Haz talks with Polish Communist | InfraredShow Stream 🚀 Infrared Content Catalog

hello

hey what's up give me one moment

okay uh

okay

all right

sorry about this

all right how are you

good

it's good to see you

you too

yeah

do you

can um

can i make life or do you want to ask me

something before

uh no it's good you can go live i also

want to let you know that i'm also live

right now on twitch oh he's good so

hello to cameras from europe

so hello today we will speak with camrat

from usa camera to haas who make a

youtube channel infrared

hello camera

and maybe i will

i watch some of on on of your videos

and

i i saw that

sometimes or often you you speak about

the socialist block

especially about the soviet union and

east germany

but do you know the history of polish

communist movement

um i i don't uh i'm not very familiar

with the history of the movement i just

have a brief familiarity with uh

some details of uh

the polish communist uh

state history throughout the cold war

leading to the 80s and so on

yes because

i i wanted to start a discussion from

this subject because

uh

i think that for you and for the

conversation which is now in american

youtube

the question of the communism and the

patriotism and also your discussion with

jason unruh

i think that the

the history of the communist movement in

poland is very interesting so

maybe briefly i will say some words

about this so before the second world

war we had one party which was a which

was a section of the third international

it was communist party of poland it was

combative party but relatively small

small party it was the legalized party

and there was a lot of persecution but

this party was small because of the

sectarian position in the many in the

many question for example the members of

this party wanted to make poland the

republic of the soviet union and it was

after poland gained independence and

it's it's not worked in poland because

most of the polish workers wanted to

independent polish state and they

preferred the polish polish way to

socialism not to be part of the of the

um

of the soviet union and the cameras

starting he dissolved this party because

of many reasons

um

it is another conversation why the the

communist party was was dissolved

but in the time of the second world war

there was constructed new party new

party which was built by the members of

the ancient communist party but this

party is the name polish workers party

and this party was

fighting against the occupation

and this party very quickly became

became

mass party mass party and it was party

who which

after second world war build a socialism

in poland uh so

we we in this

in this question we have uh two two kind

of of of parties one party is sectarian

second party used this patriotic

question and very quickly became a mass

party and and changed the society

so

from this perspective uh i think that

the discussion which you have for

example with jason unruh uh

the strategy of polish workers party is

better than strategy sectarian strategy

of the this communist party which

existed before but

after the history of poland it was his

story that

the country evolution in the socialist

blog started in poland and it started in

poland because the

this this

strategy of polish workers party to

organize mass movement and take a power

was good to take a power but after when

when there is there was a question

building socialism

they

didn't use marx's story

well for example

they didn't fight with catholic church

they they stopped the collectivization

and the

also there was the this patriotic

question

it was good when it was and against

german

but in 1970s and 1980s this patriotism

started to be something reactionary

because it was anti-soviet so it is

something which i wanted to start

i don't know what do you think about

this

so the the polish communist patriotism

was anti-soviet

uh

no no no in the time of the

in the time of the second world war it

was

against against germans against nazi but

the problem is that the the polish

workers party

attacked

when you take newspapers of the polish

workers party they attacked german like

a nation

not nazi like uh yeah ideology of the

and you know it was the time when in

poland uh

in the time of war there are the six

million of poles who died in in the

occupation and every poll have somebody

in the family who was killed by the by

the germans so for building the mars

mass movement

this uh this

[Music]

easy easy propaganda that we are

against against germans we want to

independent state and also we want the

we want the social reform they they

didn't talk about the communism this

study who decided that

communism in poland and don't work well

because

because for example in the time of the

of the existing of communist party of

poland there was all these

anti-communist propaganda

they accused the member of the communist

party of poland that they are the agent

of moscow agent of soviet union uh and

they didn't wanted to discuss with this

and they they said yes

for us our our homeland is soviet union

and we want to make poland uh the

um

the republic of the soviet union from

the for for me for for the

political

may

politically it was good but it was not

something which worked to be

by

mass movement so for building mass

movement it's better to

to try to

listen what is the

what

what workers want and

there was something that

the party wanted

something and the workers

they are not

not connection and it is something that

i think that that is a problem of many

many marxists from from internet also

maybe me and and

also in the youtube in american youtube

that

uh

one thing that is what is the real uh

real feelings that workers want today

and

the second what is the offer of the

of the people who for example say

we need to fight for the giving all the

american lands to the native americans

[Music]

