American Patriotism Dicussion /w Jackson Hinkle, Caleb Maupin, and InfraredShow
2021-09-15
Tags:
""
all right all right i'm ready now
cool um
i'll just i'll start it off with just
myself and then i'll drag you guys in
for the youtube stream for sure for sure
all right everybody what's up welcome
back to the show thank you so much for
joining me here
um this is the dive and it's also haza's
stream as well i guess because i think i
think you guys are able to hear me right
now so um i hope everyone is doing well
it's good it's good to all be here for
this
um
i think most people know why we're here
but i'll just briefly summarize there i
put out a tweet and this isn't a new
thing like patriotic socialism is a very
very old idea and really it's it's
rooted um in the historical practice of
socialism so this is not a new thing but
i put out a tweet that i didn't think
was controversial i said i'm a
marxist-leninist i'm an anti-imperialist
and i'm an american patriot and it
sparked a massive debate debate online
um not just in the united states but
like across many countries
and uh
a lot of people were a lot of people
have already done live streams this week
kind of uh discussing the debate from
the opposite side of the
uh you know political spectrum as far as
this goes and i wanted to bring these
two individuals together
for a conversation
um
about why we all feel
that patriotism
is inherent to the fight for a marxist
line and his future and uh these are two
individuals that i think um
you know are very smart very uh
well-spoken when it comes to this issue
in particular and i think you'll find
their comments um i think you'll find
them very interesting so without further
ado i want to bring them on first we
have caleb maupin um caleb is an
incredible uh political commentator
analyst author he's written numerous
books you can find his work at uh well
you can find on his twitter if you just
look up caleb maupin but i believe it's
calebmaupin.com you can correct me if
i'm wrong yes i see the shake of the
head and then the second individual will
be bringing on is haas from the infrared
show runs a very popular uh twitch
stream and also has a youtube channel
and we've all been doing work together
and i've i've had both of them on my
show before but this is the first time
we're all coming together for a collab
stream which i know a lot of you have
wanted so
uh here you go
the men the myths the legend caleb
maupin
how you guys doing
great good how about you jackson
i'm doing well thank you so much for uh
for being here
you know we didn't really uh we didn't
really like talk too much before as to
like how we wanted to dive into this but
um given that i just kind of gave that
brief summary i maybe maybe each of you
could go one at a time and
caleb maybe you first and uh discuss
your
general thoughts on
the tweet that was um
the tweet that was put out by myself and
the reaction that unfolded well sure um
what immediately comes into my head
many times i have had this image in my
head
you know some average american family
enjoying their afternoon and then
there's a com you know someone's
knocking on the door
opens the door hello i'm from the local
communist organization uh oh okay great
well tell me what your group believes in
uh well we think that everyone in this
town is a dirty rotten euro settler and
your living standard is too high so we
want to drive down your living standard
to make it more fair to people in the
third world um and while we're at it um
we are planning to engage in violence
and property destruction tonight and
tear this town apart light some
buildings on fire um you know you'll
come with us right oh and uh while we're
at it we love drugs we think drugs are
amazing is anyone in your family
addicted to opioids or heroin or
marijuana yet we want to get them
addicted to it because drugs are just
awesome and while we're at it um you
know have any of you considered becoming
sex workers you know i mean you know
prostitution we are all about that that
is our central issue uh so will you sign
up and join our group
now of course i'm being hyperbolic no
one literally does this um and i think
that that is the essence of the problem
that is the essence of the problem right
there because i have done actual
political work i have knocked on
people's doors i have sold people
newspapers and you realize that you know
it seems pretty basic that in politics
the way to get people to support you is
to make the case that you're going to
make their lives better people generally
vote for candidates that they think are
going to improve their lives people
generally support political movements
political ideologies that they feel will
improve their lives
however unfortunately a lot of our
politics on the so-called left has
degenerated not into a program and a
strategy for actually dismantling
imperialism building a socialist world
but rather kind of an identity that
people can buy into they can be on the
internet they can feel really radical
they can be very angry at the society
around them they can give voice to their
their very very very pent up angry
feelings of rage they don't fit in with
the society around them they realize
that there are evil things that go on
and other people don't realize them and
they're frustrated they feel alienated
that's not real politics uh and and look
national chauvinism you know i've heard
that my whole life you know this is the
greatest country in the world you know
and if you so much as ask people like
why is the united states the greatest
country in the world they look at you
and go what you don't think it's the
greatest country in the world you must
be brainwashed everybody knows you know
we all hate that okay we all hate
national chauvinism we all hate jingoism
uh you know we all hate this idea that
the united states is this infallible
country that's never done anything wrong
slavery jim crow segregation murder of
native americans korea vietnam you know
there's been horrendous things that have
gone on in the history of the united
states and we offered no support for
that obviously but while all of those
things were going on while slavery was
going on there were people like matt
turner and harriet tubman and john brown
uh you know when there was exploitation
in the sweatshops you had gus hall uh
you had william z foster you had eugene
debs you had the labor movement you had
people organizing for the rights of
women during the vietnam war you had
people who burned their draft cards and
said hell no we won't go you had people
that ran through the streets of of the
city that i'm in right now in new york
city with the flag of the national
liberation front of vietnam chanting ho
ho ho chi minh the nlf is going to win
and i would argue that the anti-war
activists and the suffragists and the
labor movements and the abolitionists
and the anti-racists are just as much a
part of the history of this country as
are the war makers and the colonizers
and that socialism when it comes to the
united states will be this progressive
current in american history taking power
and mobilizing to dismantle imperialism
build a whole new world uh raise people
out of poverty and build a better life
for people around the world and for
people in this country i think that's a
pretty winning message that i would be
comfortable knocking on somebody's door
with so forgive me if i was a little bit
provocative there but i couldn't resist
no i love it i love it i think that was
very well said and it reminded me of
what michael perenti once said he said
you know this is our country and we have
to fight to take it back so haas
oh and for anyone in the audience let me
know how my mic is people were saying it
was a little bit loud at the start but
has uh your thoughts on the initial
tweet and the and the reaction that um
came after it
yeah i think um
i think we really need to
delve a little deeper in terms of
a caleb is 100 entirely right that they
do have a losing strategy and they have
a strategy of failures basically people
who cannot win the masses and cannot win
in this country
but
a more fundamental problem with leftists
is um
they actually don't
uh
[Music]
care they they say well we don't want to
win we just want to be right and as a
matter of fact winning among the masses
in america would be a bad thing because
the masses in america are a bunch of
settlers
uh upon whom we can only desire um
misfortune and disaster and punishment
divine
retribution for the sins of the fathers
so i think we should walk it back a
little bit and actually um
assess the fundamental controversy from
the standpoint of the history and
experience and theory of marxist
leninism
because it's not just that as kayla
pointed out that the strat
adopting american patriotism is the
winning strategy it's also fundamentally
correct and principally correct from the
standpoint of marxism leninism so
now one of the first ways we can um
ground the controversy is this what is
the soil of socialism or marxism or
communism is this soil the abstraction
of individual morality
set against the world or is it the
actual given majority overwhelming
majority of people that preside and live
within your country
where does socialism become real where
does it become
um relevant what is the the class
struggle is the class struggle and
abstraction of thought or is it
something whose context is inevitably
national and civilizational and so on
and so on now there's the example of
history this controversy actually isn't
being brought up for the first time in
history actually marxism leninism is
what came to define
itself
significantly on this basis of this
precise question what is the real ground
of the class struggle so the first form
of this was when lenin
refused to recognize that the
westernized city elites
in russia were the sole primary
and privileged site of the class
struggle lenin elected to
recognize that the national russian
peasantry
the democratic petty bourgeoisie as he
put it was the site of the fundamental
class differentiations that were only
apparent in the cities the real essence
of those differentiations were happening
in the countryside um
and then
through the course of the experience of
the bolshevik party a term came to be
adopted which was called liquidationism
now liquidationism um was a phenomena
that basically
um
was this
this trend in tendency whether for
coming from the left or from the right
that
when there's a new historical um
situation to just completely basically
abandon the entrenched wisdom
accumulated by the party and its
experience let's just liquidate the
party's program liquefy the party's
tradition and continuity and let's just
start from scratch
the reason i'm bringing that up is
because in the 20s and this actually
forms a significant part of the origins
of
stalin's socialism in one country and
and what we call stalinism itself
was actually happening in the sphere of
aesthetics
so
many of the
more radical um
figures of
[Music]
revolutionary culture within russia
we're pushing for this idea called
proletarian culture prolet cult
and the basic idea was that the old
russian culture was completely stained
by the sins and wrongness of the past
and we need to create a brand new
proletarian culture
and
the
majority of bolsheviks responded to this
prolet cult this this idea that was
being pushed
with the accusation that it was a form
of liquidationism but instead of being a
form of liquidationism against the party
it was a form of liquidationism against
the entrenched experience of history
itself specifically in the form of
russia's national traditions russian
literature and also european literature
and so on and so on so lenin responded
to these people by saying
listen
we need our the russian people to be a
cultured at the bare minimum with the
works of
civilization with all of the treasures
of mankind
from the european enlightenment to
russia's own traditions and so on and so
on we cannot seed russia's national
traditions to the enemy we have to give
them new meaning because we're actually
the ones inheriting them
so they applied this accusation of
liquidationism which was first levied
against
detractors from the party
uh to those people who are trying to
invent a brand new culture
um so i think an important detail here
is the fact that
the past
well and and one last thing i don't mean
to ramble but
the
opponents of american patriotism will
point out well that's very well and fine
um
russia was a real civilization in a real
country that was founded based on some
kind of authentic tradition whereas
america was a kind of settler colony
that was founded on the basis of pure
abstraction right it's the united states
it's the constitution with its negative
rights it doesn't really have a
substantive
reality per se
and and they will say on that basis we
cannot speak uh we cannot apply the same
logic to america
and with that i think one should be very
careful to acknowledge that the same
logic could be applied to communism or
socialism itself communism and socialism
is not readily
um
um
possessed of a substantive content it's
kind of the same way a kind of
abstraction and that's why i think in
countries like the united states
communists not only have to follow the
example of the bolsheviks and of
marxist-leninists in other countries we
should also recognize that communists
are
within the united states uniquely
privileged with the ability to give new
meaning to the uh
so-called american project what was 1776
about what was this
united states
to a point where we should recognize
that
the goal of communism is not only to
give new meaning to those things
but also to inherit them to also succeed
them and
be what they were always meant to be if
that makes sense like represent what the
