Haz vs Dylan Blay | Politically Provoked Debate
2021-08-26
Tags:
""
hey guys welcome to politically provoked
an interactive podcast where we host
debates panels and interviews this is
your first time joining us don't forget
to hit that subscribe button as well as
notification bell to keep up to date
with all our future debates and panels
we are primarily on youtube but you can
find us on facebook twitter twitch
discord bit shoot dick talk and
instagram all the information is in the
banner below we also have a link to you
can find the description or you can just
search politically provoked and we
should pop right up we are a neutral
ground where people from across the
political spectrum can either duke it
out in a debate or just have a casual
discussion in one of our panels either
way we try to represent both left and
right wing views on every episode so i'm
your host brittany and this is my
co-host todd how are you doing great
great
doing good good good all right so yeah
we are pretty late um but we are here so
we are going to be debating vanguardism
and reform and i don't know what it is
actually i'm going to let uh let dylan
talk about what what the topic is
they're okay
do i just give my little introduction as
for you just introduce yourself tell
people where you lie on the political
spectrum and where people can find you
all right i'm dylan on the political
spectrum i'd be far left i'm a
councilist and moreover left com
you can find me in the discord you can
find me on spotify at dillon blay
instagram at dillon blaine underscore
um yeah generally speaking i'm taking a
super reformist approach and
an anti-vanguard approach tonight all
right
all right next up is oz welcome
hey what's up
better late than never um yeah so you
want to introduce yourself tell people
where you lie on the political spectrum
and where people can find you yeah i'm
haz
i'm a marxist leninist
and uh i was interested in left
communism when i was 14 years old like
10 years ago so there's a yeah okay
great um all right so here's what we're
going to do each person can give an
opening statement can be as little as
one minute no longer than five about the
topic and your stance after that will
open up the floor to those watching if
you have any questions tag politically
provoked who your question is addressed
to we will jot them down and get to them
at the end we'll do closing statements
and final thoughts after the q a so
dylan
let's get going with their opening all
right
so today i'm here to discuss with my
opponent the practicality of reforms in
revolution i'll also be representing a
more bernsteinist reformist approach to
achieving socialism
i think personally the marxist leninist
approach to socialism bears no practical
value in the context of 21st century
america and many of the political
strategies that come with leninist
philosophy such as vanguardism are
obsolete especially now considering the
power exerted by the bourgeois
many historians agree that leninism has
the logical conclusion as well of
stalinism and although i'm not an
orthodox marxist my ideal outcome in my
opinion is the closest one one can get
to the marxist definition of communism
okay
um
yeah my position is basically that
um there's no such thing as marxism
without marxism leninism it's a complete
absurdity the only reason anyone cares
about marxism is because at one point in
history 25 percent of the world's
population
lived under marxist leninist governments
and that is that those that's actually
the people who made marxism actually
relevant and mean something uh
hundreds of years
not hundreds but you know
a century and a half after marx died and
now the most powerful country on earth
with over a billion people
uh the ascendant power i should say the
soon-to-be most powerful country on
earth is led by a marxist leninist party
now there's a lot of claims
uh that are being made about
so-called leninist theories of
vanguardism
which doesn't make any sense to me as
someone who actually knows the history
uh
let you will not find these these
phrases in lenin's writings is a truism
for all marxists in lenin's time that
the proletariat can only fulfill its
interests through an independent party
um this was true for the european social
democrats at the time
uh it only stopped being true possibly
uh during the period of uh
the so-called left communists
which emerged around the time after this
first world war
as a reaction to the decay of western
social democracy
um
finally
i would like to challenge dylan as to
where in marx's writings does marx
define communism
as a
you know a certain type of
society with x and y characteristics as
far as i know as someone who's actually
read marx himself
and not uh twitter leftists mark said
by communism we mean the real movement
which sublates the present state of
things
he was pretty blunt about the fact that
there's no blueprint for communism
there's no
idealized vision for what a communist
society is supposed to be
um i mean this much is evident in both
marx and engles writings consistently so
i'm not really sure where he's getting
this idea of uh
you know an end goal of communism from
so i guess we're opening up the floor
here right
basically the definition i'm trying to
achieve is the you know i'm sure you've
heard this one countless times it's the
stateless classless money-less society
right
and in a sense i'd argue that i'm more
of a revisionist than anything so the
goal is to try and get to that
definition whether it was written by
marks or not i really don't give a [Β __Β ]
however that being said i think that's
the ideal outcome considering there is
value to statements like the workers
should own the means of production and
we should have a dictatorship of the
proletariat
so
really what i'm trying to get at here is
that it doesn't matter to me what marx
wrote however whatever marx wrote did
lay down the groundwork for the ideas
that i'm basically espousing today and
how was that people misinterpreted it or
not okay how is that how did marx lay
the foundation for your ideas go ahead
okay
so i guess you can look at like uh well
i think certain ideas perpetuate you
know uh
this very pro-working-class set of
ideologies right like when we look at
the labor theory of value something like
that is absolutely something that was
invented by the classical political
economist and not marx himself
right but marx disposed it and the thing
is is that when marx what do you mean
many argue that marx was the first
devastating critique of the labor theory
