lineage to monopolistic financial

institutions.

Whenever they print credit and

print money, that comes off of the dime

of the U.S. government.

The U.S. government puts itself

into debt for every

dollar that's printed.

But it itself is not printing the money.

The private sector is.

Okay, yeah,

I get what you're saying here, but I don't get i still don't get like how this

displaces the fact that like he's on fanan fanning he thinks profits don't exist because money

okay fanon come on here and justify how macroeconomic profit exists in the world today.

At a macroeconomic level.

Because that is the scale at which anything remotely close to capital exists now, at a macroeconomic level.

I would say, by the way,

Resputin, you want to know where

the strongest evidence in case

for profit being generated

is,

or capital, I should say.

It's really in

the semiconductor and chip industry.

It's the only exception.

And I think the reason for that is because that is the only industry in the world today

that encompasses global supply chains at scale, and therefore is an adequate proxy for the global division of labor

in these various semiconductor and chip companies like in video you you

actually do see a like 55% or so returns margins margins, which is crazy, right? And these are the foundation and the basis, by the way, of the entire world economy right now. This is the whole basis of the AI hype bubble and all this kind of stuff because this is if there's any

kind of collateral underlying collateral material capital that exists that justifies the financial

and speculative economy today maybe maybe it's that.

I haven't looked into the math,

and I haven't crunched the numbers myself.

I would still be skeptical that that is actually the case,

but instead of thinking in the case of Lenin's imperialism that you have the steady streams of revenue from monopolistic rents, collateralizing financial capital, you have to think instead in terms of relative margins, ultimately that are still not truly profitable,

but to a relative

extent, are making more

and covering more versus

the cost of

the capital advanced, the financial.

So you're saying industries like the oil industry or the tobacco industry or the clothing industry, which is mainly manufactured abroad, just aren't profitable at all whatsoever for capital?

That would be illogical to say because, of course, if we're looking at it from the standpoint of capital, if that's still in command in this way, then of course they'd have to be profitable.

But if you understand the dollar system and dollar hegemony and the way in which value seems to be created today or held up today,

you're very much looking at a system of relative margins of production and costs and inputs that all are calculated at very infinitesimal levels to calculate

financial value.

But yeah, I don't see how this would contradict.

At the level of calculus, you know, so that, it's like,

I don't know how exactly to explain this,

because I'm not a mathematician,

but,

for example,

if you look at futures,

the slightest shifts in the,

the price of a stock

the

stock price

for shareholders

the slightest movements

there

correspond to extremely

dramatic changes in the price of the options futures and so on and so on and where is actual profit being made is a difficult question to answer to be honest well i mean for a ton of

large industries it's being made in the goods still and in

the exports. I would agree with you that

we financialize

to a degree past lens.

I would say look, the only

enterprises

which are truly profitable

consistently are the ones that cannot expand as capital. The profit in this question is the same profit that existed in the Middle Ages, where you cover your costs and then you have a little extra for yourself.

And then that's it.

Wait, how are companies that cannot expand profitable?

I mean, when companies are profitable, production largely

expands.

Yeah, but it's not

because they're not expanding

on account of the profit.

They're expanding on account

of the financial signals.

The relative profitability

shows to financial capital which then

almost automatically leads to the injection of uh credit into the company very different than

than what marks was talking about wait can you repeat that last part?

So,

the relative

generation of profit,

which would otherwise not be able to

support the expansion of capital,

is detected as a financial signal

by finance capital

which then

leads to the injection of the enterprise

in question with more liquid

credit and capital with which it

actually expands. But I

wouldn't say that

that negates the fact that

industry is still generating

surplus and profits for capital.

But where? Where?

The question is where?

I mean, within those industries,

commodities are so being sold.

If at the aggregate level, what you have is debt

at the aggregate level,

and even at the relative level,

there's not enough profit to justify

the expansion of capital, then what profits justify

the expansion of capital? You see, the word, the key word is justify. When a company

generates a small degree of profit, let's say that it serves as a financial signal

for financial capital to

inject credit

which is then used to expand

the enterprise but the profit

didn't justify the expansion

it was only a signal

to financial capital that in the future

maybe eventually will be able to be

paid off or something. But it's never

paid off. They're trying to predict

profits. But it's ultimately

never paid off.