maybe from the moral perspective it it

is it is something which is just me but

it will be never something which you

organize the workers in the in the usa

so so i think that in this in this

discussion which you may have with jason

unruh you you are a realist realist and

you are

bigger chance bigger

bigger chance to build

a movement because from this other

perspective first world maoism

it's

it's it's it's not working

so uh

this basic distinction right between uh

the real

real situation and uh

what's considered ideologically correct

or moral

you can actually find beginning with

marks and angles even before this mass

movement uh

this distinction is basically the point

of material is dialectic right

uh

if one's morality is at odds with the

real material reality

then one must

uh

one must

rethink what the real implications of

one morality is i'll give you an example

in the context of marxism leninism

so with uh

stalin's

his distrust toward other communist

parties independent communist parties in

general taking place in other nations

uh it stems from the distinction created

by the lenin by the bolsheviks right

between the democratic revolution

and the communist revolution right

now

the democratic revolution for lenin

right was something actually objective

it's part of material reality it's

something that happens in the material

uh

it's a realist view of the reality right

like the small peasants have a problem

with the landowners

have a problem with aristocracy with

feudalism whatever

and this is the basis for objective

democratic revolution so communists

they can be hands off even and it will

still happen somehow right

lenin's theory

is that communists are the best equipped

to lead this revolution this democratic

revolution

uh so this is why he combined the

workers and the peasants the

dictatorship of the workers and peasants

because for lenin

uh

the bourgeoisie was on cannot lead

democratic revolution in uh

in

the russian empire

so up toward stalin

when stalin was fighting against his own

uh party bureaucracy when he was in the

30s and when he assumed power and even

later through the 40s stalin's whole

goal was basically to reduce the power

of the communist party and the communist

ideologists and so on and strengthen the

more objective and realist

structures of soviet states because for

stalin state was not just a subjective

reality of ideology

morality and so on it had an objective

it followed objective laws of history

and objective reality so stalin wanted

to reduce the power of the communist

party to a more spiritual guide

uh of the state he didn't want the state

to be synonymous with the communist

party

so uh

i think this is where the marxist view

contrasts with uh idealism and

liberalism and even fascism

which is its recognition that statehood

and

revolution social revolution has an

objective uh reality right communists

must submit themselves to the laws of

social revolution

and cannot dictate the terms of this

revolution like we may arrive at the

idea that this is more moral or more

ideologically correct but if it comes at

the expense of the material reality it's

not correct now with regard to stalin's

distrust of the polish communism

uh i read this in the context of

stalin's distrust of uh

most importantly of the chinese

communist party of mao and so on and so

on and the reason is because uh for

stalin the communist party

was the kind of ultimate spiritual guide

of

it's the highest form of state power

more or less right and

to possess it's almost like a church

sacred kind of church right if this is

being reproduced in poland he was

suspicious of this because

uh he did not trust that they would be

able to reconcile

the communist party

with this objective national social

reality so it in a sense um

stalin did not trust other national uh

communist parties or civilizational

communist parties

uh

because he himself did not fully uh

he did not fully arrive at a theory

about the relationship between the

communist party and

the people's democracy or the popular

front

he just took it for granted right it was

almost like uh

it was almost like uh how should i put

it

[Music]