of value anticipating its eventual
abandonment through marginalism and
others i guess mark i'm not necessarily
a labor theory of value person as i'm
more of a subjective theory of value
type of person however that being said
the way in which this was written about
led to you know
whether it was misinterpreted or not
this is sort of how we got to where was
that can you elaborate about how it was
written so we can actually be clear
about why we're talking about marx
because we don't have to talk about marx
i mean i just want to know i mean
generally speaking i'm not really here
to talk about marx but i think that you
know in terms of like when you know you
see the communist manifesto and the
impact that's had on broader society
i think that you know which impact do
you have in mind you have the impact of
um
leading to an outcome of the
world's you know largest countries being
ruled by communist parties effectively
transforming the world or are you
talking about like noam chomsky talking
about it in like no no i'm talking about
obviously like the bolsheviks and the
october revolution like the people who
made the whole thing relevant right yeah
so i don't disagree with you on that
front i i agree in every context that
they're like socialist countries there's
nothing to disagree upon right here so
what i find so what i want to get at is
what i'd like to ask you is um
you're basically saying marxism leninism
has no applicability in 21st century
america whatsoever
um
and you call yourself a council
communist and burns and all this so
you're basically talking about the
things that were never successful in
seizing power uh or affecting any
meaningful change or transformation for
their countries and you're basically
saying that the people who were
successful are actually the failures so
i'm interested to know why they're
failures in your mind yeah so my big
issues with things like revolutions
especially when we apply it today is
that it's impractical to apply something
like a revolution we look at the context
of the october revolution we're talking
about imperial russia under the tsar
right there's obviously not a lot of
infrastructure it's a monarchy the
people are getting fed up with it
there's of course broader socialist
movements like the mensheviks and all of
these other parties right that represent
you know
sort of these communist ideals
and necessarily while that was practical
at the time i don't necessarily think
that can be applied to a country like
america today with the you know the most
overinflated military budget in the
world and the fact that i think the only
way that we're going to ever achieve
some type of actual socialism in america
is through reforms
okay um
so did marxist invent revolutions is
that what you're trying to say or no no
no so what did marx what did bolsheviks
and marx island is what do they since
you know i mean i guess you know right
what do they actually say about
revolutions and the relationship they
have to the process of uh arriving at
political power do marxist leninist
marxism leninism like i'm not sure if
you want to talk about like actually
what lenin wrote or yeah
i was more so referring to the practice
and the fact that
there was a revolution you know that did
take place in
i feel like this type of leninism and
which way there was a revolution but
whose fault was that
that there was a revolution was it
lenin's fault or did the revolution
happen before
lenin wrote his april thesis and the
october revolution following an actual
revolution that the bolsheviks had
nothing to do with
likewise for the chinese did they enact
uh some kind of revolution or was that
the republicans there were chinese
republicans who enacted the overthrow of
the qing dynasty the japanese who
invaded chinese soil i mean
marx marxist lenas don't really have a
reputation for voluntarily just
declaring that they want the revolution
and then acting upon that impulse
the whole point of marxism and marxism
leninism isn't to just put your foot in
the ground and say we need a revolution
it's more so
recognizing the objectivity of
revolutions and preparing a party
uh
making a party means sorry means that's
a weird word making it uh prepared and
tested and cognizant of the fact that
revolutions are things that happen
objectively the state does not come from
thin air the state has material premises
and it will be tested by those material
premises and in those such moments the
party must be prepared for a
revolutionary moment i don't know why
communists or whatever you want to call
them
should shoot themselves in the foot and
say no revolutions will never happen and
the state is eternal and it'll always
just exist and it'll never encounter
institutional or structural crisis
like the ones we're seeing now in
america
we should just sit back and let biden
and the liberals take care of this and
we should not seek to seize hegemony
over the war of how
the american people make sense of this
institutional uh crisis right so i think
it's more over an important thing that
the in a way we initially get our foot
through the doors with social reforms
like you look at politicians whether you
like them or not bernie sanders i mean
uh if we talk about like you know
medicare for all and we put that into
practice that's going to you know
remove some type of hierarchical
distinction between people who are in
the working class and people who are you
know the bourgeois right it's i'm just
kind of higher and maybe
yeah maybe i'm focusing too much on
labels i'm a little bit confused you
call yourself a council communist but in
one of lenin's writings which is
left-wing communism and infantile
disorder
where he critiques uh the council
communists and other left communist uh
tendencies he actually lays out pretty
explicitly that
communists operating in the so-called
advanced western countries
they may have declared
uh bourgeois democracy dead in their
head but it's not actually dead for the
masses this is at almost at verbatim
what lenin said it may be
uh abolished in your head but it's not
abolished in reality as far as the
masses are concerned so communists
um who in this case would be marxist
leninist because they're following the
teachings of lenin have to be
have a patient attitude be cognizant of
the objective and material realities and
have to work
uh
within
the existing form of politics which
means you have to work in parliament so
you have to work to get
so-called
reforms passed that actually comprise
the site
of political struggle the real one that