meaning of uh
1776
and the united states of america is and
as far as substantive cultural and
civilizational realities only then
can the authentic civilizational
realities that encompass the united
states whether it's
the latin
american culture or spanish culture in
the south or indigenous cultures
or black culture or
appellation and the european culture all
of these things can given be given more
authentic
substantive
expression
by a communist-led
united states
because communists are uniquely endowed
with the ability to recognize
that
the abstract formalism of the bourgeois
state of the united states is not enough
to address the deeper you know national
realities and this was the case in the
soviet union and it was the case
wherever communists ruled they were
especially attuned
uh and sensitive to the fact that it's
not enough to declare yourself a
universal
state and a universal party you have to
address the specific national realities
so in no way is acknowledging the
continuity of the united states of
america and seeking hegemony over it
incompatible with recognizing the
specific
national realities or whatever you want
to call them
within america whether it's spanish
indigenous black
or also european
so
can i can i add something
go for it i should have started with
this actually and i i apologize because
my mind slipped but i want to say this
you know when i was in cleveland there
was a local activist named cheryl lesson
and she was a member of the
revolutionary communist party the maoist
group and she went to prison for two
years for lighting an american flag on
fire and that was wrong
and there's been various attempts to
outlaw flag burning in the united states
and i would be the first to protest
against that people have the right to
express themselves in that way and i
will add that the first people to burn
the flag and protest in the united
states were african-americans it was
marcus garvey and while i think that
proletarian patriotism and such is a
very good strategy that we should adopt
i respect the right of any colonized
person and black person a chicano person
any indigenous person to burn the flag
to say that they are not an american to
argue that they need to have their
self-determination and a national
territory and that my belief in
proletarian patriotism as an overall
strategy is not a negation of that in
any conceivable way right and i i and i
and i i want to also talk about how
cheap some of this can be right because
you know i i i support all black
nationalism whether it's you know the
uhuru movement minister farrakhan the
move organization i support all black
nationalism and a lot of the people
criticizing us don't i support all
anti-imperialist states iran venezuela
cuba any country that's fighting for its
independence against imperialism i
support them a lot of people criticizing
us don't and that this you know
demonstration of i hate america i want
nothing to do with america oh look how
revolutionary i am is really fake if you
don't actually support black nationalism
if you don't actually support iran and
cuba and venezuela if you accuse people
who criticize uh the syrian uh the the
syrian anti-syria propaganda about
chemical weapons if you accuse them of
being nazis you have no right to
criticize us on that ground and say
we're pro-imperialist because we won't
we won't tweet you know f the usa on
social media and that it's really it's
really kind of childish to think that
you can make up for not really being
anti-imperialist in your politics by
virtue signaling with this you know this
kind of teenage rebellion verbiage which
is what a lot of this really is um you
know because at the end of the day i
mean support for actual anti-imperialist
forces that's what makes you
anti-imperialist
yeah very good points very good points
um i have a few things i i want to i
want to pick your minds on but the first
one is that and has you kind of brought
this up a little bit is that a lot of
people have been saying like well
you can't be an american patriot because
of reasons x y or z because of
it being a settler colony or b it being
an imperial power the imperial power
right now on the globe and what i think
a lot of people don't understand is that
you know the red lettuce uh brought this
up on their twitter actually i'll put it
up for everyone
um so you can see they said ultras love
to misinterpret revolutionaries russia
was a former imperial empire cuba
venezuela bolivia peru et cetera we're
all settler states and their
revolutionary movements use proletarian
patriotism to rally the masses to form a
worker state but u.s workers can't get
the [Β __Β ] out of here so i'm curious like
whoops i'm curious your thoughts on um
that hypocrisy that we've seen from so
many ultras
just like continuing to tout that line
that like oh you can't be a patriot
because of like this or that reason
but then they go off supporting
socialist causes and the countries that
have a very very not a similar history
but like in the way that they're
pointing out it is a similar history be
it because of it being a settler state
or it being an imperial power so caleb
you want to address that first um sure i
mean if haaz wants to go first since
i've either of you yeah um
uh sure i guess i'll just be a little
bit quick um
so
you know um i think this question this
precise question can be so adequately
addressed
from the perspective of dialectical
materialism again which is within the
arsenal given to marxist leninists now
from the perspective of dialectical
materialism that also entails a unique
view of morality so from the dialectical
materialist perspective
no one is an abstract universal moral
agent devoid of any material or
substantive base for their existence no
one is out here just representing some
kind of you know
some kind of abstract mind floating
above reality so when people
are expressing habits and attitude and
ideologies they are taking as their
bases real material premises and among
those premises are national premises
they're premises uh that belong to one
country it's not a coincidence that so
many leftists are just so uniquely
american it's such a uniquely american
phenomenon
uh to care about jay sakai and all this
kind of stuff and
that's not a coincidence right it's
coming from those real
premises
from the dialectical materialist
perspective the notion
um
that america as a whole can be condemned
on the basis of its immorality as a
whole is an absurdity because morality
belongs to this fear of an agent's
will and intervention in the present
tense here and now right not in the past
but here and now in the present tense
and if
american leftists because uh sorry to
clarify dialectical materialism is a
kind of ontology of reconciliation which
means you cannot say there's a founding
sin of america and then everything
henceforth is sinful at one point you
have to sober up and be able to
reconcile yourself with the fact that
the reality of america has endured it
has endured the test of time it has
become
an irreversible material part of
people's way of life people's uh means
of life and people's uh reality you
cannot
spit on the hand that feeds you and
clothe yourself and feed yourself and
support your entire existence on the
basis of
these material premises and then pretend
that you're completely absolved from
having to engage or confront them in any
kind of way like oh i'm not an american
patriot i'm not an american
even though america is the basis of your
um existence it's the it's the basis of
your reality and it's what's
contextualizing your position in the
first place the dialectical materialist
perspective forces the individual not to
blindly accept everything done in the
name of america or amer the american
government or america's representatives
but just confront your own material
premises own up to them and acknowledge
them that's how i interpreted jackson
street when he said he's an american
patriot he's owning up to the fact that
he is an american he lives in america
and marxism leninism or communism for
him means serving the american people i
don't see what context communism
possibly could have
beyond that it's not a moral
condemnation of the world a little less
the material world it is insight into
material necessity itself that if
america
has been around this long
if the american people have constituted
themselves as such for this long and
you've taken that for granted as the
basis for your existence at what point
do you have to make peace with that
are you going to wage a war against
reality for all eternity until you get
the divine retribution where all of the
settlers are you know
brought to justice by history or some
other stupid thing like
you know and the disgusting hypocrisy is
the fact they talk about and condemn
americans as settlers and say all these
things but then in effect and in
practical reality they end up serving
the aims of the american deep state and
the state department effectively being
tools of american
colonialism or imperialism more than
anyone else as caleb pointed out there's
no one who has had more solidarity with
black national self-determination in the
online ml sphere than caleb there's
nobody who has been more persistently
um
supportive and given solidarity to
anti-imperialist forces globally so we
have to appreciate this irony they are
themselves repeating the path it's like
what you do not
uh what is it you are doomed to that
which you repress you are doomed to
repeat
by isolating themselves from the masses
in the name of this jay sakai [Β __Β ]
whatever they're on they are repeating
the original sin of settler colonialism
they are making themselves
settlers who are fortifying the ramparts
against the masses and creating their
own little pure community set against
the american people so we have to
appreciate that irony they are the most
uniquely
american
phenomena in the world you don't find
leftists in russia and then you know and
even in europe at least when europeans
are not being americanized or elsewhere
or latin america or africa you don't see
them you know expressing these
sentiments it's a uniquely american
phenomenon so sorry for rambling but
well i would like to add that okay first
of all we need to differentiate between
a number of things because as soon as
you say this you can immediately people
start throwing a whole bunch of things
and conflating a whole bunch of things
at you okay patriotism just means loving
the land in which you live wanting life
to get better for the land or country in
which you live patriotism refers
specifically to a country right uh
that's what it means that's all that
patriotism means that's patriotism
nationalism is a different concept
nationalism is loyalty to a nation and
the united states is not a nation it's
not a nation state it's not scotland
it's not france it's not germany uh we
are not you know we don't have the
attributes of a nation here we don't
have a common culture a common
background a common language even so
we're not a nation so you can't be a
nationalist for the united states and on
top of that national chauvinism is the
belief that your nation or your
nationality is superior to other nations
and discriminating against other nations
so when you say you're a patriot you're
not being a nationalist and you're
definitely not being a national
chauvinist you're simply saying you want
a better life and a better future for
the country um and
what is so frustrating is that that
people seem to
argue that oh saying you're a patriotic
american that means blah blah blah blah
blah blah that means oh that you don't
blah blah blah you don't recognize the
country was founded on slavery you don't
and it's like no all that means is we
want a better life for the country and
at the end of the day you can't really
be an american patriot without being an
internationalist if you're really
patriotic to this country you want
imperialism dismantled you want a better
relationship with countries around the
world and an end to the exploitation of
the third world you want global
relations based on win-win cooperation
you want an end to these wars you want
to break up the big corporations that's
really loving america and if you're
truly an internationalist if you truly
want what's good for the world you would
want the united states to move towards
socialism and dismantle imperialism and
so there's no contradiction whatsoever
to truly be patriotic to this country
you must be an internationalist and an
anti-imperialist to truly be an
anti-imperialist and an internationalist
you must be patriotic to this country
there is absolutely no
no uh no confusion there there's no
contradiction between these terms um but
people just continue to to and and this
is a great example of how it's another
example of a very common trend which is
the internalization of our enemy's
narrative um and you know the most
common example of this is the myth of
the 20th century i have heard my whole
life communism failed everywhere it's
ever been tried never had any success
wow you know china is the second largest
economy in the world soviet union
industrialized defeated the nazis cuba's
health care system but oh no it just
failed everywhere it's ever been tried
and you would think when someone becomes
a communist they would be recognizing
that that's not true but they don't i i
hear so many people say oh that's true
but i'm a special kind of communist i
read marx myself and i came like my own
magical theory so i accept your premise
i've just got my own well this is what
we're doing on this thing we're
internalizing our opponents have told us
to be a communist means you're a dirty
rotten unpatriotic enemy of the country
you're a traitor to the country and
we've internalized our enemies narrative