That's what I need you to understand.

Ultimately, yes, it matters that the relative degree of profitability, which is not profit, per se, matters very much for financial markets but ultimately the logic behind um the expansion of production

and material wealth today in the 21st century is not justified by profit.

It's justified by the signal that there may be in the future will be profit, which there never is, by the way.

Yeah, but that's how like any, that's how most investment works.

Yes, I know, but we are a speculative investment-, entirely speculative investment driven economy, not one that is driven by profits, real profits. Well, we are predicting the profits ahead of time and invest with the hope of gaining those profits.

I wouldn't say that profit isn't still driving the economy.

It's not driving the economy.

Profits, to whatever extent they still exist, do not drive the expansion of capital or the economy. Profits, to whatever extent they still exist, do not

drive the expansion of capital or the

economy.

Well, predicting, yes,

they do. They predict the profits in advance

and make the decisions based on that.

The prediction is

a speculation that is

never paid for

and you do understand that

when

there's there's a hype

it's always a hype bubble

that's all it is it's a hype bubble

well yeah because the state

has taken on massive amounts of this debt for itself.

I'm not denying that.

It's a, it's a, it's a hype.

You're talking about the, you're talking about the create, the whole economy is a hype bubble.

That's all it is

hype is what

fuels the expansion

yeah but

the international

capitalist class

is still

generating

surplus

off of that

hype bubble

for themselves

that that's

what I'm saying

like

no they have a political

form of control, which is a monopoly on credit.

That's ultimately it.

You're saying speculation doesn't make it not capital.

Correct. It permitted that the speculation is eventually able to actually lead to a profit that justifies the initial advance of speculative capital. But because that doesn't happen in modern economies, it's not capital.

I mean, I just don't see how that would negate it as capital.

Because capital is m so initial money advanced commodity c right m prime which is uh the profit the more money than the one you advanced, right? That's the basic circuit of capital.

Yeah, and that is still happening in large.

If it is, it's not happening at any local level.

Maybe at an aggregate level, somehow it it's happening i haven't seen a

convincing argument for how that is i mean the u.s has largely served to a service sector and moved

itself and shifted to a service economy, but, like, the commodity

production is usually

still being done. I mean, we have

we have a small manufacturing

sector in the U.S.

I think that, look,

this creation of a service sector is

almost entirely division by

consumer demand.

Not by...

And the reason consumer demand

has become so important and significant

is because

these are signals to

financial capital about the future, potential future profitability. So it's a hype. It's all hype. It's kind of... It's not that the service economy is too big. It's that the attention economy has become

so basically a social consideration of

how popular is just

yeah, but I, what I'm trying to say is these are just early capitalist

dynamics. No, no, no, no, no. Production has become so socialized at the level of the most

arbitrary whims and fancies of populations, Labuboos, macho, whatever. I mean, if you knew how

much is spent, why is data valuable, for example?

How do you explain?

Because data, they said it's the new oil, okay?

Why is it so valuable?

Yeah. Okay. Why is it so valuable? Um, we're not dealing with the type of motor production marks was, and I'll die on that hill.

Well, what defines a mode of production? that the the modality of how material goods are produced that's not how marks define no you're right he doesn't he doesn't define it that way. I thought you were just

kind of asking on a

casual level.

Mark defines a,

a mode of production

as a definite form

of life activity

that individuals

reproduce or society reproduces

on a social level.

He largely characterizes them, though, by a specific relation of the worker to their means of production.

And what I would say is...

The relationship of the laborer

to their means of subsistence.

Yeah, to their means

of subsistence and the means of production.

That's how you describe it in the German ideology.

And what I would say is...

Let's actually think about that. Let's think about the labor that is actually... what I would say is I think that's

think about that.

Let's think about the labor

that is actually required

to support any given

individual's life

materially

and think about

how

we could

plausibly

fit that within a mode of production

how could we what is the modality of of how things are produced and how

they're consumed

because that's kind of part of it as well

uh... today and i think that people that's kind of part of it as well.

Today, and I think that people who think that the mode of production marks was describing still applies to the one that exists today have a lot of explaining to do.

So do you not say the workers, the American, not even the American, the global working class

doesn't still have no means of production and are not still forced to sell their labor

power to capital and capitalists?

