🔴 RED PILL NEWS | PALESTINE WAR 🇵🇸

I'm Oh, Oh,

Ah,

Ah,

I'm

Uh I I'm

I'm

I'm

yeah yeah

yeah yeah Yeah, I I'm

high breathing

yeah

yeah Yeah, I'm Ha'i-Len-Len

Yeah

Yeah I'm I'm

high

I'm

I'm Oh, I know. Ah,

I know,

and Thank you. I'm Oh,

uh,

Uh, I'm a Yeah

I'm Oh, yeah. you know, I'm

a

yeah,

I'm

a

ya,

no,

ya, yeah no yeah yeah yeah

yeah

yeah Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah.

Oh, Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah.

Yeah.

Oh. Oh, oh. I'm Oh

I'm gonna be. and you know

the

you're The Thank you. I'm a lot of Thank you. Oh.

Oh.

Oh.

Oh. Thank you. I'm and you're

I'm

I'm

I'm Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah I'm

Yeah

I'm and you know

I don't

I'm The I'm going to be. I'm going to be. I'm going to The The I'm Yeah. Yeah. Oh, I'm Oh, I'm

Oh,

I'm Yeah, I don't know. Yeah.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah.

Oh, yeah. I'm not a lot of

a lady

and I'm I'm

I'm

I'm like

I'm

I'm

I'm

happy I'm Oh, Oh, Oh, Oh,

Oh,

Yeah

Take

Yeah Oh, hi-haar-a-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-a-ha-a-ha-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a. Yeah, I'm like, yeah, I'm thinking, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. The You know, The One day, Oh, Oh,

and

Oh

Oh Oh Oh Oh

Oh

Oh and Oh

Oh

and

I Oh Oh I and the other people and the other people and you know what I'm going to be

I'm not

I'm

and and the other people who are people who

and the other

so

and I'm

I'm

and

I'm not

I'm going to

I'm going to

I'm

I'm

I'm going to I'm

a

I'm I'm

I'm

I'm going to be able to be able.

I'm going to be able to be.

I'm

I'm

the

I'm

I'm

I'm not

I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm

a

I'm and I'm I'm

I'm

I'm

I'm gonna be a lot

and a lot

and a

word and the I'm not

I'm

I'm

I'm Hello Hello Hello, welcome. We have a special guest coming on. I don't want to take too much with his intro because he's been waiting for a while and honestly I'm late.

For good reason, though.

But anyway, we're not going to talk about that.

We are going to talk about Easter for one brief moment. I just want to say happy Easter for all of you who observe it on this day. I know not all Christians observe Easter today, but a lot of them do. So if you do, happy Easter. And that's pretty much it. Now, if you guys bear with me, I'm going to get the Zoom set up. I'm going to just bring them right in. And that's how we're going to do it. So I'm going to, I've appeared to you just to make a brief appearance and then I'm

gonna disappear all right so you guys can watch my headquarters is actually what

my room looks like as I get this together red saffron

what's going on let me go ahead and get this set up uh okay all right all right so we got this okay all right All right.

Okay, so this should work.

Hold on, actually, wait, give me a second.

Got that link.

That's what we needed.

This should work.

All right, guys.

Hello.

I'm here through the Zoom right now.

We're going to be inviting our guest.

And I don't know who that is, but thank you so much.

I got to do something really quick. Johnny, two by four. Thank you so much. Just one thing really quick johnny two by four thank you so much just one thing really quick actually one quick thing i'm just going to copy this bring it back over here all right there we go now i will be able to see um okay let's invite him.

Let me see something.

All right. Wait.

It's crazy how that didn't work. It's actually crazy. Give me a sec. Give me a sec.

Okay. Telling me it's been copied all right got it okay it's all good now all right guys i'm sure you know

carlos is from the midwestern marks institute uh i'll

introduce him more when he gets here and let him introduce himself but uh basically he's like

the philosopher for midwestern marks and um some have even for Midwestern Marks.

And some have even compared him to me, actually,

in terms of our role, in terms of the role we fulfill.

But in any case, this has been a long time coming.

It's going to be a great discussion.

Let me make sure he got the invite. And, you know okay all right hey Hey, what's up, man? Hey, what's up, brother? How you doing?

Good. Is my audio okay?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Is mine?

Yep, yep. Works fine. Yeah.

Because on Zoom, the little attachment, Mike,

doesn't fucking work for some reason.

Yeah.