here uh we've internalized this joe
mccarthy had the house un-american
activities committee um you know and and
in the communist party of the united
states which was led by real organizers
like william z foster and eugene debs
and gus hall and bill haywood and others
they went before the house on american
activities committee and they said this
is an un-american committee and they
said we're the real patriots and this
congress is full of fifth columnists who
supported the nazis during world war ii
it's full of poll taxers and racists and
jim crow segregationists who are
depriving people of their civil rights
we're the real americans and you accuse
us of being violent revolutionaries
maybe you've never read the declaration
of independence uh you know that calls
for you know maybe you've never read
thomas jefferson um and they got up
there and they said we are we are not
un-american you are un-american this
committee is un-american and that was
the correct stance to take that you know
that that at the end of the day um
people in the united states are going to
identify as americans um and they're
going to want to make life better in
their country historically the way
communists take power
is not on the basis of their rhetoric
it's not on the basis of their ideology
even it's on the basis of their program
what are you for the bolsheviks were for
peace land and bread and the people of
russia and the surrounding countries
supported them because they thought
peace land and bread would improve the
country right china was for land to the
tiller the communist party was for land
to the tiller land to the peasantry a
new china breaking free from the
imperialists defeating the japanese
invaders well the people of china
supported the communist party because
they thought the program of the
communist party would improve things at
the end of the communist manifesto karl
marx in the second to last paragraph he
says that communists everywhere support
every uprising against the existing
order of things that's every uprising
not just ones that are liberal not just
ones that are politically correct not
just ones that have a good view or a
good demand every uprising but in all of
them they bring forth the property
question the as the leading question so
whenever people are at odds with the
system in the united states whether
they're mad that their taxes are too
high uh whether they're mad about you
know banks foreclosing their homes
whether they're mad about the wars
communist job is to go to them and and
show support for them as as having an
uprising against the system and then
bring forward a program demands
that would challenge the question of
property that would move us towards
socialism that's what our job is and if
we want people to accept our program
they need to understand that the program
will improve their lives i mean it's
just kind of basic right i mean this is
just you know so on the basis of our
program we should be formulating demands
that will improve people's lives when it
comes to the issue of climate change i
have raised fusion city right right now
fusion energy is really the only hope
for getting out of the nightmare of
fossil fuels we're not going to get out
of windmills we're not going to get out
of it with solar panels we need to
construct a global united effort to
defeat fossil fuels to harness the power
of fusion energy
and that is a program build fusion city
an international combined effort with
russia with china with venezuela with
iran india south africa every country in
the world working on fusion energy
combine their efforts build a gigantic
facility in the heartland of the united
states of america to solve the problem
of fossil fuels get us off of fossil
fuels once and for all with fusion
energy make it not a competition between
countries but a global unified effort to
defeat fossil fuels that's a program are
you for it or are you against it well if
you're for it if you're for it we're
gonna have to challenge all kinds of
capitalist power we're gonna have to
push back the power of the fossil fuel
corporations and the big banks and we're
gonna have to team up with the chinese
communists and with russia and with
other countries to do it so are you for
it are you against it well if you're for
it that's a pretty darn patriotic
program isn't it isn't that a pretty
pretty patriotic program uh when it
comes to the issue of immigration right
we talk about the sandino zapata
economic corridor you know there are
there are people piling into the united
states from central america from
guatemala from honduras uh there are
criminal organizations like ms-13 that
have formed there's dead bodies on the
border every day this situation can't
continue right and donald trump and his
big giant wall that's not solving the
problem because that makes those
criminal gangs even stronger people
can't walk across the border they get
smuggled in uh you know the more afraid
immigrant communities are the more we
have ice kicking down doors the more
terrified people are going to be that's
not the solution uh liberals they offer
basically the same thing right it's not
it's not kids in cages now it's children
in facilities that's what it is now uh
but it's the same thing when you get
down to it but we have a solution which
is the sandino zapata economic corridor
the united states and mexico and
nicaragua and china need to team up to
economically develop honduras and
guatemala jobs schools education
hospitals effective teaming up with
communities to fight the narco gangs
there needs to be an emergency program
of economic development for central
america and that would mean jobs in the
southwestern united states in texas new
mexico arizona southern california that
would mean jobs in mexico that would
mean jobs in nicaragua an economic
corridor from the southern united states
all the way down to nicaragua through
central america through mexico that's a
patriotic program that would solve the
crisis of mass migration on the border
the humanitarian issues it would make us
a lot safer it would stop the flow of
drugs into this country that's a real
solution and it's a very patriotic
solution and it's on the basis of
solutions like this that communists take
power and in order to have solutions
that raise the question of property in
order to have those you have to be
patriotic
very well said very well said i'm
curious your thoughts on um
uh there were there was a there was a
stream i think hakeem may have said this
uh and they were talking about this
whole debate the patriotism debate
and
they were discussing the fact that uh
you know america has such a rich history
of imperialism and settler colonialism
um how could anyone
call themselves a patriot when that is
so much of what our history american
history is
and uh you know i would obviously push
back on that and say well
no like there's plenty of history that
should be celebrated right and there's
an active attempt by liberals today to
try and erase that history uh from the
minds of young americans right um
but i'm curious to hear both of your
takes on that because it is you know
that that is a true thing like there has
been a lot of evil that has been done in
the name of the american empire
uh
way way before we were on this planet so
um i look at it and i say you know i
want to celebrate and learn from and
carry on the torch of good that this
country has done and i want to use that
to improve the lives of my fellow
americans
and i want to reject the evil and also
learn from the evil that has been done
in our country's name but reject that
and take this country back um
haas do you want to take a crack at that
yeah i think um again we should probably
this is an issue of um again a very uh
widespread confusion that
self-proclaimed marxist and marxist
lenin have on the question of morality
and morality is something we should take
very seriously
um
because a lot of the mistakes come from
not having a materialist perspective on
the matter now it's undoubtedly true
that there was a unique evil i will
agree there is a unique evil of european
colonialism and specifically the
colonization of america that is not even
comparable to the forms of um
you know um
aggression and uh
you know slavery and so on of the
pre-modern um
status quo so i agree there is a unique
evil of uh this kind of modern european
colonialism no denying that
so it's not that i'm trying to say like
well this is the true for every single
country's past and america is just no
exception no i agree it is a unique evil
the problem is it has already happened
it has already happened
and if we do not believe that this
reality can be reconciled that
we cannot
um
so to speak uh
clean the mess or at least help try to
clean the mess created by the sins of
the forefathers
um
there is no moral position that can
judge
the past
in this way in other words america has
created a mess so to speak right with
americans settle colonialism and the
genocide of indigenous and slavery this
i agree is all a mess created by america
but only as americans can we clean the
mess we created can we address
this original problem we're not going to
address it by turning our backs on this
country and its people and saying
they're all evil and they're condemned
because in effect you are actively
participating in that original evil by
by doing that and saying that if we say
if we take responsibility for those
original crimes
and i agree america must take
responsibility and i'm not speaking in
the form of atoning for its sins
or rectifying the problem but strictly
in the sense yes we have to acknowledge
this is part of the founding of america
we should own up to it and if we cannot
see how
there can be a reconciliation and a
redemption of the american project even
after this you're in no position to
judge it from the perspective of
morality if we don't we can at the same
time own up to this hideous ugly history
and also believe
that
there is a reconciliation of this
history of this original wound that is
to put it in this kind of hegelian way
the wound is reconciled
this very original evil has a deeper
meaning than just you know meaningless
barbarism and it must
amount to something more than that and
communists are uniquely disposed to
being able to allow it to amount to more
than that and i think the form this
takes
is the united states as a
because america as caleb pointed out is
not a nation it's a union state it's a
union state of various different states
and it's um
almost it's in a state that
by the example of um stalin on the
national question is almost completely
uh
devoid of
any specific
national uh particularity when it comes
to the pure form of the state obviously
there are national realities but when it
comes to the united states it is devoid
of any particular specific
uh national content
what is more communist than that
communists need to inherit that
um
and give new meaning to it
uh to this form
uh
and morality cannot be treated as
something where well i may have not been
um around at that time with settler
colonialism but now
i am uniquely able to you know they like
to use this word you're reproducing and
you're reinforcing this settler
colonialism by participating in it by
being a communist and admitting you're a
patriot this is a completely bankrupt uh
mentality it's a completely bankrupt
moral or ethical position
you are already participating it whether
you acknowledge and own up to it or not
unless you want to leave this country
and go live in a different country um
it still forms the basis of your
existence you're doing it either way
right you're not an again you're not an
abstract you know ghost
looking down upon the world you're an
individual who has real material
premises who has real premises in this
reality and in this country
um
so so when people try to treat morality
as like an individual is the ultimate
arbiter of every uh moral reality and
that moral action on part of the
individual will is what defines an
individual's morality well that's not a
materialist perspective a materialist
perspective says you are culpable and
engaging in actions as an individual
whether you attribute them with the
quality of moral will or not as marx
puts it men and women enter into
relations independently of their will
and they are doing it but they don't
know it as marx put it right you're
being an american you just don't know it
and you're not acknowledging it you're
just as your hands are just as dirty as
anyone else it's just that you're a
hypocrite
right
um
so the point is you are not
pure or cleaning your hands or uh
somehow
morally uh
sorry morally
correct by withdrawing from this reality
and saying oh i want to create my own
pure reality this is a false reality
uh this is a complete this this is what
kind of hegel would describe as the
beautiful soul and since dialectical
materialism comes from hegelian
dialectics to put it in english's words
the standpoint of marxism leninism to
reality is that all that is real is
rational
but not without further qualification
the meaning is all that is real is
rational but not everything that is
apparent is necessarily real for example
as mao used to put it american
imperialism
is a paper tiger mao predicted that
american imperialism would collapse
under the weight of its own
contradictions without any moral
intervention on part of americans
whatsoever so marx so being opposed to
imperialism doesn't mean that you're
enacting some kind of you know purely
moral uh
uh you know
prescription and imposing that upon
reality it means you are expressing
insight into material necessity you
recognize that american imperialism and
american racism and all these things
these hinder the forces of production
that are waiting to be unleashed these