uh uh

it's almost like a a prohibited uh

reality like we have yes the soviet

communist party but its origins are too

sacred and mysterious to be

directly reproduced in other countries

so we will guide the world revolution in

moscow and

you will in other countries you instead

of arriving at your own independent

communist party you will just obey the

objective social laws of history of the

democratic

revolution more or less

yes but i think that there was

there wasn't one stallion

there you have one study in 1930s

who

who are the in the charge of the soviet

union and this problem which existed in

the communist party in of poland existed

in other section of the communi of the

third international

and uh

in the time of the second world war uh

the the the

soviet union and the communists from the

third international they decided that

this strategy that

failed failed because in every european

countries the the fascism take power

and these these communist parties were

very very weak so so we have one

strategy in 1930s where the communist

parties have to

obey the the communist party of the

soviet union and make

exactly the same thing like in the

soviet union but

the the strategy in the 1944 1945 is

different this strategy

for the police workers party was

different

that there are in the the leadership of

this polish workers party there are the

communists who

wanted in every article make situation

of stalin and stalin said no

don't do this don't do this because if

you all the time you will say you are

stalinist you support soviet union you

want collectivization

you need to be

the party which is based in your culture

in your in your

in your country

because it will be better to build a

mass movement and and popularity for for

this so so so there is one strategy

before the second world war and the

creation of the of the countries like

like poland czechoslovakia etc

is different and um

it's my remark

uh

so which what was different after the

second world war

the

in the

uh

because

the older europe was occupied by the

nazis and because

there was a collaboration of the allies

in the in the occupied zone the polish

bourgeoisie polish aristocracy they

collaborated with the with the nazis

and the the the reality of the

occupation was

it was anti-workers so all the trade

unions were were

de-legalized if you are fighting against

your your bourgeoisie

the germans can kill you

so

it was very easy to make a movement

which was in one side uh

it was the liberation of the nation and

in the other side it was the movement

who wanted to expropriate the the

bourgeoisie and the aristocracy

and

because

it was

it was something common to all these all

these eastern europe countries it was

very easy to build mars movement or the

working people and say all these

all these

people who are in the charge the nazis

and the collaborators from the polish

bourgeoisie we have to kick them out and

build socialism uh so uh

the the difference the biggest

difference is that in the time of the

war they didn't make situation from

hegel or or marx or something like this

the the the the agitation was very very

easy uh they they they are the traitors

they are the capitalist nazis we have to

fight with them that's all

and

and and before uh

the strategy of the communist party of

poland

uh it was the normal strategy of

communists who tried to make all this

marxist propaganda education

teach about the what is the marxist

economy and stuff like this

so uh

just to simplify it's basically that

the revolution had an objective basis

not subjective ideological basis

objective basis in the situation but my

theory my

my

interpretation of marxism leninism

is that in a sense

all social revolution whether in a

period of wartime occupation by a

foreign power or not

must be a patriotic

because

uh

the objective social revolution which is

the contradiction and antagonism between

establishments aristocrats landowners

and um

basically social parasites right and

this small proprietor peasantry small

petite was

that is an objective revolution that's

not

that does not need to be initiated

through proletarian consciousness you

don't need proletarian consciousness to

have populism so to speak right populism

will be there

so if the communists are not the ones

leading making sense of the populism

then

someone else will fascist will far right

will and so on and so on but the

populism so to speak right which is a

contradiction between the countryside

the

national basis if you will and this

aristocrats and

establishment that's a contradiction

that will be there regardless of uh

ideology it's an objective contradiction

so

that's why during war it's the reason

you me you can interpret uh

it was easy for communists to cease

power after the war

because it was very clear that the

interests of the ruling class were

anti-patriotic right they could clearly

show how to be a true patriot one must

be a

communist right

but my view is simply that this is

holding true even

outside of situation a situation of

wartime occupation it's a patriotic

thing to fight your establishment you

can say

they are removed from the real basis and

roots of the country

uh and they're

urbanized and they're too uh

liberalized and artificial and so on and

so on and that there is an authentic

countryside of the people of the soil

and so on and so on

uh that communists must make sense of

and to me this is what lenin precisely

did in the russian empire right

russia at the time was not occupied by a

foreign power

and

but whether the bolsheviks didn't admit

this and one of the reasons they did not

admit this was because the european

bourgeois nation state did not apply to

the conditions of russia russian people

and russian empire but the bolsheviks

for example in contrast to the

mensheviks were seen as more

patriotic just in the sense of uh more

earthly more related to the russian

peasant more russian more uh

uh

more down to earth down to the soil

right

uh because they uh because they

represented the interests the populist

interests of the this was also coming

from the

socialist revolutionaries and

their tradition as well but

the left socialist revolutionaries are

the ones who joined joined the

bolsheviks in the first place

after

the seizure of power

but

it's always important that communists

must lead

must be the leading force of their own

civilizations inner objective

striving there's an objective striving

objective law of social revolution in

each and every civilization

to me the job of communists is to

lead this but not

not dictate the terms of the revolution

but lead this revolution clarify it

because here's where communism becomes

important to me

is

for example uh dialectics right if one

falls into the error of one-sidedness

you will not be able to successfully

lead a social revolution in your country

trump in the united states failed to

lead uh this social revolution against

or sorry the

popular movement against the

establishment because

well he was in bed with a ruling class

anyway but um

he completely failed he couldn't he

couldn't understand the necessary

contradictions

um

uh for example

that yes while

the

establishment must be overthrown there

must be some kind of alternative and so

on and so on

so to me

communists should make the case that

if right-wing populists and fascists and

so on and so on they're fake patriots

because they will fail they would just

like how in the aftermath of world war

ii if you were a kind of uh

fascist or right winger you're not a

patriot right you're going against the

interests of your own people

just like that

communists should always be the ones to

say

others will fail to lead this

revolution

i think that

in this question of russian revolution

you can be right

but you are not right when you spoke

about lenin i will explain

uh you could be right because

the

february revolution we could consider

like a

revolution which was

a little bit inspired by the patriotism

but because there was all this question

that the monarchy in russia

it was the german monarchy that the

all these

nicolai romano of his wife his wife

when in the time of the world

she became one of the leader of the

russia and because of her romance with

with rasputin and the dynasty german

dynasty in the russia be was something

very unpopular

and the february revolution it was it

was spontaneous movement not organized

by lenny not organized by manchester but

but it was spontaneous movement starting

by the

strike of the woman's which in a few

days became a revolution and the

terrorism was

was destroyed so so in this perspective

where when we have russia russian people

which are

ruled by the german dynasty

and

there was a lot of

hatred against this dynasty

it could be right but the the position

of lenin was different lenin uh in the

first days of the

war uh

he he said that the position of the

russian communist

should be the the our

enemy is the our government we need to

fight that the russian russia in this

war will fail

and also

this this split in the in the government

of the soviets in the time of the of the

treaty of brethren because it was the

question yeah it's it's it's okay

because i'm familiar with the history

right i know this history okay but you

have misunderstood me

so you're talking about the european

inspired nationalism within russia

uh specifically in the context of the

first world war of course lenin is

opposed to this as i said the european

nation state

does not satisfy the real depth and

basis of

the russian civilization

lenin is the february revolution was not

was

more of an urban demand boudoir

revolution right it wasn't

it wasn't the revolution of peace land

and bread now we talk about peace

which was a context of opposing world

war one

uh but what about land and bread well

land and bread is precisely an appeal to

the russian peasant majority within the

russian empire

and this is what the february revolution

was unable to deliver upon the february

revolution

was not

authentically patriotic in the sense of

the russian patriotism of world war ii

because it did not have its basis in the

russian people the real peasants right

it was trying to adopt the foreign model

of the european nation state

and nationalism now linen did not talk

about the deep