So I'm pretty sure most of my audience

knows who you are,

but if you want to introduce yourself,

feel free.

Oh, we're live already?

Yeah, yeah, my bad.

Oh, shit.

Yeah.

I was going to ask if I can curse

because I've seen it. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. I was going to ask if I concur with because I've seen it.

Yeah, absolutely.

Absolutely.

Go ahead.

I am one of the directors and founders of the Midwest of Marx Institute.

I'm a philosopher.

I teach philosophy at Southern Illinois University.

I'm a Cuban American and I spend most of my time writing or doing various forms of popular education, whether it's the classes that we do through the Institute

or the other forms of more public writing that the Academy kind of shuns, but that I think is essential

for anyone who considers himself a Marxist and a scholar.

So before anything, I just want to say I was actually pretty shocked by something I saw today just from Midwestern Marx.

And I can't believe it, but I didn't know, I didn't understand it because, you know, why do you guys just hate you so much?

No, in all seriousness, I saw a tweet from you guys. And what does it actually say? The tweet reads,

I'm going to paraphrase it, something along the lines of, the Jewish working class is not your

enemy. Finance capital is pretty straightforward okay but somehow a swarm of and i

usually don't talk about leftist but i kind of see how you guys are under attack now in a lot of ways that we were in the beginning of when infrared was launching.

And I just, it's incredible because all these left comms, I mean, Pan leftists, what I like to call them, because they're from across the board, right?

They all have this unanimous agreement that that tweet was somehow

anti-Semitic,

which kind of seems like

they're telling on themselves, or what, I mean, what,

how does that work? If you say finance capital and they

say oh you must mean jews what is going on you know it's and and the saddest part hoss is that

these are people that you click on their profile and they have a hammer and sick.

Yeah. And they can't recognize that this is a basic term

in

Marxists

in the Marxist tradition

and not even in the Marxist tradition, just in

general political economy.

Everyone knows what is referred to by finance capital.

So it's pretty absurd, especially because, I mean, the whole purpose of the tweet is to combat this rising anti-Semitism that I don't for the slightest bit think is spontaneous.

It just so happens that right at the time when it's undeniable how badly the Zionist Nazi entities

losing the information war, perhaps the most important war, besides the one that they're losing

on the ground to the forces of resistance. Right at that time, when it becomes a conscious

process of reflection in the leaders of the West that they're losing the information war,

there's a sudden

spike in the most politicized

social media platform

in anti-Semitism. Of course

it serves the purpose of

legitimizing the claims

of Israel

that anti-Zionists anti-Zionist

anti-Zionist discourse is actually anti-Semitic,

which I mean it's pretty absurd for a few reasons.

First, the Palestinians are Semites.

So that's kind of strange.

Secondly, some of the leading voices

in opposing Zionism have

been Jewish people. That's something

that we've seen with massive protests

in the U.S. A lot of them have been led

by primarily Jewish organizations.

Another thing, Zionist is a bastard child

of imperialism. It has nothing to do

with Jewish self-determination.

It's precisely

the connection that it has with

British and American imperialism that

allows it to

even survive. What's being

criticized is the culmination

of a 75-year ethnic cleansing

that has led to

an intensification of the

genocide when in October 7,

the Palestinians bravely attempted to escape the prison that they've been contained in for decades, known as Gaza, a place where 75% of the people ended up at.

They were displaced from other parts of Palestine.

So criticizing that horrendous condition that depicts, I think, the bankruptcy of the capitalist imperialist project at a more bound stage is definitely not anti-anti-Jewish.

It's definitely not anti-Semitic, but it's explicit why they do this.

And the leftists just feed into it.

They feed into it.

And the way that these algorithms work is that it creates these positive feedback loops that end up influencing people who somehow six months plus in might be neutral on this issue.

And they see the leftists say one thing, then they see the uh i'm pretty sure not very

spontaneous rightist uh jump on and say well who are the real finance capitalists it's um

and it just feeds into this anti-semitism that just divides us. This is something that Marx writing on the Irish

question and on the question of American slavery. These are just like tools that the ruling class

uses to divide working people and Marx has a

refers to it as the secret

the secret through which the

ruling class sustains its power

so it serves to divide and

to

to recuperate this

increasing elevation

of consciousness that's surrounded by the fact

that people are seeing a genocide unfold on their

phones and they're beginning to draw

other connections besides the Israel,

Palestine affair.

They're beginning to question the system as a whole.