Like I would say as long as that dynamic remains intact, we would still be functionally limited.

My problem with this paradigm isn't that I reject the proletary.

It still exists. Obviously it does. I just reject the reduction of relations of production to administrative and managerial relationships on the shop floor. Because I think that's really the kind of source of what people mean by relations of production.

Today, I can't say actually that it's true that in the dominant tendency today is that workers have absolutely nothing and that they they're only sources of subsistence come from the sale of labor.

For the majority of global populations, it's not true. Why? Because part of the social contract that has been created on a global level, this is a dominant tendency, is that a great deal of revenues and things that people depend upon materially to survive and live come from the centralization of wealth and of the products of

production in the hands of the state. Okay. So people say, well, are you talking about the welfare state?

Not even. I'm talking about the welfare state, the regulatory state. I'm talking about the social services and social infrastructure and so on and so on. And that is very much part of the perks of being a citizen for even third world countries, right?

Where you have a high degree of socialization that, so the true proletarian who truly has nothing at all, nothing at all, right?

It's kind of, to be frank, it's kind of the pure, pure form of that.

It's hard to find that.

By the way, even in Lenin's time, it was hard to find that.

Because most of the factory proletariatariat who lived in the major cities of

the Russian Empire actually had

forms of subsistence in the countryside

back home. There was like a social safety net

that they had in the

countryside,

especially after the revolution

which nationalized the land and

redistributed it

so

I mean

what I would say though

is the fact that

there's state investments and citizens get stuff from the state

i don't think that undermines the fact that the workers don't own anything like even even in that

case it's the state that owns this and allocates it to the workers as the state sees fit.

No, well, okay, well, that's, that, that is precisely the, what I find a problematic paradigm.

Because we have to talk about what does social ownership look like.

Some people think that social ownership means managerial administrative control.

I disagree.

I think that, for example, in the Soviet Union, the means of production was owned by the people, by the public, not simply by the state.

The distinction between the individual and the state, in this case, I would find to be problematic.

In all cases, no, there's obviously a distinction, but I think that if you're a citizen and you are entitled via political rights to a share of the wealth or shares of production and so on revenues of production, you're talking about a form of economic...

Yeah, but even then, the USSR was not a, I mean, I have critiques of the USSR, but they weren't a bourgeois state. They were a worker state. That's not the same as like the modern American government.

Yeah.

Well, look, here,

I agree, I agree. But during the New Deal, during the New Deal and in the post-war period of Europe, there were many concessions and adjustments even, qualitative adjustments made to

there was a fundamental

transformation that happened after

1929 that basically killed the capitalist

mode of production as we know it

but the new deal

and the rise of social democracy

in Europe and which created the norm and by the way developmental states and the rise of social democracy in Europe,

which created the norm,

and by the way,

developmental states in the third world,

which are primarily based in states

that have nationalized

some fundamental resource,

like oil or something.

It serves as the bedrock

and the foundation of the economy, really,

for most states, actually, is

really people underestimate how state

driven it really is.

On the

one hand, the U.S. state

doesn't actually, it's curious, it doesn't really, unlike Russia, for example, it doesn't actually own to any considerable extent, means or production.

There are mainly forms of entitlement through political rights that the U.S.

citizens have with respect to revenues, uh, that are generated through taxes and,

and, and through printing, really primarily through printing from the Federal Reserve.

And these claims and these rights on the aggregate products of the national wealth and total wealth of the economy do establish being a u.s. citizen as a

form of ownership of means of production i would say but what i would say here is though I don't think the ownership is social in any sense or in the sense of the working class I mean I would agree to you I it's that it's definitely it is it is social but yes not in it, it's not led by a proletarian state.

It's overseen by a bourgeois dictatorship, for sure.

I have no disagreement about that.

Which is why, for example, the procurement and providing of services to the population by the state puts the the people into

debt and it's printed by the private sector which puts the people into debt and this is where

you get the whole austerity economics and i fully agree it's a bourgeois paradigm and state.

But fundamentally,

can we say that people own

nothing at all in the way that

Marx talked about for

the proletarianization process

that was happening in Europe and England

where peasants and farmers were

totally alienated from their land and literally

had nothing at all except what they could carry on

their back and the sale of

their labor and factories. I think we're

living in a different world than that.