hinder the flow of history that is
waiting to be realized and it becomes a
question of time and the point of
communism is to accelerate a process
that is in a sense
uh inevitable and insofar as we're
participating in this reality the only
moral thing to do is be true
to what is already happening and being
unleashed american imperialism will
collapse uh all of the evils of america
that we attribute to america will not
last forever but insofar as we're living
in this world the only will
that can be expressed that can be called
moral is one which acknowledges this and
expounds this insight into action
so that's what i'll say
well i i want to add that you know we
shouldn't accept that all these things
that have gone on in the history of the
united states that were absolutely evil
and wrong
benefited the country um slavery for
example held back the industrialization
and economic development of the united
states um and that was one of the main
motivations for the civil war the
industrial capitalists were furious
about the fact that in the south uh they
maintained an agrarian economy uh
without industrialization and and there
was a clash between the semi-feudal
slave economy of the south and the
rising industrial economy of the north
and if you look at the u.s south the
reason that even today hundreds of years
later it is still poorer than the rest
of the united states it's still largely
agrarian it's still less developed is
because of the legacy of slavery now um
that's not to say that wealthy white
plantation owners didn't benefit from
slavery but if you look at the u.s south
overwhelmingly the majority of the
population uh of white people weren't
benefiting from it um you know black
people certainly weren't benefiting from
it being you know murdered and exploited
and worked to death they weren't
benefiting from it but the majority of
white people weren't benefiting from it
because they had the lowest wages in the
country because they were competing with
people who worked for free uh you know
and and slavery overwhelmingly was bad
for white workers in the south and the
defeat of slavery was a victory for the
u.s economy overall it led to unleashing
industrialization in the country
and this is what w.e.b du bois has
talked about in his history of the
united states and his uh black
reconstruction he makes this point um
and at the time that slavery was going
on uh it was labor unions and those who
fought for the rights of workers that
were the biggest opponents of slavery
for this reason because even if even if
these labor unions were racist they
understood that slavery drove the wages
of workers down it hurt the u.s economy
um so by saying that you know that you
can't be patriotic in the united states
because of slavery the strongest
arguments against slavery at the time
were being made by people who were
arguing in the interests of the united
states and slavery hurt all working
people in the united states so that that
logic just doesn't add up um and you
know and this has been completely eroded
i watched you know john oliver he did
this piece about confederate monuments
and if you watched the piece you would
think that slavery was good for southern
white people it was good for southern
white people they should just feel
guilty about it well that's bullcrap it
wasn't good for southern white people
and the idea that slavery was good for
southern white people is propaganda that
was invented by the democratic party
that was invents gone with the wind
birth of a nation the ku klux klan they
did all this stuff to rewrite history to
convince low-income white people that
they were better off when slavery went
on but that was a big fat lie and
liberals now go around repeating this as
if this is a fact oh yeah well you know
slavery benefited all white people in
the united states and uh but they should
just feel guilty and ashamed of this
that's not actually what went on um and
you know this whole narrative i've often
criticized the book the book to kill a
mockingbird it's a really nice story
it's very touching uh but it has
absolutely nothing to do with the
anti-racist struggles of the 1930s right
it's you know you have this town in the
south and there are these black people
and these black people couldn't possibly
fight for their own rights they're just
helpless victims you know and they're
just these passive helpless victims and
then all the poor white people are a
bunch of rednecks and racists and all
that and the hero is this wealthy white
lawyer with a heart of gold who just
steps in and tries to hold back all
those poor white rednecks from their
racism that's not what happened in the
1930s it takes place in the 1930s before
the second world war in the south at
that time the communist party was going
to the south and building labor unions
of sharecroppers and textile workers of
black and white and gus hall and william
z foster and those folks were going
around the south and they were saying
that
racism and jim crow hurt all working
people and that they needed to build a
fighting labor movement for the rights
of all working people and that jim crow
hurt all workers and that putting the
needs of the black people at the front
of the class struggle was a way to
liberate all workers and it was it was
the the white rednecks who were joining
the same labor unions as the
african-americans and teaming up
together that shut down the state of
south carolina in 1934 and caused the
national guard to be sent in um you know
you read the history of what went on in
alabama go read hammer and hoe by robin
d g kelly and it was it was the white
poor people and the black poor people
standing together and understanding that
racism hurt all workers and then putting
the needs of black
people would lead to the liberation of
all workers that made the wealthy white
lawyers and made the businessmen and the
bankers panic and made them panic and
and push racism and ku klux klan ism
like you wouldn't believe um and also is
part of what motivated roosevelt to pass
his popular reforms to try and calm the
class struggle so that's just you know
that that book to kill a mockingbird
it's not really about the 1930s every
work of art reflects the period in which
it was created not the period in which
it takes place that reflects the mindset
of the civil rights movement
and what was happening during the civil
rights movement was that all over the
world in africa and in asia and latin
america the colonized people were
breaking free and they were breaking
free and the soviet union and china were
the leaders of that global national
liberation struggle and to humiliate the
united states and to expose the
propaganda to the united states they
showed the picture of emmett till's
mutilated body they showed jim crow
segregation and they said the united
states are a bunch of hypocrites they
say they believe in freedom look what
they do to the black people and in
response to that the richest capitalists
in the northern wing of the democratic
party uh like the kennedy family and
others said okay we need to fix this jim
crow problem so we can have better
optics and that's what tequila
mockingbird is really about it was the
rich capitalist of the north saying all
right we're going to go down south can
you guys cut this out we're trying to
make to make him think we're the free
country against the commies that's what
was really going on there and that's
what to kill a mockingbird is really
about okay and this notion that the rich
are the enlightened ones with the good
values and the poor people are all a
bunch of you know racist white trash who
were all in the clan and and the black
people couldn't possibly fight for their
own rights well the only reason there
was a civil rights movement was because
before that there was a black
nationalist movement there was malcolm x
there was the nation of islam and black
nationalism and revolutionary politics
was getting strong that also motivated
the northern wing of the democratic
party to start working with dr martin
luther king jr and others so so this
notion that black people can't fight for
their own rights that's false this
notion that that poor white people are
these racist rednecks that need the rich
people to control them that's false the
whole narrative we have around this is
all false and this feeds into the
mindset a lot of a lot of american
communists the way they see this is that
you know they feel they don't fit in
with this country which i've felt that
way my whole life and and many people
feel alienated especially now with the
economy in crisis a lot of young folks
don't have a decent job and and there's
a lot of social alienation and confusion
and and they don't feel like they fit in
so they they adopt marxism so they can
say i'm the good american all the
americans around me you're evil you're
supporting the empire you're euro
settlers but i discovered the truth of
communism on the internet so i can sit
on the internet and type away and call
people racist and sexist all day and
feel good about myself well that's not
real politics that is not real politics
and that's what like third worldism is
really about right third worldism is a
way
and look labor aristocracy is a real
thing right i mean that there is has
been sections of the us working class
that have benefited from imperialism and
been off bought off by it that's a
reality but the the reality of the
period we're currently living in is the
breakdown of the labor aristocracy those
good paying jobs are gone uh that white
picket fence home that was the staple of
the american dream of the 1950s has been
foreclosed it's boarded up i mean i mean
so to be screaming about labor
aristocracy right now i mean yes in the
50s and 60s and 70s that was a real
barrier to popular organizing now uh you
know average americans are ready to
fight average americans are against the
wars average americans think the
government is working for for someone
else and not them average americans are
are fed up they want jobs they want
health care and education um average
americans are ready to fight back now is
not the time to say they're not ready to
hear it and if you think it's impossible
if you if you are in the mindset that
it's impossible we can never win over
average americans so why even try
stop right i don't take dating advice
from incels okay i don't
i don't take barbecuing advice from
vegans and if you think it's impossible
we can never win the american people to
socialism there is no hope shut up shut
up go learn to play golf you know maybe
go join the alt-right i don't know what
you should do but you shouldn't be a
communist then because communism is
about winning i mean we actually want to
see
imperialism be dismantled we feel we
have an obligation here in the center of
the empire to build an anti-imperialist
working-class movement and if you don't
think that's possible i don't know what
you're doing i don't know why you're
trying to tell me how i should do
something that you don't think is
possible you don't think what i i'm
trying to do is possible and win
americans to anti-imperialism socialism
then don't tell me how to do it because
we're i mean you don't think it's
possible
yeah just one really final thing i don't
mean to it's not going to be long but i
just want to say
yeah the um
you know i think a lot of this really i
don't mean to keep going back to
morality but it's almost like people
just have this crazy
um
cynicism about like oh how could
something be both morally correct and
human and at the same time benefit the
people like how could it be that slavery
is it just a coincidence you're saying
it's a coincidence that slavery just so
happened to harm white people because
they're in this state of frenzied
liberal moralism where they want to feel
like they're in a state of a pure will
divorced from material reality material
reality is completely evil and the only
thing that is within the sphere of good
is your voluntary will right but that's
not a materialist perspective a
materialist perspective reconciles the
will with material reality which means
yes what is ultimately good is what is
good for the people what is ultimately
bad is what is bad for the people this
this is marx's humanism 101 and and marx
only thought the proletariat
was significant because for him the
proletariat was the section of the
people within the in germany and
elsewhere and in england that he thought
represented the future and represented
the fate of all the the majority of the
people in the class he called them the
ingenious soil of the people right so
this idea that oh you're just a
coincidence that how can you say that
imperialism and racism harms the
american people wouldn't it be more
convenient if they actually benefit from
it and that i'm the only moral person
because i'm the one who's in the know
well no that's a completely idealist and
false understanding of morality and
second i just want to leave this on this
i'm not going to go into it but i also
think we should also reevaluate here the
significance of the popular front in
relation to this question of patriotism
because i think
that's where communist parties worldwide
started to really
understand its significance so that's it
yeah um
one thing i've seen brought up by a lot
of
like leftists and not not just like mls
but um left us more broadly that
supports the idea of being like a
patriotic revolutionary is that the most
patriotic stance
on any given issue is to be uh you know
on the left you know if you it's not
patriotic to want to send your brother
your son your daughter whoever into into
imperialist endless wars you know it's
not patriotic to to want to ruin and
destroy this country for the benefit of
the top one tenth of one percent it's