And in times of crisis, capitalism has always turned to Naziism and fascism.

So that's what we're seeing before our eyes.

And at a time when groups like ours and like the infrared collective are trying to combat this for these leftists to come after us.

It just shows that the Stalin once said they are objectively the left wing of fascism.

Yes, because it's curious, they've contributed nothing to the effort to curtail the rise of this new form of anti-communism, which, you know, as you mentioned, I don't know actually if you mentioned this directly, but it's a swipe against us.

Why anti-communism at this moment in the form of anti-Semitism?

Why now? Why communism? Why are they mentioning communism?

You know, it's not like there's a communist movement.

It's because of us gaining traction, us gaining steam, and many people recognize it, some positively, and others are very terrified of it, actually. They're very distraught.

Now, I do find it interesting because when you probe into the leftist arguments, more or less, it seems like they are saying something along the lines of, well, why are you privileging or focusing on finance capital when industrial

capital is just as much what upholds capitalism and is a part of capitalism? And then I see it's

funny because you guys are just linking Lenin's imperialism.

And I think, um, I don't know if it's like lost in translation or something, but

do people not know that monopoly capital is finance capital, that they're one in the same thing, because

so-called industrial capital was the type of capital that Marx was primarily describing in

Capital Volume 1, which is the traditional form of industrial kind of commodity production and reaping a profit based on the sale of commodities directly and accumulating capital on the basis of surpluses reap thereof.

That form of capital does not exist anymore.

It's been completely subsumed by monopoly capital.

So I would even go so far as to say, because people are saying, well, you just side with industrial capital rather than finance capital.

And I'm like, okay, show me the industrial capital.

There isn't. Every single independent,

let's say entrepreneurial or industrial interest is dependent through debt on finance capital. And if they're not in debt directly, the only way they can ascend in terms of the expansion of their business operations is by having funds allocated to them

by finance capital, right?

So the notion that there's even such a thing as industrial capitalism anymore is an absurdity.

Where are the industrial capitalists?

They've all been subsumed in a hierarchy, the top of which is monopoly finance capital.

I mean, even Lenin observed that to be true for his time.

Keep that in mind.

It's especially true in today's era where it's even gone further in the degree of abstraction from real production.

And, you know, most of this nonsense comes from a guy name. I don't know if you know him, you're familiar with him. His name is Moishi Postone.

And he's a kind of darling of the left com crowd, so-called left-com crowd, you know, the non-Stalinist left.

And Postone kind of came up with a brilliant idea that basically you can be anti-Semitic without mentioning Jews.

He called it structural anti-Semitism.

So when you personify capital in any kind of way, when you associate capital with a specific concrete

interest of any kind, rather than a pure abstract structural relationship, that's actually a form

of structural anti-Semitism. So for example,

thank you so much,

Strauss-Stangy.

So for example,

if we say that,

you know,

okay,

there is a monopolist ruling class.

It's an actual

concrete class

with a concrete class

interest.

And it's like

controlling the government

and it's starting all these wars and it's

ruling society as a ruling class. It's in the name. Postone would say, well, you're not

mentioning Jews, but the similarities with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are so stark and they parallel each other so

strongly that you're actually a structural anti-Semite.

So that's where this idea comes from.

And it's interesting because the vogue

high IQ

Marxism of the leftcoms because keep in mind

these people have this idea that

it's kind of funny they're like

oh you guys are MLs that must mean you're like idiots

we're actually the guys who like think

it was even this

meme that like, oh, left comms read a lot

of books. No, they don't, right?

But anyway,

the Vogue idea, interpretation

of Marxism is that classes are just

pure

structural relationships and patterns which have nothing to do with concrete

interests it's actually just a kind of specific form right of society which is totally impersonal, which totally is abstracted from any kind of, like, real flesh and blood interests, and that, you know, they identify this roughly, and it's all bundled up in what they call the value form it's kind of

german value form theory right and this is where this kind of notion of capital as this

transcendent force comes from oh capital has subsumed everything all capital is doing this capital is doing that how can we escape

capital it's just so inescapable and it's like marks and angles are writing yeah the process

of capital accumulation inevitably is laying the foundation for its own dissolution, like the acceleration of capitalism

is laying the foundation for a transition into a new mode of production.

These guys are saying, no, no, actually, the fact that the origins of socialism are from capitalism means that it is forever tainted by it, that everything we call socialism in history is actually just capitalism because it bears the birth marks of this prior mode of production.