Yeah, fair.

I mean, what I would just say, though, is...

I don't think the...

I have to...

I don't want to cut you off.

I have to say something.

Fanon, functionally speaking,

if you are in this chat as a means of disseminating information, you are functionally no different than a streamer.

If your purpose for being here is to spread information of some kind, you're just a bad streamer, you know?

You're just in my stream chat instead of actually getting an audience who will listen to you.

So why are you even here?

Just go off the internet if that means you're a grifter or you're an only fan's model or something.

Anyway, continue, Resputin.

Yeah, so what I would say here to that is the fact that they've granted-

So, Shannon, go offline and sell newspapers.

That's the true proletarian work ethic, right?

Go sell newspapers.

Why are you even on the internet?

Go ahead, Resbuden.

Yeah, so what I would say is I don't think the entitlements and stuff that were granted by the U.S.

Yes, they were concession,

but they don't entail any actual ownership for the proletarian.

These are entitlements the government gives out and allocates and takes away as they see.

Well, not, well, formally, by way of political rights.

Yeah, no, you're right.

It's not a proletarian form of ownership.

I agree.

I don't disagree with you about that.

But there is a kind of, on a material level,

there's a fundamental shift in the nature of modern economies,

which, yes, can take on all sorts of different forms.

But what I'm trying to say is underlying this bourgeois dictatorship is a fundamentally new paradigm of production, which entails a different relationship to production than the one described by Marx.

But I mean, Marks...

Because, for example, in a social...

I consider China socialists, you probably don't.

In China, we have a similar framework.

You know, being a citizen of China, there are certain

claims on the ownership, certain

rights you have.

Now, because China's a proletarian

dictatorship, the state doesn't play

this abusive role of

constant austerity and

political jockeying in Congress to strip people of their...

There's the logic of proletarian dictatorship where the state is run in such a way that raises the interests of the majority of the people supreme, which is not the case in the United States. But so to speak, there's a similar structure of the means of production, if we would call it that. We live in an era where the means of production are not just passive machinery and tools and so on and so on, but somehow and also include the state, the nation, and society itself as a kind of means of production and an object

that produces things and has

to be managed and owned or

sold in some case

I mean yeah I get what

you're saying there but in the U.S., though, I don't think that changes or breaks the core dynamic Marx talks about.

Like, Marx doesn't describe.

Marks addresses state entitlements.

Yeah, he

not very comprehensively. I think

he planned on it in his

planned

volumes

or chapters of capital, but

he doesn't really go into much detail about it.

Doesn't he address the German gotha program

and talk about how it doesn't fundamentally change

any ownership or any of the social relations of capital?

He described um he he describes the language used in the gotha program as insufficiently reflective of an understanding of what capitalism actually is for sure but uh does marx use the gotha program

as a way to be like okay you know if you had this system uh would that change anything of course

it would change things but mark wasn't operating from that premise.

He was saying, are you correctly describing how things exist now?

Are you, is this a program that can effectively lead the transformation of society?

That was the question.

Not, you know, if affected, would this transform society? It's a non-starter, because

presuming that it's effective, there would be no reason to call into question the program in the

first place.

What do you mean by that?

Meaning Marx is not complaining about the Gotha program because he's presuming it's going to be affected and he just disagrees with the results,

he thinks the Gotha program is not a good program for the leadership of the transformation of society.

It doesn't correctly inform the working class

about how best it could potentially seize power

and so on and so on.

Marx is not saying like,

oh, if this happened, I'd be against it

because it's not true socialism.

He's saying... Well, he's saying it doesn't... He's saying it's not true socialism. He's saying...

Well, he's saying it doesn't...

He's saying it's not a good program, basically.

Well, he's saying it doesn't effectuate any movement

towards socialism at all.

It just restructures capitalist ownership.

Marx is saying

that the program is rephrasing

existing

categories of production

and so on and so on,

and thereby

ineffectively

is addressing the world today.

He's not entertaining the possibility that it's going to be

affected.

I mean, I've got a different reading

from that work, but sure.

I do got a dip. Yeah, but sure. I do got a

dip. Yeah, for sure. It's been good.