roots of russian civilization and so on

and so on because

the language with which to articulate

this did not yet exist

but if we believe that stalin was the

most faithful student of lenin then it's

very clear that the bolsheviks grounding

in the authentically russian

civilization like even before peter the

great as

stalin put it stalin viewed peter the

great as a westernizer a germanizer he

wanted to

in a sense return to

ivan ivan the terrible so stalin did

view there that there was a unique

grounding in a deeper russian

civilization that's not reducible to

european uh

nation state

i need to make it very clear because on

the internet and on twitter there has

been this huge

slander of our position on the question

of patriotism it has nothing to do

with the context of world war one

during world war one the nationalisms of

world war one and this uh so-called

patriotism

was as lenin pointed out a war of the

imperialist bourgeoisie is not just an

ideological talking point it was

objectively the fact it wasn't a

reflection

of some authentic

uh

reality of the country in these

countries it was a war that was started

from the top down right by the

oligarchies and establishments and so on

and so on so it wasn't like a

populist war in a sense right

uh

so i need to make very clear yes lenin

was against what he called the social

patriots and the chauvinists and so on

and so on

but

during that time that was the context of

world war one right

uh in terms of the unique realities of

the russian civilization to be against

that war

was to be a true

patriot in the stalinist sense of the

word right because

uh this war

uh

was initiated started and and

uh fought on the terms of

the europeanized russian elites

at the expense of the broad russian

majority

so i think that's why i need to

intervene and say it's there's a

misunderstanding i of course

lenin was not explicitly some kind of

like particularly some kind of patriot

but as we see from the consequences of

his unique discovery specifically

through the stalin

stalin years leading to the great

patriotic war

he was authentically

a russian marxist in contrast to the

mensheviks and the rest who

were just europeanized

i think that in the question national

question

it was the lenin who learned from

starring that the stalin was the

specialist of the national question

and some the in the from the russian

perspective it is very important to

understand the

difference between the

patriotism of the oppressed nation like

poles like like georgians like

jews and

other nations which was a part of the

russian empire

and the patriotism of the russian which

was and it was uh contradictory that

i think that lenin fought that in the

same time the patriotism of the of the

of the oppressed nation it is something

which is good and the patriotism of

russian it is bad it is reactionary but

that's that's only because and again

during the context of that time

patriotism would mean

war with other countries right

now lenin was trying to say that when an

oppressed nation is fighting a war of

liberation that's different from an

inter-imperialist war

between oppressor imperialist nations so

that's the point he was trying to make

when i say that

every

civilization or nation communists must

be patriotic i'm not saying they must

advocate for wars

i'm saying lenin's position was

authentically patriotic he was against

the war he was fighting for a civil war

all i insist upon is the fact

that the civil war lenin was insisting

to be fought against the bourgeoisie the

landowners

and the

effectively the establishment was an

authentically patriotic struggle it was

a patriotic struggle

uh

waged on behalf of the authentic

representatives of the russian

civilization the russian peasantry the

russian people against an establishment

that ceased to uh

cease to authentically represent it now

this much is made very overtly clear

with mao by the time we arrive at mao

mao zetong right

but it's not yet explicit in lenin

it's

more or less explicit in stalin when he

said that the task of communists

worldwide is to be patriots for their

country

and

seize the majority win

favor of the majority within their

respective countries

but in lenin's time

patriotism as he used it was referring

to the national fervor of waging war or

it wasn't referring to

like a populistic uprising against

establishment that's formulated on

patriotic terms

um

[Music]

it's really as simple as that it's it's

like uh

to me

it's about what is the meaning of

patriotism patriotism does not mean

uh

doesn't mean

patriotism even within oppressor nations

is how you

accentuate

the contradiction within the oppressor

nation itself to me the alternative to

this is a very

vain

condescending hypocritical

and bourgeois moralistic position

according to which

like

people in the oppressor nation must

have guilt and must cease to have pride

and they must kind of um you will never

win you will never win a significant

minority

of people within uh oppressor nations if

you operate under those terms you have

to formulate

that

it is in the authentic interests of the

country

which it is already in the united states

for example

anti-war sentiment is populist even

before communists have to say anything

right why are we going and fighting why

do we have military bases around the

world why do we it's not in the

interests of our country to be a patriot

means to oppose war right in this

country

so

that's really my view

we you there must the marxist

dialectical position

comes with the view and this is my

position

that if you believe your morality is

correct imperialist war is wrong

oppression is wrong

uh

subjugation of others is wrong you not

only must believe it is wrong you also

must believe that in objective material

reality

the forces of laws of history

uh

affirm this

there must be a unity between the

subjective and the objective

if you if you cannot have the faith that

the law of history is behind you and it

is in the objective material interest

of a given country

uh

that's harmonious with your morality

this leads to subjectivism idealism and

ultimately

liberalism

i think that

this position

worked

when

there are the guys like caleb mopping

who in the same time when he wants to

build the communist patriotic movement

he collaborated with countries which are

in the attacked by the united states he

collaborated with russia today

with iran and and countries like this

com

so so i i can i can understand

because you you know the leftist

movement which we try to build in poland

in the last in the last months we

printed one

one leaflet against that occupation

poland by the us army second leaflet was

against the television tefauen which is

a proprietor of discovery also america

also we were against buying buying

u.s tanks abrams so our our fight for

socialism is

is connected with also

anti-imperialism and in the poland's

specific this anti-imperialism it is

anti-american imperialist because we are

very very dependent so so all

you know

one day when when for example there will

be international meeting and there will

be communities from every country and

there will be communities from country

which are occupied by the usa

and they will be not happy when the

communists from usa

came with the flag which they hate

because the the the flag maybe not in

poland because in poland the u.s

soldiers didn't kill anybody but

you know in iran or i don't know other

countries there are a lot of people who

died because of american imperialism

because of sanction and

well to me uh you see i specifically

know about iranian sentiment on this

question

the victims of u.s imperialism don't

care about the flag they care about what

it means and if american patriots are

fighting

in anti-imperialist solidarity with them

and actually i mean what what helps them

better right we winning our country and

putting an end to the

policies and the military aggression or

us abandoning the war and not being able

to make us abandoning the flag and not

being able to make any difference about

the sanctions and so i mean uh there was

many anti-imperialists

who were ecstatic about donald trump

being elected because they thought

that trump would be a new

clean slate

to start new relations with the us and

lift

aggressive sanctions they were wrong but

that's what the impression of many some

countries was of course who does north

korea prefer in power is it trump or

is it biden the american flag

is a symbol of genocide in a sense in

north korea but that doesn't stop them

from being able to prefer trump to biden

because trump

did not want a military solution to the

conflict on the korean peninsula

so

uh now

i don't know which communist parties

directly use the flag of their country i

don't think american communist party

would have to use the flag of united

states in an international meeting of of

communist parties i think it would just

use the flag of its communist party

but the point is to give new meaning to

the flag

not simply

take it's like uh what matters more the

material reality or the ideal symbol

right

for as long as the symbol of american

flag represents american imperialism

okay

but if people are struggling to give it

a different meaning

i don't see what the issue would be now

to clarify my position

i fervently just so there's no confusion

i think polish communists must be more

anti-american they're not anti-american

enough

they need to be

extreme and more like iranian

anti-americans burn the flag and so on

and so on anti-americanism in europe is

good i want to see more anti-americanism

in europe personally i

am happy when i see anti-americanism

in europe and uh throughout the world at

large because when they are burning the

american flag when they're speaking

against america i view them as speaking

against my own ruling class here in the

united states

uh

because it's the ruling class of the

united states which

uh

has its power secured and consolidated

by having its tentacles

across the world its influence in poland

is

is the same as its influence

here right to the extent that it's

powerful in poland our ruling class is

powerful here so if polish patriots are

anti-american

i salute them right i consider them

that's to me true international

solidarity

[Music]