not patriotic to you know allow 68 000
people to die every year because we
don't have basic health insurance
guaranteed as a human right so
um i want to read this this was actually
a tweet that was put out by dc metro cp
usa
um in response everything that was being
uh debated on twitter they said a word
from an elder comrade fidel once uh
fidel castro once told a group of black
nationalists and white students during
the years the black power movement in
vietnam war who did not want to
associate with the usa flag while other
groups from other countries sat next to
theirs
uh
that the u.s flag is can i skip one here
no that the u.s flag is their flag he
then said that they cannot allow the u.s
ruling class to own the flag the working
class of the us must fight for the flag
and once socialism is established it is
up to the workers to decide what they
want to do with the flag in the united
states as it exists
uh they go on here and talk more about
like you know patriotism isn't the same
as nationalism but um you get the you
get the gist there of uh what they were
talking about i'm curious your thoughts
like um
and i think i i haze i think i've seen
you talk about this but do you feel as
though uh you know a communist must be a
patriot a patriot essentially must be
like a communist because of the values
that those two
um you know those two like points of
view hold
yes absolutely i could ramble endlessly
about why this like especially is true
for marxists but i'm not going to
obviously but
like uh
you know you have to understand
something for marx marx arrives at his
humanism and the proletariat in a very
uh beautiful way um
marx was a hegelian and hegel you know
created this kind of um
this system this philosophical system in
which he encompasses all of being
through the mind the mind
and thinking and being really truly
become one in hegel's case so hegel is
just dealing with the pure what is
purely within our ability from the
perspective of thought individual
thought and from that he reconciles all
of reality from the individual
standpoint for marx to turn around and
then say that here in the ingenious soil
of the people like the lowest
denominator the most kind of abandoned
accursed
um
landless and kind of deprived section of
humanity that this actually represents
the point of true dialectical
reconciliation marx was saying
that marx's humanist gesture means that
the highest insights of thought
individual thought and morality and so
on were ultimately united with the
reality of humanity which means
that communism is ultimately about the
people that is what it's about it's not
for an imagined people it's not for a
good people we think of in our head that
doesn't exist in reality it's not for a
different specimen it's for humanity and
specifically it's for the people the
only context and meaning
given to a communist is to serve the
people and the people
obviously subsist in within the context
of a country right a people if there are
a people and not an imagined and
abstract one
have a country and america is a country
with a people right china is a country
with a people russia is a country with
the people there is no meaning to
communism especially from the marxist
perspective without being with serving
and serving the people what the people
are
so patriotism has always just been a
given for communist now there's
confusion because the communist
manifesto famously says the working man
has no country
but you have to understand why they were
saying that because they had predicted
within the communist manifesto that all
distinctions with in terms of borders
and countries were being dissolved by
capitalism right
so
and they also predicted a lot of other
things were being dissolved classes were
being dissolved and they also sorry
families were being dissolved religion
was being dissolved they also predicted
that for the same reason that you know
the revolution was going to emerge in
the advanced countries well after 18 the
revolutions of 48 um and the experience
of history marx and engels you know they
they changed their v their um their
understanding of what
uh of what they were saying in the
manifesto reality had proven them wrong
that the most advanced sections of the
proletariat were not in england by the
end of marx and angles life
they were in uh germany right which was
the most backward
country in europe when they wrote the
communist manifesto and then marx and
engels were anticipating that the
revolution was was going to start in
russia right which was the most backward
of countries um
there so
in essence um
they were
they were proven wrong about all
national distinctions or distinctions
between countries and borders and states
being dissolved
uh for the same reason that they were
they turned out to be wrong about a
great deal many other things but
marxism doesn't mean you elevate every
word written in the communist manifesto
to the status of a dogma i mean yes in
terms of what they were trying to say
they were right right they were right
because the meaning of what they were
saying was
um
no country is eternal no nation is
eternal and they are all subject to an
eternal process of kind of
transformation and that's kind of the
wisdom of what they're trying to say but
um
the the sad thing is is that it's not
it's not like i'm just for the first
time pointing this out i mean marx and
engels themselves basically pointed this
out mark said in the critique of the
gotha program that the proletariat must
take national form it's national
informed class struggle and content
lenin continued this stalin continued
this mao continued so the history is
already there and the reasoning for it
is already there
um
so yes in some in short communists must
be patriots if you're not a patriot
you're not a communist simple as that
[Music]
well i would like to say one thing
because you know viewing this from a
tactical point of view okay
during the vietnam war era uh the united
states in the 50s and 60s up into the
mid 70s had a very booming economy and
there was a very
big industrial working class in the
united states and that industrial
working class saw their living standards
dramatically increase after the second
world war there i mean they were in
depression conditions before the second
world war the 1950s things got way
better and because of that a lot of
workers loyalty to empire was bought and
so the communists in the united states
from the communist party from the
socialist workers party from the workers
world party they had to make a tactical
decision how do we oppose this genocidal
war in vietnam and at first they tried
to oppose that war on the basis of you
know proletarian class struggle don't
fight a boss's war etc um but it didn't
work um but they realized though that a
lot of the people fighting in the
vietnam war uh they were people who had
grown up in this very comfortable middle
class right and that uh going into the
army and fighting a war is not the most
comfortable thing and it's not a lot of
fun and especially if you had more of a
cushy middle-class upbringing that
cannot be particularly good and you know
military discipline is very harsh and
such so the anti-vietnam war movement
over the course of the vietnam war
learned to make kind of a middle-class
pacifist appeal that that was the way to
win americans to oppose the vietnam war
in that time okay and they were right to
do that trying to oppose it on a class
basis when workers had a high standard
of living booming economy wasn't going
to work that was the right thing to do
in those situations but you don't want
to be a general fighting the last war
right the vietnam war ended a really
long time ago after the vietnam war
there was something in the united states
called the new communist movement and
that was the the revolutionary communist
party and the communist workers party in
the october league and other groups and
they went and got jobs in factories
throughout the entire 1970s and tried to
win their co-workers to communism uh you
know sold the newspapers and the plant
and a lot of their co-workers again
there was still a very strong industrial
middle class in the united states a lot
of their co-workers didn't want to hear
it and said go screw yourself you know
go go back to russia yukami or whatever
because there was still a very strong
industrial middle class and then as you
get to the end of the 1970s you had the
first major economic downturn um and so
a lot of the communists thought oh wow
now they're going to listen to us now
there's an economic downturn well no
things have been getting better and
better and better until suddenly they
got worse so of course the reaction of
most of the working class was to get
more conservative and to go you know for
the ronald reagan you had the reagan
reaction but after the reagan reaction
you had a lot of those communists who
had gotten their jobs in factories they
just retreated they said you know what
it can never be done right we tried it
for 10 years uh throughout the course of
the vietnam war protest movement we
learned to make a middle class appeal it
can never be done average americans can
just never be one to socialism well you
know 1978 1980 1981 that was a really
long time ago and conditions have
drastically changed since that time and
lennon very famously said that if the
situation changes in 24 hours the
tactics must also change in 24 hours and
that the left in the united states has
gotten used to operating in a period
where there was enough of the booming
economy enough the solid labor
aristocracy
we assume that we're going to be this
bohemian fringe that the only people are
going to listen to us are college kids
and hippies there might be an alliance
with the black liberation struggle in
the black national movement but for the
most part we're going to be a fringe
element so let's
that is not the way to win we're in a
different period now capitalism is in
crisis the united states is falling
apart interest in socialism is very
widespread across the country we could
actually win now but in order to win
we're going to have to update our
tactics right the new left the vietnam
war the new communist movement of the
70s that's all
a long time ago and we're now faced with
a country full of people that are hungry
full of people that have seen their
relatives locked in jail or died from
opioids full of people who have seen
their relatives shot in afghanistan or
shot in iraq or in syria and they're
tired of it and we need to find out how
to make a populist appeal a populist
appeal that we will fight for you and
again that's not we're going to fight
for you and make the country worse and
tear things apart and light things on
fire and beat people up and and no we're
going to fight for you by making a
better country and that we need to
communicate to them that while we may
not agree with with how the united
states was founded we may not agree with
all the awful things in this united
states we want to make their lives
better we love them and i will also add
this i've made this analogy before but
uh you know in legal terms they talk
about fruit of a poison tree right and
that's the idea that you know if a cop
comes into your house and searches
without a warrant what he finds is not
admissible because the way he acquired
that evidence is was was impure and so
the result is impure it is the fruit of
a poison tree and i've said many times
that the united states as it currently
exists is the fruit of a poison tree it
is tainted by the legacy of slavery and
jim crow and the vietnam war and the
korean war and this extermination of
native americans and the the
exploitation of the chicano people and
the theft of mexico of texas and
california from mexico the united states
is definitely poisoned by all of that
and in the 1950s and 60s despite that
booming economy all of those cars all of
those hula hoops and tv sets and
refrigerators were dripping with blood
and that was the blood of the people
around the world that were being
exploited the blood of the black people
who were suffering under jim crow the
blood of the chicano people the blood of
the indigenous people and that in a lot
of ways the collapse of the united
states that we're watching the gradual
deterioration of the country is very
much the chickens coming home to roost
and we can recognize this none of this
is incompatible with being a patriotic
socialist none of what i'm saying is
contrary to being a patriotic socialist
because one of the most key
things that all progressive forces have
done is they've recognized that what we
are appealing to people to do is to
change we are telling people to change
right we're telling people that the way
we used to function as a society the way
the world works doesn't work anymore
that that we're telling people that that
we have to change and turn things around
and that's that's what communists have
always done wherever they go they go and
they tell people that used to think one
way and used to act one way to act a
different way and now more than ever is
it time to go to the american people and
to say you know the ideology we've been
spoon fed about individualism and
capitalism not gonna work that you know
national chauvinism and jingoism not
gonna work that support for these wars
not gonna work that belief that profits
should come before people and free
markets not gonna work
what are we doing if we are not going to
people who disagree with us and getting
them to change our minds what are we
doing yeah and and
go ahead yeah just really quick um you
know what you said also is i also
think that
this is one of just maybe my view is
that i think this the the communist
party um seriously underappreciated and
did not really learn
the real significance of the popular