It's been good talking. Have a good one.

Good stuff. Bye-bye.

We're going to wrap up, guys.

Holy F-LM-F-A-O, socialism isn't a form of ownership.

Did I say it was a form of ownership?

All I said was that the notion

that proletarians in America have nothing except the labor

except their own labor is just not true.

I record Except their own labor is just not true. I recorded it.

Oh, God, I guess I'm going to be in so much trouble that you recorded it.

Like, I give a fuck.

What I said, yeah, play it back, please.

Barnaby, what's up, man?

Appreciate you.

Fanon.

Fanon is fighting, he's debating me from the live stream chat.

By default, he loses just because of that

because he's too much of a pussy to use his voice

like Fanon's entire premise is being a streamer is bad

okay

then what does that make you

a literal parisocial

whatever

fan of a streamer

uh

and you don't care about lying

it's so funny you argued

Franz Fanon was some Lacanian.

Absolutely Fanon studied Lacanconn and imported various different Lacanian paradigms of psychoanalysis.

Are you denying Fanon was a psychoan or or was applying psychoanalysis to relations of colonialism.

Where did what was Fanon's paradigm of psychoanalysis? Where did it come from? Because there were basically three main different paradigms of psychoanalysis. There was Jungian

psychoanalysis. There was the kind of American pragmatist, whatever, he had no proximity to. And then in France, there was Lacan, who was a dominant figure.

He absolutely could have been... Yes, he was anti-psychiatry.

Do you think Lacan was a psychiatrist?

First of all, Lacan himself wasn't a psychiatrist.

Second of all, I'm a Lacanian, who is anti-psychiatry.

If Lacan could be reduced to psychiatry, is Slovozizek a psychiatrist?

What are you talking about? He critiques

LaConn ruthlessly.

Wow.

Wow.

You know, if someone spends so much time critiquing someone that itself establishes a proximity with the rational kernel of their position like how long did mark spend critiquing hagel the notion that because he critiqued Lacan, he wasn't influenced by Lacan, is ridiculous.

You know, you leftcoms, the problem with your subhuman mentality is leftcoms.

You're not human, by the way, your left comms, is that you think it's all or nothing.

You think that you either fully repudiate and fully reject something and annihilate it from existence, or you fully acquiesce.

You can't comprehend the possibility of critical engagement, and that's your problem.

He critiques the entire tradition of psychiatry.

Marx critiqued the entire tradition of philosophy.

Is it impossible to say in any sense that Marx was influenced by Hegel and very much

subscribe to Hegelian logic, that there's a Hegelian logic within Capital,

because Marx himself said that there was a Hegelian logic in the writing of capital.

He doesn't give Lacan some special significance.

Okay, to whatever extent, Fanon engages with psychoanalysis, which he does extensively,

in which any student of

Fanon would know he does, he very much is in proximity to look on. That's a fact.

This is a fact yeah leonan had nothing to do with Placanov because he spent a lot of time shitting on him.

There's no relationship there.

You think Lacan can be reduced to it? No, I don't think lacan is a decolonial think

what the fuck are you talking about i think I think Fanon,

Fanon's decolonialism is intensely psychological.

And if you deny that,

you're just in illiterate who's larping in my comments because, I don't know, maybe you like the aesthetics.

Black-skinned white mask is an intensely psychological text, and it's very much informed by his engagement with psychoanalysis, to some extent at least.

He's not going to join, and we're going to wrap the debate up

yeah fanan has nothing to do with psychoanalysis all right

you very much

we got a fanning expert here

five hour stream guys don't say i We got a fan and expert here.

Five hour stream, guys. Don't say I don't, uh, let's say I don't give you content.

You know why I love the TikTok lives? Because all of the haters are in the comments because all the guerrillas are elsewhere

because the guerrillas

are on the green place

and we just can get to

quarantine all the people

who are not yet

within our cult

he rejected it

keeps straw manning me.

Okay, again, you're a left-com.

You don't understand how you can simultaneously reject something

while still being influenced by it.

You don't understand that.

Your brain can't handle it.

I don't know what to tell you.

Joe Fittucci or whatever. I don't know if you're an AI, but, you know, you are just a coward.

You know, you're nothing.

You're literally not even human. Carlos, what's up, man?