so i understand there can be confusion

when it comes to the use of symbols but

we have to focus on the material reality

of the symbol what does it mean right

american patriots

uh

they may use the american flag but when

they use the american flag they're

sending a different message

their message is basically that we are

the authentic representatives of

american people or we want to be the

authentic representatives

of this country it's history voidborn

donated 20

it's history and it's

uh its

civilization reality and so on and so on

and this has been the position of the

popular front since the 1930s whether

your country's anti-imperialist or not

uh it's a given that communists must be

sorry whether your country is fighting a

war of anti-imperialism or not the only

chance communists have to seize power in

respective countries is to be the best

patriots

but remember patriotism does not mean

uh

[Music]

doing whatever is in the interest of

your ruling class or your establishment

or your government or even doing

what's going to in the short term

increase the standard of living of your

population

it means to in the long term represent

the authentic interests of your country

my view is humanist i think as a

humanist as human beings our interests

are for humanity as a whole right

and human beings have different uh

nations and countries and civilizations

and

each one of those civilizations is based

on our common humanity it's my view

so i would like to ask you i watch your

video about the communist party of the

usa and i can say that the communist

party of poland there are very similar

guys for this from the usa and it is not

compliment so

the question is why the park the the

communist party which before second

world war

was something very strong in usa and

something combative today is something

ridicule and

[Music]