front even in the post-war period i
think i think mao actually gave new
significance to the meaning of popular
front in a way that um the soviet
aligned parties did not at at the outset
really accept and i think um
when we look at it from the perspective
of populism
the conservative instincts of american
working class and working people i don't
think are in any way incompatible with a
general um kind of revolutionary or
anti-establishment
rejection of the vietnam war i think
perhaps maybe i i don't know genuinely i
don't know is that
maybe uh communist because the the
theory of the class struggle remember is
institutionalized theory right it's a
specific kind of marxist theory that
only the initiated understand trying to
impose it on reality is not going to
work in that period or
in this period right um
but if they had a kind of more maoist
understanding of the significance of the
popular front and interpreting the
popular front from the perspective of
populism
maybe it could have been possible that
that communists could have led the nixon
reagan
rule a kind of uprising against the
democrats because ultimately let's
remember who started the vietnam war
um
if i remember correctly it was under a
democratic administration right and the
democrats at this time it's very
interesting we're starting to change
their strategy from the working class
americans to appealing to marginal
groups in an alliance with the
professional managerials so i think
communists did have an opportunity
perhaps at this time maybe they couldn't
for for historical reasons but
retrospectively i think from a maoist
perspective
it could have been those reagan
democrats who could have been the base
for a communist anti-war populism
i don't know
a lot of what the fake laugh puts out
these days is just anti-working-class
bigotry i mean you know vosh is a
disgusting creature a rich kid from
beverly hills who thinks average working
class people when they get together and
start organizing for their rights are
scary and authoritarian and it triggers
him and oh my god and that's what all
this equating of communism and fascism
is really about right this is hannah
arendt uh this is the congress for
cultural freedom this is susan sontag
what they really believe it actually
comes from leo strauss the neocon
philosopher which is basically there are
these great people the intellectuals the
philosopher kings who are meant to rule
over all of us and and everything must
be done to protect these people's sacred
right to rule over the rest of us and
whenever you know the rabble start
getting together and demanding their
rights and and mobilizing and building
mass movements and wearing uniforms and
waving flags and making demands whenever
that happens it must be crushed
immediately because that's nazi germany
that's communism that's the labor
movement and they in their minds all
populism is the same fascist right-wing
populism left-wing economic populism is
all the same because it threatens their
ability to rule over the rest of us and
that's what they really think when it
really gets down to it this is neocon
philosophy uh and on the on the right it
manifests itself with you know free
market economics and you know hawkish
foreign policy on the left it manifests
itself and kind of social liberalism and
the belief that average people are
dangerous rednecks who need to be
controlled but at the end of the day
anti-populism is the essence of neocon
philosophy and that's what the synthetic
left believes it's essentially just
politicized anti-populism they are
afraid of the masses of people bosch is
a great example of that i mean he really
just hates working-class people i mean
after january 6th he tweeted out
something to the effect of uh you know
um you know these people can't coexist
with the democratic society either they
get disappeared or we all do right so in
the name of protecting his sacred
freedom to live in beverly hills and
read about anarcho-communism he wants
working-class people who might support
trump to get dragged away in the middle
of the night and taken to guantanamo bay
disappeared we all know what that means
that's what vosh wants but he's
lecturing us about freedom um and this
is the iron the the irony i guess you
could say of of of liberalism is that
liberalism is never afraid to utilize
illiberal institutions to defend itself
um
you know you couldn't have an open
liberal society without an entity like
the us army and do you think the us army
is a free thinking institution that
drill sergeant you know everyone must
think for themselves sir yes sir you
know what is the meaning of truth we
don't know sir yes
i mean the liberalism is the class
privilege of a privileged few right and
it depends on very illiberal
authoritarian institutions to prop it up
okay and they have contempt for these
authoritarian illiberal institutions the
military that goes out you know that
bosh wants to keep in afghanistan that
military is people from red states okay
largely it's people from red states
those people he hates he wants to send
them to afghanistan to go fight for the
women okay you know this is this this is
the irony of the whole thing is that
this is very much a class divide the
synthetic left is the middle class you
know
reviling in contempt for the broad
masses of workers who are going to
mobilize and are going to fight for
their rights um and i would like to see
them fight for their rights on the basis
of a progressive anti-racist
anti-imperialist program um and if
that's not the case uh their alienation
could express itself in a vulgar
right-wing way and i would like to see
that not happen so you know i think
we're on the right path here but i'm
sure you know bosch would disagree
yeah speaking speaking of uh people like
vosh
um
i see like a lot of the i see a lot of
the uh arguments from the other side of
the spectrum on this debate coming from
the same type of people that promote
like like
like very heavily like woke cancel
culture ideology
um
curious your thoughts on on because okay
also like as we discussed earlier being
a patriotic marxist leninist patriotic
communist um that was the norm
historically wherever you saw these
popular movements take place so i'm
curious your thoughts on where uh the
american left
decided to reject that notion that that
should be the norm
and um how it's kind of shifted into
what it is today this like now now it's
like a woke cancel culture and like now
this this you're gonna get canceled if
you say you're a patriot but where did
it begin in american culture because it
wasn't always like this
so uh caleb has like a very in-depth uh
background of knowledge i have a kind of
narrative myself but he wants to go
first and
be sure
well i mean when you talk about i mean i
guess to give expression to what you
were talking about i um
you know i tweeted out it used to be or
i tweeted out that leftists are mad
about wars poverty inequality etc
and it seems that synthetic leftists are
not mad about wars poverty and
inequality they're mad that
working-class people are mad about wars
poverty and inequality in a politically
incorrect way um and that you know
largely if you look at you know if you
look at i remember you know way back
when i was like 19 years old i went to
the u.s social forum which was this left
wing gathering they had in atlanta
georgia they had two of them they had
another one a couple years later in
detroit you know and i have been reading
communist stuff i'm from a small town in
ohio and i went to the u.s social forum
and all the different communists maoist
trotskyist anarchist groups are there
but there were a lot of young folks
there at this u.s social forum who had
piercings uh body piercings and they
worked at
planned parenthood or the aclu
or or students against sweatshops or
some kind of ngo uh and they had
piercings and they were talking this
ideology they didn't sound like anything
i'd ever read in communist theory and it
was about white-skinned privilege and it
was about gender oppression and it was
about about you know intersectionality
and they were talking this totally
different language um and they you know
they were making quite a bit of money at
their you know at their ngo liberal jobs
and you know they they had their nose
piercings and and
it's weird a lot of them had gone to ivy
league schools harvard and yale and
stanford and places like that and i
remember even back then thinking who are
these people why is this isn't the same
thing as communism this isn't what i've
read in william c foster this isn't what
i've read in mao's little red book this
is something different um and what that
ideology is that the ngocialists i like
to call you know or the synthetic left
really uh what they espouse this stuff
started at the elite ivy league schools
and it was really training for the
business class right and it's you know
it's basically that if you you know if
you own a big corporation in the united
states and you go to do business in
africa and you act like a uh
uh a racist [Β __Β ] and and you speak to
people in a condescending way and you
don't acknowledge their culture and
their history
you're not going to do a very good job
and you're going to hurt the image of
the united states around the world and
this was about getting the business
community here in the united states and
getting people from these upper middle
class backgrounds to go to the
developing world and interact with them
in a more kind of polite way and these
ngos were built by the cia and and all
of that and it was about trying to kind
of revamp and reinvent the image of the
united states and the height of that was
the election of barack hussein obama as
president of the united states right we
had an you know a president of the
united states who was not white and had
a muslim middle name and and had gone to
a muslim school how do you think the
arab spring would have gone if george w
bush had been in office during it things
would be very differently but it's only
because barack obama was president of
the united states that the usa was able
to co-opt the arab spring and turn it
into the destruction of libya the most
prosperous country on the african
continent turned into a civil war in
syria the usa was able to hijack the
arab spring because they worked really
hard on tweaking the optics of
imperialism and that's what
intersectionality is and that's what
white skin privilege is this is all just
tweaking the optics of imperialism it is
sensitivity training for the lieutenants
of empire it's go to the developing
world and don't act like an [Β __Β ] and
hire people of different races and hire
people of different different genders
and make sure you're representative and
learn that's all this is it's not
marxism it's not socialism it's not
communism i i think that that needs to
be said now as far as the thing about
the popular front
i i just i can't resist going down this
this rabbit hole because every time i
bring this up some wise guy who thinks
he knows everything he's like really
well read about marxism says oh oh you
want to be a patriotic socialism well
that's called browderism what you're
doing you're reviving earl browder i've
read a book see i know all about this no
you haven't read a book go read william
c foster's history the communist part of
the united states go read the struggle
against revisionism go read the
pamphlets from the anti-browder campaign
earl browder's deviation was not that he
was advocating american patriotism the
whole american communist party did that
for the whole time from the time it was
founded up until that time earl
browder's deviation was that he opposed
strikes he wanted to prolong this the
the wartime strike pledge of world war
ii he didn't want to end it he wanted it
to keep going that he he said that u.s
imperialism was progressive in latin
america he supported american
imperialism against juan peron and and
other nationalist leaders in latin
america he opposed the independence of
puerto rico he said that black people
did not constitute a nation uh earl
browder's deviation and his dissolving
of the communist party and changing it
to the communist political association
was far
far more wide-reaching than just
patriotism yes earl browder was into the
american patriotism thing and that was
part of the way the popular front was
implemented in the united states but any
other communist leader would have done
the same thing and the french communists
did that and the uh you know and the
spanish communists did that during the
spanish civil war and the british
communists did that and that to say that
that is browderism is is just juvenile
and it's just a complete
it's very very naive um and that uh that
you know in many cases you have the
maoist movement they're kind of they're
trying to explain away you know how the
communist party when it was good was
doing things that they say are the
opposite of what they do and so they've
just made earl browder the fall guy for
the policies that were widely practiced
and implemented um and i will add that
you know one writer i really admire and
respect is nelson perry an
african-american communist and nelson
pirie advocates proletarian patriotism
you read his writings he advocates uh
appealing to people on a patriotic basis
african-american communist maoist kicked
out of the communist party during the
1950s went on to form the communist
labor party he very much is an advocate
of proletarian patriotism uh and despite
the fact that he's an advocate of
self-determination for the black belt he
didn't see a contradiction there um and
it's quite interesting because you know
who else was an advocate of this kind of
stuff was the black panthers right go to
listen to the black panthers talk the