You don't talk that way? All right, yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever. Thank you. You know, you even know what he rejected lecon um i could only vaguely honestly I could only vaguely recall to memory.

I didn't, the extent of his engagement, critical engagement with Lacan, like, I think it had something to do with the symbolic order's abstraction representing

the

abstract

kind of substanceless universalism

of the colonial core, something

of that nature.

Vaguely,

vaguely, I could recall to memory.

Fanon's specific critique of Lacan.

Fanon

Very much critiqued all paradigms of European universalism.

Okay, inferentialism.

Okay.

Kind of sounds like I wasn't wrong, though.

So. Kind of sounds like I was correct. you just inferred no no he doesn't just mention colonialism bannon's paradigm of

colonialism is something specific it's not just a vague understanding of a colonial core

and a periphery. It's a specific understanding

of how the colonial subject is

coded as substantive,

material, and vital, and physical,

and so on and so on, and that the

colonial subject is Cartesian and

abstract and has a pretense to this kind of substanceless universalism.

So very much, no, it's not just about a vague relationship of colonialism.

So we have a Fanon gatekeeper who just failed.

And you know what, Fanon, you're literally a cult member in the making.

The longer you're here, you're just going to become an infrared cult member.

Every single one of the haters that are in here, you guys, you don't even know how this community was built you're literally being

post right now as cult members

good luck

good luck with that

anyway guys we're going to wrap it up

stop debating from comments Anyway, guys, we're going to wrap it up.

Stop debating from comments.

Nobody wants to debate, dude.

I'm sorry, this is just as good as it's going to get.

You just threw buzzwords and relied on inferences.

That's an extremely vague objection to what I said.

It's just completely substanceless.

I made a concrete point.

You did not engage, so didn't. Oh, I think I remember. Yeah, because, like, on 24-7, I think I remember.

Yeah, because on 24-7, I'm just intensively thinking about Fanon's critique of Lacan.

It's just always the thing in the front of my mind. And if I have any difficulty recalling my familiarity with that

that's just like a total

awful weakness

you're such a fraud, you're a fake, you're

phony, you're a phony

it's not even the fucking thing you're thinking about

right now.

Like Jesus Christ, the last time I read Fanon was when?

2016?

Holy shit.

The fact I even remember what I do, you know, probably says something.

I haven't read Fanon since 2016, literally 10 years ago.

This guy's complaining that I'm like a little fuzzy about it in terms of how I how quickly and rapidly I could recall it and how precisely.

You only think of it when you need a lie. What did I lie about? I remember I'm retracing my steps about how I became such a toxic person and I remember it came from Fanon actually. My entire rejection of the metrosexual left honestly came from Fanon.

And that is true.

That's something I forget all the time. All right.

Well, we're wrapping up the live.

So, uh...

You're West Toxified.

Aren't you a fucking left com?

Shut the fuck up, for real.

Fuck are you talking about?

I'm West...

This guy's a left com.

I'm about West Toxified.

Literally a Lefcom.

A Lefcom.

You're West Toxified.

Actually, Zizek was kind of right about fanon how fanonians in the university are frauds and that fanning himself there is a radical proximity of Fennon to the revolutionary Western tradition.

Absolutely there is. the kind of decolonial thinkers who advocate more who basically have said that the whole

revolutionary paradigm is Eurocentric and that we need to kind of commune with mother nature and be naked and dance and stuff with interpretive dance.

And that's, this is a post-Fennonian, Fanonian was with the FLN.

Don't fucking talk about Fanon.

You're a fucking LARPER.

Fanon was with the FLN. Fanon believed in...

You're a fucking Larperur we're ending at year

okay Let's get Fanon believed him blowing shit up.

Okay, Fanon was not some... Uh, hold on.

Bannon was not some, you know, oh, you're West toxified, shut the fuck up.

Ah, yikes.

This is like such early infrared vibes.

Holy shit.

Anyway, y'all, we're wrapping it up.

Hope you had fun.

I hope it was a good stream.

And literally, guys, thank you so much.

Barnaby, bro.

Thank you so much, man.

I really appreciate that.

Appreciate the support, bro.

Thank you.

All right, guys guys see you guys tuesday hopefully right bye bye bye bye hope you had a good time