what why

well uh it has to do to me with a

misinterpretation of the theory of the

popular front

so our communist party in the united

states

thinks that

the lesson from the popular front is

that it must tail the democrats because

the democrats

represent the the authentic people

nation and so on and so on

uh

and that popular front means all this

identity politics and this

intersectionality is an anti-marxist

theory that came out of our universities

that this represents popular front

but they don't understand and maybe this

has to do with rejection of mao zeitung

thought or something else but

the communist party in usa doesn't

understand there's a difference between

authentic popular forces

and they represent the apparent

representative of the popular forces the

establishment they don't have a good

theory of uh the conflict between masses

and establishments

is the main issue of uh

so to me for example i agree with theory

theory of the popular front but in the

united states to me this must be the

context of um

the communist party should align itself

with anti-establishment populist forces

like the people's party or other kind of

third party initiative something like

that right

uh it shouldn't be

the fault uh so-called representative

because the so-called representative can

enter into contradiction with

the real uh

masses of course right

uh

it to me it really is

boiled down to this our communist party

is

part of american

establishment it's tied to the corporate

liberal

democrat uh

establishment and it confuses this with

some kind of authentic historical

progress right it's

it's uh

it's too afraid to go down to the soil

of american people and define itself on

this basis because it views

well if

if we

go down to the people

without our political correctness and

our universities and our

cities and establishments all the people

are reactionary the people are ignorant

the people are backward

but

this stems from a lack of uh

it stems from an idealistic bourgeois

kind of view that

they don't have to learn from the people

the people must only learn from them

and also if

for example the people are wrong they

have bad views on abortion and other gay

marriage whatever other kinds of issues

if you are ultimately correct you must

have the internal confidence

that you can persuade them or

uh

put it into terms that

make sense to them the minute you give

up on the people is the minute you

create a completely bankrupt position

of uh bourgeois elitism right

when you say ah there's nothing we can

do the people are backward and we are

correct one cannot be a communist if

they have this view you must do

self-criticism and ask why do i fail to

persuade

the masses

keep having self-criticism until one is

correct don't ever say

just the people are irredeemable and

stupid and we must

strengthen corporate

establishment america and its

anti-democratic

struggle against the people because they

know better you know it's really

disgusting here in the united states

we have silicon valley amazon the

democrats

this new vaccine mandate [ __ ] we

have a crackdown new kind of tyranny

against the majority the popular

majority

uh and the so-called communists are in

favor of it because they think ah the

people are too

stupid and too backward so we have to

trust the elites

elites to do the correct thing

what then is left of the

legacy of the

this is a new kind of fascism it's a new

kind of return of feudalism right

the whole point of democratic

revolutions the bourgeois democratic

revolutions was

a fundamental faith trust in the people

if this is gone

communists in the united states will be

accessories to the rise of some

new politically correct fascism

what is your strategy for the next five

years do you want to build the party or

do you want to present your to election

or

or what or make revolution to me

the com there's only one communist party

in the united states and uh i still want

to struggle using my media platform

uh to seize hegemony over the communist

party

if i fail if we fail to

make inroads into that party

then my theory is the party form itself

of a communist party is obsolete there

should be no there can be no communist

party and we should simply

be in

a populist party like the people's party

and and go from there but i don't

believe that i still believe in party

form but it's almost a theological

question at this point right it's like

with catholicism there is one church

right there can't be multiple churches

protestantism they say no

there can be multiple churches or the

church is inside the heart

so on and so on but i still believe in

one communist party i believe in a

communist party i don't believe i can

make a new party because we have

millions and millions of parties

sorry not millions it's exaggeration but

we have several several several parties

in the united states

uh they're all sect sects right so to me

there's one communist party and

for as long as there's one communist

party

unless the communists see theoretically

we can influence the party we can make

inroads right because

according to its own program and rules

and protocols internally

uh we won't violate the rules by doing

this but if they suddenly

just drastically change

they will be destroying their own party

and i actually think communist party usa

is going to

at this road the people joining it are

going to destroy the party because

you know this

the new idea is that united states

should not be recognized as a country

united states

according to these new people joining

the party is a force of occupation

against the indigenous tribes and

there's no such thing as united states

well the name of the parties the

communist party of usa

so what will become of a party

uh

when it adopts this line that all land

in the usa must be returned

to indigenous uh minority

it's the the party will have no future

right because

the communist party usa can't be the

leader of the indigenous it's the

communist party usa why should

indigenous accept

this party as their leader they won't

right

so

they're leading it down a road of

destruction

is what i see but i want to do my best

to stop that if the party is destroyed

then the goal will then be reconstitute

the communist party some in some kind of

way

and what is your analysis of china dprk

cuba and vietnam

specifically i view china as

the hegelian idea of world spirit the

world spirit shifts to different

countries right hegel in his time

thought germany was the place of the

world spirit right you can maybe say in

20th century america was the world

spirit right it was uh the number one

driving force of modernization

uh in the world it was the leader of the

global market and the global economy and

so on and so on and it was the land of

the future right

but today this has shifted to china

china is today

uh the

site of the world spirit china is um the

future it's not but it's not

it's not the chinese geopolitical

strategy to replace america

as an imperialist power but

to be a guiding force

not using force like

military but

uh just being an objective

example to follow and influence and so

on and so on

uh so to me i don't just see china as a

victim of u.s imperialism i see china as

the future as a growing power of the

future of humankind and

probably the most advanced

civilization

of the world today right so

that's important

uh on the dprk i think dprk has

obviously had many economic problems

because of u.s sanctions in the past two

decades but

to me the dprk is the sole legitimate

bearer of the authentic and independent

korean

civilization so south korea is a colony

of the united states so to me north

korea

uh

contains the history the tradition

the

how should i say the uh

the dormant powers of korean people and

korean civilization so to me

there is a big future ahead for north

korea i have a positive optimistic view

vietnam

i'm not too familiar with vietnam i

heard recent news that

vietnam is working toward

getting closer to solving its diplomatic

issues with china

diplomatically and not

i hope they don't collaborate with

united states against china

any of the disputes going forward i hope

they resolve it in a manner of defeating

of uh

fraternal socialist states be honest i'm

not really familiar with vietnam

finally on the question of cuba

i think cuba is an interesting example

because

cuba uh

is going seems like it's undergoing a

lot of changes but the conservatives

by conservative mean conservative

communists

they are they are getting the upper hand

in cuba now cuba is not

liberalizing it's not becoming

you know uh

how should i say it's not like

it's not going to make concession to the

liberal democracy and liberalism and so

on so it's it's following xi example in

china of doubling down

on its communist

basis and so on and so on so i'm i'm

glad to see this going on for for cuba i

think we have a very paradoxical time

today right

for many decades it was believed that

this authoritarian

sorry communist states will just open up

and that this is the tide of history and

then they will become more liberal more

democratic but now we see with the

era of xi jinping thought

the contrary is true

the tide of history is on the side of

those who have

moved past liberalism have

moved past this and there's a rich

wealth of

uh

development and culture and future

for these countries that are

cultivating their post-liberal identity

cuba communists

china the communists north korea same

thing and so on and so on russia with

i'm not a fan of putin but

me putin is resi somewhat somewhat

resisting uh

the west

and also the communist party in russia i

heard is gaining ground and putin's

scared scared scared of them so that's

good news as well but uh

this post-liberal post-american

specifically post see to me americanism

is globalism americanism is universal

culture universal values human rights so

on and so on

we are moving into a post-american

era and to me american

socialist patriotism is post

geopolitically post-american we must as

american communists focus inward

internally yes we must

uh we must examine and embrace the

indigenous native american they have a

big part to play to shape the identity

of america always have

also the black population hispanic and

so on and so on

but we must focus inward and

arrive at our own unique particular

civilization or identity or something

right

america can no longer be the universal

state we must be just another state

right you have

poland uh you have france you have

germany britain

uh greece whatever

and we must also have america just as

another country no longer as uh

the universal america

yes but

don't you think that

this question about these countries was

the analysis

of the future and

the

reform of deng

was very similar to reform which taken

place in poland few years

earlier in the time of gerek and in

1970s he started to er

to make the the polish economy socialist

economist

was

[Music]