black panthers aligned themselves not
only uh with puerto rican organizations
and chicano organizations they align
themselves with with a white
organization called the young patriots
and the young patriots i might add they
did something that i would never do i
think was a big mistake they actually
had the confederate flag as their symbol
now i am opposed to the confederate flag
i think it's an offensive symbol but
they align with a group of young white
people working-class white people from
chicago and appalachia who were
organized and organized fighting
imperialism aligned with the black
panthers and called themselves the young
patriots now could you imagine if we
started a communist group now called the
young patriots i mean we would be
destroyed people would kill us but the
black panthers had no problem aligning
with them because the black panthers
understood that this was going to be on
the basis of a class struggle right um
and that is that is what is completely
missing class struggle politics populism
we are fighting for the broad majority
of american people against a billionaire
monopolist elite that has destroyed this
country economically that sends our
children off to die in wars that is
looting the place that is driving us
into poverty the destiny of the american
people is in solidarity with the people
of the world against the big
corporations and banks and that needs to
be our message it is our job as
communist at the center of the empire to
convince the american people that it is
in their interests to stand against
imperialism if we're not doing that we
are not doing our jobs
um yeah and uh also i wanted to add um
regarding the origins of this current
left
you know it's it's um
i think something happened specifically
in the post-war period in the united
states or maybe even earlier than then
which has a lot to do it's it's a
confusion of marx's theory
where the material class struggle was
confused and kind of conflated with
something that really belonged to this
fear of information and media theory
prop proper so you have this distinction
between the material objectivity of the
class struggle and the manner by which
the knowledge of the class struggle is
disseminated right the consciousness of
the class struggle right these are two
crucial distinctions that i think may
have been taken for granted
um
at a certain point uh the united states
became more of a kind of economy of
signals and information and mass media
and you know there was an increasing
increased level of what they call
marxism socialization which basically
means
um you had this kind of um
economization of spheres of life that
previously weren't like communities and
cities and things like that
and this gave rise to the emergence of a
specific class
of
how should i put it an institutionalized
class of the american which was an arm
of the american let's say deep state
whatever the deep state was at that time
um and these institutions also fostered
a specific and unique view of
their relationship to the american
people which was one of social
engineering um
so the kind of post-new deal and new
deal social engineers
and kind of technocrats
increasingly adopted a perspective of
what is rationally contrived within an
institutional setting versus the actual
material reality of the people this was
like their primary contradiction they
were trying to overcome
um and also not just rationally
contrived but like what is the site of
the free use of
moral and intellectual and philosophical
whatever thought
um
now when the vietnam war came i think
this was a crucial period um
the progressive forces struggled with uh
developing and cultivating a basis for
the opposition toward the war that was
beyond mere
individual morality
we could clearly see this was an immoral
war i mean that's very much clear to
everyone i'm not denying that but
morality is not enough to um
enough to convince the masses to win the
masses right
uh unless we're speaking about the
middle classes who you know have the
kind of
free time to be moral
contemplate and care about these kind of
a cultured moral issues
so
increasingly i'm skipping a lot of stuff
but increasingly leftism had to become
associated with
middle-class moralism and hyper
reflexive which basically means
um based it was no longer something
forged in the kind of material senses of
the american people they're kind of
intuitions and so on it was a refor
force from the perspective of reflexive
institutions
um
this inevitably uh corresponded with the
fact that leftists increasingly had to
align themselves with democrats because
all expressions of reactionary
tendencies were obviously coming from
the rule america and the working class
with their conservative instincts
um leftists didn't recognize that
if
if communists do not lead the rural
working class reactionary elements will
be the spontaneous form of uh socialism
right marx and engels talk about
reactionary socialism feudal socialism
and this is what we were starting to see
with the reactionary populism uh in the
postwar period i would even argue to an
extent maybe this was some of the basis
of mccarthyism and that you know the
john birch society and all this kind of
stuff
right so
um
i think there was a kind of confusion of
the meaning of the popular front where
communists believe the popular front
means you stand behind the institutions
that represent the people and you don't
create an alternative organ for
representing the people like
that we have to rally behind the
democrats because they represent the
popular elements well actually no they
don't represent the popular elements of
america at least
by the time of the counterculture they
stop doing that they're on their way to
stop doing that
they represented uh
a representation of the popular
interests of america which is a very
crucial distinction
um
but at a certain point
the american left and communists as a
whole
faced with the inability to transmute
the consciousness of the class struggle
and the precepts of communism and
marxism the only way they could kind of
spread this ideology was within an
institutional setting where people take
thoughts and theories as the premise of
their daily lives like who is going to
take as the premise of their daily lives
uh ideologies right it's going to be
people who exist within institutional
settings who make their daily bread
being paid to spread ideas and write and
read and research and things like that
um and also to to be part of uh
scala pointed out ngos
social engineers activist groups and
these kind of interests corporate and
business
culture interests so there was this
inability to understand that the
consciousness of the class struggle is
not the same thing as the actual
essential site of the class struggle
like it's one thing to know what class
struggle is it's another thing
um
to recognize where it actually is
happening in reality
and
it's in my view marxist and marxist
lenin is within america even marxist
leninist i mean this is especially true
for the the more extreme ones like
maoists
those type of people they completely
lost the ability uh to to make this
distinction so when they would go to the
workers for example or working class
people with their special ideology and
ideas and workers just flat out reject
this they would go this is proof that
these are a reactionary class they're
not
they're not accepting my special theory
in ideology
but your special theory in etiology has
no content you're not making a concrete
analysis of a concrete situation when
you're speaking to people about marxism
in the class struggle that they're just
going to see you as an academic and an
intellectual who's coming from the
universities trying to socially engineer
their lives but if you expound the
insights of marxism into
a concrete analysis and specifically
from the perspective of media and
information theory
a concrete understanding of what the
real content of america's working class
interests are you will be able to
scientifically arrive at a message that
does resonate with america's working
people and which does allow communists
to really lead
as a popular force and not a force
confined to institutions
or mar the marginal fringe right of
people with piercings and
this crazy kind of stuff
so
to me i think
we require a comprehensive
re-evaluation of uh the post-war period
specifically
um
because i think
especially around the sino-soviet
conflict a really big air of confusion
and uncertainty was thrusted upon
communists within the west and within
america that i don't think has has been
resolved uh as of yet
so we must have a comprehensive
reevaluation and that's why i also say
you know speaking in regards to existing
parties like the communist party
they must they should re-evaluate the
significance of the popular front right
uh maybe
the popular prompt was the correct
strategy right in the 30s and so on but
what does it mean to be faithful to that
strategy of the popular front does it
mean
uh trailing behind the democrats or
might it mean
forming alliances with new third-party
initiatives like the people's party and
and things like that so i think that is
really the crucial question when it
comes to what are the origins of this
kind of synthetic fake
um left which is really a bourgeois
a force of bourgeois consciousness and
culture
and how can communists overcome the
mistake of having fallen into the trap
of
aligning themselves with it in the first
place
um
caleb do you have time for one more
question i don't want to keep you too
long sure i know hazel will probably be
streaming all night but
um i this is actually a question for the
both of you uh from a super chatter uh
chaya who asks i don't know if you've
read the book i know you're familiar
with uh their ideas but they said what's
the biggest thing jay sakai gets wrong
in his settlers book
well for me i would say that he takes
a
problem in us society is very real and
he
makes it something
that therefore leads to the conclusion
that it is never possible that we could
have socialism right he takes
he takes some very very very true things
and there is some misrepresentation in
the book he
misquotes william z foster intentionally
uh distorts what william c foster is
saying at one point to make the gliac
foster look deeply insensitive and
racist when if you read the context of
the paragraph he was clearly not saying
what he says and it's a it's it's a book
that is is problematic in many ways but
the main thing is it points to true
things there is racism among the white
working class of the united states there
is a history of settler colonialism and
and you know what you can call settler
populism with andrew jackson and other
things is very problematic however
the world is constantly changing a does
not equal a
tomorrow is not the same as today and
the world is constantly in flux and for
him to take that you know the arguments
that he makes there basically lead to
the conclusion that it's hopeless that
you can't do anything that there is no
hope um and
i must say you know who is jay sakai
nobody knows it's just there's some
interviews on the internet there's some
articles that have been posted around
very mysterious that book is from the
1980s it's been floating around there
was this weird like very secretive
communist group for a while called mim
or the maoist internationalist movement
that was like you know circulating that
book among prisoners uh throughout the
90s and and such and that book is a very
strange book it kind of
kind of appeared out of nowhere the
author is he still alive is he still
writing stuff there's a couple articles
there's some like interviews where you
can hear his voice that's it no one
knows who he is no one knows where he
came from that book is everywhere and
anarchists mind you the same kind of
people who think that anyone who admires
mao is the same as a neo-nazi anyone who
admires stalin as a neo-nazi are
printing this book by this so-called
maoist and circulating it around because
it's just so important that we get
people to understand that there's no
hope for revolution in the united states
because all the white people are
inherently evil euro settlers very
mysterious right and look let's be real
okay
i don't want to be paranoid and i'm not
leveling any allegations i just want to
say that if i was the u.s government i
would want every communist in the united
states to get settlers shoved down their
throat it's the best thing you could
give to a communist in the united states
you want to convince people that there's
no hope don't go out and organize don't
build a revolutionary movement that's
the book to read it is the most
demoralizing it is the most effective
piece of propaganda
and the fact that no one really knows
who the author is the fact that people
who hate communists people who advocate
violence against communists the antifa
anarchist crowd you know are
distributing that book even though they
hate in theory they hate the people who
wrote it uh you know the fact that that
book is everywhere you can't go to any
communist space communism read it
everywhere this book is and it leads you
to the conclusion that there's no hope
you shouldn't do anything
very mysterious very very mysterious
right and that you know the us
government goes all over the world
carrying out all kinds of psychological
operations and disinformation campaigns
to try and prevent communist revolutions
do you think that they wouldn't take big
efforts to try and control the left in
the united states and again i saw that
book floating around among prisoners
when i was doing prison activism in ohio
it was very weird and people didn't know
where it came from and the group mim the
maoist internationalist movement was
distributing it it was founded by a guy