And capital is this transcendent, inescapable force which is totally

impersonal has nothing to do with concrete class interests or collective interests or groups of

people and that if you if you departure from this let call it abstract Marxism, you are no different from a fascist or an anti-Semite because their mistake is personifying capital and attributing to it concrete interests. So that's really where they're coming from.

That's the basis upon which they associate your tweet with anti-Semitism.

Right.

And thank you.

Thank you for sharing that I hadn't heard of these figures.

But what they're doing is the same thing

that has been central to

bourgeois political economy forever, which is

treating capitalism as this trans-historic

force that's just suppressed

in different forms of life and then

somehow at some point, because

of these great revolutions, it's allowed to flourish.

And you can get deeper into this by talking about how they speak about human nature, etc.

But it's completely baseless.

And as you mentioned, there are tendencies that consider themselves

to be within Marxism. I don't know

if I would consider them to be so, but

who do think in these ways

and an interesting critique

of that

way of trends

historicizing capitalism emerges in Ellen Miken's woods book, The Origins of Capitalism,

where she goes over the different forms that that's taken specifically in different so-called Marxist

spaces.

And what's interesting also about these value-form people, and I've read some of them,

specifically because in some of my research, I try to see the homologies of the ascension

to the concrete of Marxist Capital and the Three Volumes and Hagle Science of Logic.

And some of these people work within that area,

people like Christopher Arthur and Tony Smith and others.

What's interesting is that the sort of groups,

the clicks that they're working with,

which include people like Michael Heinrich,

he wrote Karl Marx

and the birth of modern society.

As a historian, he's okay.

But as a theorist of political

economy, they're rejecting the

foundation of Marx's political economy by

rejecting the reality of contradictory

value production.

So just from there on, you realize that this is a way of thinking that cannot grapple

with contradictions, objective contradictions.

And if you can't do that, there's no semblance of Marxism in your outlook.

What's interesting about this reaction, which is very unexpected, because I think we had made a similar tweet a few days back, and it just went viral as Norman.

There was no reaction.

It was this one person that started commenting

and then people saw

that person commenting

and then started

getting into it

and then somehow

the folks from the right

get into it

and the other side

and it just creates

this cycle

of idiots

talking to each other.

And I think

it's a good depiction of how in many

ways what you

have is a mirroring

of these positions,

a left that

sustains its identity by just being anti-right, and a right that sustains

its identity by just being anti-left. And their positions end up just being a mirror of each other.

Whatever the other is, it's just an immediate opposition. And it's because as as Lenin had already pointed out more than 100 years ago,

finance capital is the dominant form of capitalism in the stage of imperialism.

It consists of a merger between banking and industrial capital.

So it's not like when you say finance capital, you're keeping industrial capital out of the conversation. You're just, you're bringing up a specific type of relationship that this industrial capital now has to a form of banking finance capital. And if you look at some of the profits of the Fortune 500 companies, the vast majority, I think Michael Hudson's pointed to like 95%.

Of it comes from interest, stockbacks and rents so it basically finance capital so it's

become the principal form of accumulation it's developed distinctive forms of of contradictions in society.

I think the contradiction between the contradiction that's present in debt is one that's intensifying more and more,

specifically within what we've called at the Institute, the Reproletariat, this portion of the

American working class that elevated itself to this position of middle class. It, you know,

to use Engels's term, it bourgeoisify itself and has now landed once again in precarity,

in a position where there's no economic security, and where the minimal capacity to accumulate that

embodied the fact that they were able to own the house and car and all that stuff is gone.

And this is the positive way of formulating, I think, the what's been accepted as the death of the middle classes.

And a lot of the central contradictions that these people exist in with capital

is not necessarily

through a process of extracting

surplus value because they

they're not the proletariat.

They're part of the larger boiling masses,

the working masses, but they're not the proletariat.

They're not the class that's

producing surplus value.

In many ways, as we know, Marx points to in volumes two and three of capital, it is on the basis

of the extraction of surplus value from this other class that the salaries and wages of

these agents of circulation

arise. But the central

contradiction that they find themselves with

capital is

debt. A lot of them are

in tremendous debt just for trying

to get buy-in.

Mark's

prophetic as he

is did notice that

this was going to be an increasing trend

in capitalism,

the indebting of the working class

and in the third volume he calls it the secondary

form of exploitation, the one that occurs after the direct moment of production. I think that's one of

the primary forms of exploitation that we have today, and to have people who consider themselves Marxists, who identify as Marxists, go out and say that we can't speak about finance capital, when it is the form of capital that

is at the center of

some of the most principal contradictions

that we have in our era,

it's just ludicrous. It's insanity.