collaborating with the western banks and

western technologies and in the first

years

it provoked

a

big growth of the economy so

1971 72 73 74 the polish economy was

growing very very fast but

in the time of the crisis in 1979

it's it's finished and it was the

first

first crisis in the socialist state

because normally in socialist state the

difference between the economic the the

socialism and capitalism is that because

of the central plan economy in the

socialism there is there are no

something like crisis in poland we have

crisis in 1979

and

a few years later it provoked the

contribution in poland and do you think

that

this

this class of the billions and

millionaires or billionaires which are

now in china

that they also will

try to make revolution or china or maybe

xi jinping

he will make something like stalin in

1929

uh it's interesting so

i don't know too much about the polish

history but to me was not the economic

reform

also correspond to a political

liberalization

oh in poland there was also a very

active the

catholic church movement

so

so we have the catholic church movement

we have the

working strike people who who are

demands in 1980s when they starting to

strike in poland

they wanted the better socialism they

wanted that socialism is socialism not

uh

we the the economy was in crisis yeah

yeah and

there was

and some things was reserved only for

the people from the uh

directors of the parties so workers were

were angry

and these workers were manipulated by

the anti-communists by the church it was

the time when the

polish pope became that that the pope

that paul became a pope so

a lot of people

it was the time of the real

big reaction

in the time of the ideology the the

socialism in 1950s was something popular

in the young polls because

there was a lot of enthusiasm to

rebuilding poland the poland was

destroyed and the young workers

became a member of the workers party and

they

it was

they

they wanted to build something new which

didn't exist before but

the

from the ideological perspective

in 1980s

already socialism is is falling

the party is still in the power but

nobody said about socialism the

legitimization of the party it is

patriotism the

legitimization of the of the opposition

it is anti-communism catholicism

will of usa and

stuff like this but nobody defends

socialist system in 1980s

to me the the central issue as far as i

can see was uh poland did have a

liberalization of economy but

it didn't have its own indigenous

building up of productive forces and

capital so in china

china had

an indigenous basis of

capital accumulation after uh the great

leap forward it separate the peasants

from their means of production

and from this it was able to build up

its own national industrial system

poland when it liberalized its economy

was still relying on foreign loans to

build up its economy but it didn't have

its independent uh

engine engine of the economy it's

independent

uh

national industrial base that can

survive crisis right

so i think there's a lot of differences

between poland and china but granted

there is a kind of class struggle being

waged in china now

now it's not a class struggle of people

clashing on the streets and direct

political conflict but it's an internal

structural reform

and we have seen xi and the communist

party they've been very successful so

it's been one-sided but

if there will be a form of resistance by

a faction

of the chinese ruling class

ruling class you know the people who

have benefited the new class right

uh

if they are going to resist the

structural reform or not i to me is up

and we don't know we don't know

uh they so far have not shown

as far as i can see any major signs but

it's always a possibility

um

xi has tremendous popular support within

china

so i think the future is open but i

i have an optimistic view and want to

have the confidence that

chinese dynasties have lasted uh

hundreds and hundreds of years right

i hope we are out of the 20th century

and into an era in which

it's possible for the first time the

communist party may rule for

uh

thousands of years

you know it may rule for many many

centuries to come

many people speculate china has finally

arrived at its

breaking point but what if china has

gone to a point of

the party has

become harmonious with the chinese

civilization

uh the period of troubles and turmoil is

over right the age of civil wars and

revolutions and so on and so on so i

hope

i hope that's my optimistic view the

communist party will be here to stay for

many many centuries to come

and what do you think about the

populist movement in latin america the

election in peru

in bolivia in venezuela last election in

in

nicaragua an

election in honduras which was few days

ago that

in every of this country the the leftist

40s take power and do you think that

this is this is

something like the social democracy from

europe so then

it will be normal capitalist system but

a little leftist or

you think that it is chance for changing

that

they will

try to

i don't know to

make something

are other than capitalism

to me the most important thing is not

uh

the economic system per se it's you have

one has to have both geopolitical

sociological and um

should i put it kind of uh

civilizational analysis right so to me

geopolitically speaking a difference

with the social demo social democracy is

an umbrella of

us imperialism it's not it doesn't have

in a sovereign basis in its own

countries right

uh

to me this populism within latin america

represents authentic striving to create

sovereign power of latin american power

right sovereign from the united states

sovereign from foreign capital sovereign

from this so to me the the most

important thing is to build independent

industrial and economic base to no

longer be reliant on the united states

now

experimenting with different social

system

is then possible right first you must

win the sovereignty

uh you must win this self-determination

and

win

being able to build a state of your own

people

then you have the freedom to experiment

with different uh social systems right

some countries in latin america want to

experiment with uh bitcoin and so on we

see venezuela has done socialistic

experiments uh of socialistic forms of

ownership and so on and so on but these

are only made possible because they are

representing an indigenous

broader indigenous movement to create

uh the sovereignty of the people in

those countries and the civilization

uh to me the latin american

movements

should not we should not just see the

world ideologically right it's the world

is not an ideological conflict between

different ideologies

it's also a geopolitical and

civilizational

conflict

so we should also view latin american

communism within the context of

the unique latin american civilization

what is latin america what does it

represent what kind of

countries are latin america what

form of state would they have what's

culture what's people and so on and so

on these are very very important to the

questions the communists have been

successful in latin america

because they have been the most

successful as in china as in soviet

union

so on and so on in representing this

right this unique uh reality

so

to me uh latin america is a kind of

mystery to me right because

uh

we don't know what

we don't know

you know there's a word multi-polarity

right each there's different polarities

we don't we haven't seen what the latin

american polarity looks like how to

think about the national question

in latin america so it's a very open

open future

but what i will say is that

a big personal inspiration to me

and my view of things like populism and

so on and so on was chavismo hugo chavez

his movement

to me that was

the first major inspiration from the

real world

in defining my own uh

sense of what socialism or communism uh

is or what it means

and what what is your analysis of the of

this question of identity politics which

is very important now to the left in the

western countries

to me uh it's a complete false it's a

complete

sham not specifically because

it doesn't represent anything real there

is a national question in the united

states obviously with the black

population

and yes there is a lot of derangement

and perversion of the so-called

conservatives

who have a pathology against the sexual

minorities right and we should be

opposed to this

but

to me

the identity politics the number one

problem is

the ideology and practice of

intersectionalism

which uses establishments and academia

and uh politically correct bubbles right

to filter reality in a politically

correct way and

basically gatekeep

movements to me intersectionality this

idea that all

identity struggles are equal with the

class struggle and they have to be

mediated and this is this doesn't allow

any breathing room for

an acknowledgement of organic

spontaneity

of the authentic people in authentic

masses they're trying to create their

own fake people

in place of the real ones right the