named henry park who mysteriously died
and he had some kind of psychological
breakdown and no one ever saw him either
you would just see his newspaper left
around places very shady history there
with that book very shady history i
don't know what's what's happened maybe
the documents will be released 50 years
from now i'm very very very suspicious
of that book i must say i am highly
suspicious of it and when someone showed
me i mean i admire william z foster he's
probably the greatest communist in
american history and when someone showed
me how intentionally they lied to make
it look like he was being blatantly
racist when if you read the full
paragraph he was saying pretty much the
exact opposite of what they quoted him
as saying at that point i was just
shocked i mean that's the work uh it
struck me as as this is not coming from
a good place this isn't a communist
who's just frustrated with the white
working class and has come to some
negative conclusions this is there's a
sinister agenda here at work there's
people being manipulated i i have very
negative feelings about that book and
the role that it's played and i must add
my final thought i'm a little
long-winded tonight but
i have you ever noticed that it seems
like all the third world is for the most
part are white
like it's the weirdest thing you know i
i've met so many communists of color
that are african-american or latino or
whatever and they seem to have no
problem having white workers and black
workers stand arm in arm and they you
know but it's this white it and it tends
to be white people from like upper
middle class backgrounds who are the
ones that are most attracted to this
idea that that you know white people are
inherently reactionary and stuff you
would think it would be people of color
that would come to this conclusion based
on the racism they've experienced but
it's actually a very middle-class thing
you know and before it was put into
words with settlers and stuff like that
the weathermen the weather underground
this was their excuse for doing their
bombing campaign their ultra-left
adventurous bombing campaigns they said
oh you know the white people are all
pigs they're all bought off you know
they're not hip and revolutionary and
you know the white youth must choose
size now and and all this look at who
the weathermen were right look at who
the weathermen were right you know i
mean bill ayers you know the bill ayers
who was later became a he's just a
democrat now a friend of barack obama
but he was this big weather underground
bombing guy his family they are the
richest family in chicago he's
you want to talk about a family that
comes from money bernadine dorn
very very wealthy mark rudd
very very wealthy background these are
not working class people who got
frustrated with the other workers this
is very much a kind of upper middle
class deviation uh to add to the
mysteriousness of that book in
particular so again anti-populism is
toxic get rid of anti-populism that's
the neocons that's leo strauss that's
the congress for cultural freedom hannah
aren't susan sontag irving crystal cia
money this is not our movement communism
has been a popular movement fighting for
the people against empire
yeah the way i would put it um the way
i'd have to put it is basically um
so jay sakai he talks about he's going
into the real dirty history of the
origins of the american people and
settlers all this thing leaving that
aside for one quick second it's really
interesting how at the same time that
jay sakai is engaging in this kind of
historical reductionism and all this
kind of stuff he treats himself as a
free rational agent completely talking
from the abyss and from the aether
jaisakai doesn't believe
that ideological and intellectual
reflexivity has a material basis if he
did believe that he would recognize that
the ability to be given this insight
this consciousness he's trying to foster
right that rests on the basis of a
specific not only a specific class but a
specific people there's only a specific
type of people
as a general trend who are soaking this
stuff up and as kayla pointed it out
it's majority white leftist it's white
people white leftists who see this hyper
criticism and hyper reflexivity as a way
of avoiding
the material premises of
i guess their own people which is the
working class if they can estrange
themselves from the working class they
can maintain their comfortable class
position as purely institutional and
purely reflexive classes without ever
being forced to confront their real
material the real material basis of
their class like it is the sweat and
labor of america's working people that
feeds academics and
professional managerials and
institutionalized people and by cutting
themselves off from the popular majority
in the broad strata they are cutting um
they are cutting off the possibility of
their privileged social position ever
being threatened
they always are hyper critical against
white people and all this stuff because
what they're basically saying is we are
the real white white people in charge
like they have a monopoly on being
the preeminent uh
white people in power basically they
they have this issue with um
america's working class like you know
during the new deal when fdr he brought
down farmers from texas he brought up
farmers from texas and he gave him
positions in government right
um people who don't they want to prevent
america's working people the rural
people from having any of the
opportunities because at the end of the
day this is a very mediocre
class of people who are just not
talented not very bright not very
original not very creative and
nothing would eliminate their class
basis more than opening the gatekeeping
ramparts and allowing in some real
genuine and authentic
uh talent and intelligence and
creativity to pour in from the popular
majority so this is kind of a very
common theme throughout the history of
kind of elites trying to
you know be more morally pure than than
masses right it's a form of gatekeeping
basically and another thing too is that
um
you know what jay sakai gets especially
wrong his whole entire idea of settlers
is wrong because lenin already pointed
out that there is no pure proletariat a
proletariat is always entwined with a
democratic petty bourgeoisie you won't
you know the proletarianization is when
you are stripped of all land and you
have nothing to salvate your labor
historically speaking
this was never a permanent phrase
there's always some kind of return to
some kind of stability um when during
the russians during the war and in the
crisis in the russian empire the factory
proletariat went and returned to
cultivate their landed plots that they
had in the country right there's always
this kind of duality of the proletariat
on the one hand in this kind of
peasantry on the other hand that manages
to persist even beyond
the agricultural peasantry we have the
case of the middle class so-called
middle class the post-war baby boomers
who had their
suburban homes and their white picket
fences and cars
um
and the same is true for the period of
the 19th century you had
uh settlers right who had their own plot
marx also described them in capital um
they were able to subsist on the basis
of their own kind of private property
who at the same time were being subject
to proletarianization now sakai
dismisses this class as a bunch of
immoral settlers stealing indigenous
land but that's not the only thing that
defined this specific class would also
define this
specific class was as marx was
describing their means of subsistence
right and which also made them the base
of not only the jacksonian
populism which of course had many
problematic racist and also uh so on
problems but also
phenomenal like the farmer's alliance
and the pn which would become the
people's party which cemented an
alliance between
the so-called settlers relevant to
jaisakai small white farmers and also
black republicans who also had their own
small farms
and wanted to
create a movement
to build infrastructure and and
to get off the gold standard and things
like that which would benefit the
overall majority of america's people
so
sakai basically commits the error of
saying because they are settlers who in
effect
often participated in the wholesale
theft of indigenous land
um that this means that's all they were
and that's that's what you can reduce
the entire genesis of the american
people too when in fact that's a detail
in an aspect but it's not actually what
primarily defined the genesis
of what we call the american people
proper it's a horrible aspect and a
horrible fact of the history but to
reduce it to that is to um
refuse to engage in a materialist
analysis of
what this how this class actually was uh
reproducing itself and constituting
itself materially so that's my criticism
of sakai
can i make your website quick yeah
okay um you know we published at the
center for political innovation our
textbook it's called we are city
builders uh the
center for political innovation
educational manual and we included in it
a very important uh piece called talk on
the question of philosophy by mao
zeitung and it is one of the rare
examples of mao kind of off script where
it's a transcript of mao speaking to a
group of college students about
philosophy uh and i included it and the
reason i included it is because if you
read that speech talk on the question of
philosophy mount zee tongue 1964 that's
who mao really was mal was a mass
organizer mao knew how to talk to people
mao told jokes mao told stories mao knew
how to interact with people he begins
that speech by telling the the young
people there he says go to the
countryside that's where you're going to
get your real education is by being
among the people and that's what
communists need to do uh if you can go
to the people if you can start pushing
revolutionary ideas you can start
building organizations you will break
out of this internet edgelord culture
and you'll understand why proletarian
patriotism is not a bad thing if done in
a rational anti-imperialist anti-racist
way
learning comes from the masses from the
masses to the masses the revolutionaries
are the fish and the masses are the
water that's what what mountain said
that's the approach that we need to have
from the masses to the masses leading
while learning learning while leaving if
we can develop that kind of approach of
approach we can develop a mass line that
will eventually lead to the overturning
of capitalism in the united states by
building a mass movement of working
people
very well said um
thank you both so much for your time i
don't want to hold you any longer i know
we've been talking for a while but i
feel like we hit
a lot of really good topics i feel like
we hammered out this uh you know this
debate from a you know side that hasn't
been discussed too much online yet um
but i feel like it's very well
represented i mean
if you guys saw the breakdown of the
tweet that i initially sent out it i
mean it was kind of split 50 50 to be
honest which i didn't initially think it
was going to be controversial but it was
and then i was actually kind of
surprised at how split things were so
um
hopefully if there were people on that
side of the spectrum that were thinking
you know you can't be a patriot in a
marxist londoness and an
anti-imperialist all at the same time
maybe now if they've watched this
either in this live stream or if someone
else is reacting to this further down
the line
you will understand that yes it is very
possible and actually it is
the only correct stance to have when you
look at the values of what being a
patriot really means so um thank you
again uh i've included links to both of
your channels twitter's um in the pinned
comment on this chat so if anyone in
watching wants to go follow go do so and
i encourage you to do so
do you have any last words or where
people can follow you and find you
i will just say we need a government of
action that will fight for working
families and that will lead us
eventually to the development of
socialism with american characteristics
the kind of socialism that works in
china is called socialism with chinese
characteristics it is uniquely applied
to china's conditions and when socialism
comes to the united states it will be a
socialism with american characteristics
i'm not sure what those american
characteristics will be and that will be
developed in the course of building a
mass movement and in the course of
struggle but it will be a unique brand
of socialism and if you don't recognize
that you're clueless
cause
um i guess i will just leave something
that might be a little controversial but
it's just my personal uh opinion
i really see great value in the
communist party of the usa i disagree
greatly with the
the strategy they have taken for a very
long time but this is a party that's
over a hundred years old it's tried and
tested against every form of ultra left
fanaticism and infantilism
and
i while there i think
it requires a comprehensive reevaluation
and internal criticism
i really think that it can be a platform
for american communists to congregate
around
um
because it is the communist party in my
view it is the original america
communist party of the usa
and uh
i i've i view it may perhaps i could be
wrong i'm willing to be proven wrong but
i i do see a future in it um
as far as like
potential is concerned so i guess i'll
just
say that i don't know
but yeah
cool well uh thank you so much for uh
coming on and
i think everyone from what i've seen in
the chat really enjoyed this so uh
hopefully it's not the last time you're
both always of course welcome back on
and i look forward to building this with
all of you thank you so much yeah
all right
i'll catch you guys later