But it shows that for these

people, communism is just a label.

I call them in

my book, the purity fetish, the identity

socialist. It's just an identity.

There's no actual incorporation

into any movements that attempt

to build power for

the working class, by the working class.

And it's just a social click.

That's all it is.

All they're really interested in is having a small group of people whom they can guarantee

that whatever ideas arise in their head,

those people agree with them purely.

It's a commitment to these

abstract, pure ideals

that are not necessarily

realizable in the world anytime soon.

And if you don't share them, you're getting condemned.

So it's just clicks that surround

themselves around these

weird, pure, abstract

ideals. And it ends

up being almost like a monastery feel.

Like if you buy into the ideals,

you're there, you're pure enough and and uh,

communism becomes not a project of incorporating the working classes into a consciousness of how they are the

agent of history that will radically change the world it becomes a social click

that has to be very hostile towards the entry of anyone that thinks in the slightest way different to them

and that's uh that's no communism at all that's uh you know you can basically trace all of that to the creation of the fake left and the compatible left, as we call it, in the institute. And it's a product of the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the State Department. And it was explicitly done for the sake of challenging. The only force that the imperialists have always been scared of which is real communists and real communists are back um historical necessity has brought us back and uh they're going to throw everything at, the fascist and the left as well.

Yeah, I think that some of these arguments stem from this notion.

You hear it repeated often that part and parcel of fascism is a demonization of big capital and a championing of small capital

and that was trotsky's appraisment of the class origins of fascism actually he said it was the

the petite bourgeoisie, the small middle class.

Now, Trotsky obviously had these views because he was an elitist and he detested any kind of populism.

But the facts actually contrast from this view of history.

Well, for purposes of demagoguery, they did engage in this kind of rhetoric here or there.

The facts are fascism was not a phenomenon of small capital.

It was a phenomenon of big capital.

Fascism was rooted.

I mean, this was the analysis of the common turn in monopoly capital, right? And that's not small capital. That's not the petite bourgeoisie. That's actually the advanced to whatever progressive big capitalist actually. So this this kind of Trotskyism has become commonplace. Additionally, the notion basically where like, okay, this opposition between the concrete reality of production to the abstract reality of like institutions and financial abstraction

and so on and derivatives this is actually a kind of fascistic distinction and actually you know

to understand capitalism you need to kind of de-essentialize oppositions like that. So, for example,

when Michael Hudson makes an opposition between the productive kind of aspects of society versus the

rent-seeking parasitic one, you know, that is kind of a fascistic trap. And it's just, first of all, it's ironic that they're speaking from a pretense of Marxism because the first gesture of Marx was what? I mean, the first thing he did to distinguish himself was from Hegel was to

reject the kind of pure abstraction of idealism and descend into the depths of the concrete,

which is the proletariat, right?

Marx's privileging of the proletariat as the revolutionary class,

the laboring class,

over the civil servant or, I don't know,

some other kind of subject based on contemplation and reflexivity was itself.

I mean, that's materialism.

It's the essence of materialism, right?

And obviously, it's a given, it's a truism within Marxism, that socialism amounts to the unleashing of the productive forces from the fetters

of an increasingly outmoded, increasingly superstructural, an increasingly abstract

relationship of capital, and the valorization of capital ceases to be organically based and reproduced

just from the concrete contents of production but increasingly takes a political abstract and

super structural form that's's imperialism, right? So when we oppose the parasitic rent-seeking elements from the kind of, and what are the productive elements in society it's actually bricks it's russia

and china i mean is that outside of capitalism entirely i mean people can debate about that but

the fact is that they are positioned against monopoly capital yes because that distinction between

the productive versus the parasitic is operative in that case right and which one is on the side

of socialism i think it's i think it's plainly self-evident, you know?

And it's like, you know, this view that, that, oh, actually, you know, you're talking about productive capital, but we're calling, we call productive capital in China and Russia and bricks and so on.

I don't really think you can reduce that to capital anymore.

I think the extent to which the necessity of the productive forces in those countries to have to be socialized.

You know, the extent to which they have to obey long-term planning, the extent to which they're inexorably entwined with an overall view of production based on use value, more or less, I don't think you can say these are simply.