communist party hears the same way they

say

ah you know

there's this populism is bad our

populism is better because we are

intersectional but where's your people

it's just you

you know so

we need to have uh we need to recognize

material reality of the people and the

working class comes first

if you believe that your

lgbt and so on and so on is progressive

in the authentic materialist historical

sense then you must have the faith

that

any anti-lgbt sentiments among the

working class

are inauthentic and that they can be

shown or persuaded or guided

to a contrary view than the reaction

review they may have

but you can't dismiss people for having

the reactionary view in the first place

it's up to you to show them why the

reactionary view is wrong if you can't

do that maybe your view is is the

reactionary one and they're correct

uh it's a matter of what do you really

believe here right

so uh to me

uh

i like to look at identity politics

uh

as opposed to viewing it as a matter of

like

we need to

here's the lgbt here's the women here's

the minorities here's i don't like

looking at it this way i like looking at

it in terms of problems right why is

there such a big fuss over lgbt because

in a sense uh the traditional

sorry not traditional a conventional way

that we

uh

culturally relate to sexuality has been

changed right sexuality has

is going through a crisis in general

communists should

just be at peace with that fact we

should be at peace with the fact that uh

with the internet and with mass media

and there's no longer a direct sense of

familiarity in terms of sexuality and so

on so we should just

we should just

be reconciled with that fact instead of

instead of um

focusing so much on

the symptom we should get to the root

cause right

and why it is many people have anti-lgbt

views is because they have a

they're experiencing a turmoil of their

own traditional

sexual norms and so on and so on

we shouldn't

become extreme here and like

embrace this turmoil and say this

turmoil is a good thing we should we

should try to find

a way

to show people they can be at peace with

their traditional

gender and sexual norms while at the

same time

not being threatened by the sexual

minorities so that's my view

okay

maybe do you want to ask something about

poland or france because you know i'm

living in france i'm not living in

poland

i am i am

in poland and me like in thousands of

polls in my generation we emigrated in

the time when the poland began

became a member of the european union so

the

many

people

emigrated because

because

it is easy way to

to change your salary to a little bigger

uh

i guess i would ask among the polish

left sometimes in some ex-communist

states you see a divide you see a more

pro-american left and a more pro-russian

left is this the same in poland or

no it's difficult

it's difficult to say that it is divide

i can say that this divide is the

98 percent is pro american

ah okay so

you

in

in my channel you can find an interview

which i made with matthias piskovsky he

was a leader of the

party is myanna it is change in english

and he tried to build the party which

wanted to

find that polish will not be member of

nato

that the

american will go from poland and he was

arrested he was in prison three years

he was accused that he is a russian spy

and

still he can't

live

leave poland because all the time the

process is

his trial that

three four times a year

they

they are

there are something but uh

so it is very very long procedure it was

in from 19 so from 2016 to

2019

uh he was in jail now he is in his house

but he can't

lift poland

so uh

so

the most of the polius polish left

is the very american so if you

if you

looked the history of the poland

it was the time of the

rule of the social democracy in 2001

2005 when poland sent

polish troops to afghanistan police send

troops to iraq polish

police decided to

build in poland the prison for for cia

and

and poland was also

was active in the uh

in the colored revolution in ukraine in

2004

and so the social polish social

democracy is very very active

in the supporting imperialism

uh all the time they are they are very

active all the time they organize

something again against bialorius

against wukashenko

so we have recitation which party is the

most pro-american one party which is now

in power

pis law and justice and the social

democracy they try to fight

who will be the the the guy who ruling

poland

in the name of the america and because

social democracy

have money because they have structure

so all the medias in in in in poli

leftist medias which of course are very

very weak

my my youtube channel in polish language

is

the same popularity like the social

democracy which is now in parliament

and i i don't have money i don't have

sponsor i don't have money from from

from the state

but

it's a problem because we have

corruption this corruption which existed

in in in democratic party when you have

some lefties who wanted to make a career

and if you want to be published

like a intelligentsia

you have to be

in good relation with

with the

social democracy and social democracy

all the time all the time they support

this imperialist politic of the usa and

when when piskovsky was in prison

everybody were silenced about this today

when assange is in prison everybody is

silenced but when the navalny or

or the

somebody like protest they they speak

about this all the time

uh so uh

as a foreign observer right i i see

parallels with american situation some

in some kind of way

my

my purse view my impression is that a

polish communism revived communist

movement has no future among the

existing polish left at all to me even

polish left may even be a more dangerous

enemy than

the populist right

uh to an extent populist right is

obviously very reactionary vile

dangerous and so on but

to me the most

probably most important and uh

successful position

the polish communists can adopt is

precisely the one that has gotten your i

imagine he may be your comrade in prison

which is probably why he was put in

prison in the first place because it's

such a has so much explosive potential

to start something is a populist polish

patriotism against the eu and that's an

important one too because when economic

crisis comes it's important to blame the

eu eu is important to blame because

eu represents polish

being part of

the polarity of the western european

countries and germany specifically

so against the eu against nato and

against the presence of u.s troops

it may be an unpopular position now but

i think it's a firm position that we'll

be uh able to build some kind of um

some kind of basis it would probably

have to be underground and so on and so

on

but uh

to me you know uh

this kind of um

pro-imperialist left within poland it's

i imagine more urbanized more liberal

more elitist and so on

uh

they are there's a kind of i detect

class struggle going on in poland

between its popular masses

countryside the backward countryside and

so on and so on who may also represent

the legacy of the communist poland

they probably anti-communist but

life was probably a little bit better

under the communism

some some respects

maybe right

life life in the socialist poland was

was much more better than today

that

we had

all this question of the housing of the

of the hospitals of the schools and we

have we have work we have work in poland

now the the problem

i am agree with the question of nato

with the military bases of usa with the

all this western

geopolitic but eu is something different

you it is it is for the polish working

class

it is

for me for example but

people like me in my age there are

thousands the truck drivers in european

union if you go to germany to the

parking in the outer route you will see

that

the half of the trucks this is the

polish trucks

you will go to the construction you will

see that there are a lot of workers from

poland or from romania from

from other other countries so

the

in the same time when the

when the polish government and have a

lot of a lot of wars with the

brussels with the european commission

uh the popularity of staying in in eu in

the polish population is is varied is 70

or 80 percent so today

i

i am against when i am speaking with

comrades of course we are against the

european union but it is not something

when we said publicly yeah yeah fight

for politics because the workers

the

the neighbor of poland is ukraine and

ukraine is not a member of european

union and the

you see that of course

our salaries is the smallest one in

europe

in european union but

in ukraine is is worse than in poland so

i i don't think uh

advocacy for leaving eu would be wise

but maybe

uh

poland has disputes with eu like greece

did on

briefly with series and so on

if

maybe the position should be we deserve

a more fair deal with eu we deserve as

poland

uh more from the eu if you deserve a

better deal and if it gets to the point

of the eu threatens to kick poland out

by that time the pace

you