exists not the one that you think is is
the best one
i mean this this has been the consistent
communist policy throughout the history
of the 20th 20th century by communist i
mean like the the common turn and
um
the soviet-led and later
lesser extent chinese-led communist
internationals
no one has ever
like
had this view of this adventuristic or
volunteeristic view where it's like yeah
we should just have a revolution and
ignore the current political realities
it's like if you're a party you're
building an independent party you just
say we want to overthrow the government
i mean how can you just say you can't
just say that you know you're right you
won't have the support of anyone um
you're not going to be working within
the existing political reality and uh
you know like marxist leninist would
call this a kind of adventuristic ultra
left and anarchist deviation
yeah so personally i'm obviously not
with them i was just more here to talk
about the context of which we can
actually lower discrepancies you know in
wealth between the bourgeois and the
proletarian right which i think is an
important thing to think about moreover
than objective revolutions that happen
and i think that if a revolution were to
happen because they do happen regarding
material conditions and societies that
exist and take place right
i think a society in which uh sort of
the you know the ruling class or the
bourgeois have less power and they can
exert less power on top of all these
people right like the proletarian in
which we tax them more and we use that
money to
sort of raise people out of poverty
because we are capable to distribute
these resources in a way that wants to
benefit society
the problem is that
i'm not
against
obviously i'm not against weakening the
power of the ruling class
but you will not accomplish this i mean
you may as well that will that may as
well lead to a revolutionary crisis if
the state has its basis in a ruling
class
and you are seeking to undermine the
power of that ruling class
history shows that it is inevitable the
ruling class will resort to extra legal
and extra state means to repress their
opponents the state does not have a real
independent existence outside of its
basis in a ruling class especially right
now in america we can locate this
specific uh ruling class and its various
factions
right so i i completely agree with you
that the ruling class obviously resorts
to extra legal you know ways of keeping
the proletarian down however
like when you look at this and you see
the fact that we are taking resources
from them and we are lowering
discrepancies right because i'm trying
to provide opportunities to these
members of the working class through
getting them you know access to
healthcare education all of these things
so they can sort of
raise themselves up and out of poverty
right i don't want them you know if
we're if we were to have a revolution
which i see as more of a
um sort of desperate last push as
opposed to a because i i just i want to
ensure that we have infrastructure in
place and that the only essentially the
revolution that we are having if we are
to you know
sort of remove anyone from power it's
these
bourgeois capital owners because
necessarily i don't think that we need
to like
um
get rid of
any types of like politicians more so
the people who stand in the way of the
revolution like out right
so in the history of marxism and marxist
leninist inherited this this was the
period of social democracy
there is a distinction that was made
between the minimal program and the
maximal program so the minimal program
are the things that you're talking about
right infrastructure
whatever happens to be the
point of political contention of today
medicare for all and then the maximal
program is like the
further out kind of seizure of power the
proletarian dictatorship that kind of
thing right
right now
um the pursuit of the minimal program is
the basis of how you operate in politics
right but what marxists anticipate and
recognize is that if you're actually
successful in really building a movement
which is capable of
seeing through these changes that
threaten the power of the ruling class
it is inevitable and this is why you
have to be prepared it is inevitable
um that you will lead to uh a political
crisis in which the ruling class will
make the necessity of revolution or
something of that matter
up at a certain point
uh inevitable
right now i guess we really kind of
agree on this then and don't we because
i i do agree with that of course the
ruling class is going to make it so it's
necessary at some point
you know when they start to stand in the
way because they realize that their
power is being essentially seized from
them or tried to be taken away from them
that we you know essentially
they have to fight back so at any point
the way we take the you know
sort of these people in positions of
power out of power
is through some type of final push
whether it's like
a revolution or anything like that
whatever means of well usually what
happens is that they resort to forms of
extra legal intervention that lead to a
breakdown of the legitimacy of the state
and the institute they resort to like
they use the state to do things that the
state itself considers illegal and extra
institutional and this basically
annihilates the state
this is more sort of an important factor
that i think is important to take in
consideration when i'm talking about
reforms which i think is
right but the whole point of marx's
to create a party form as far as not
just marxist leninist but marxist in
general the whole point is to create a
party that is capable of
weathering this survivingness and
preparing itself for this eventual
outcome of having an alternative um
vision for statehood that that will
allow it to contend for hegemony
um
the theory of mar i mean this is even
before fascism right the idea of the
social democrats
was
um
the destruction of liberalism is
inevitable but
uh
it will lead to some kind of horrible
tragedy in the short term
without being if it's not led by the
proletariat
uh
basically that's fascism right fascism
i mean there was no lenin that was
forcing this fascism to happen it
happened
um
you know the the some kind of
fundamental change in liberalism is
inevitable right
i i agree with that but like
are you i just want to understand what
kind of context you're coming at this
from is this like the tendency for the
rate of profit to fall or like it's it's
a it's okay yeah it's a combination of a
number of things so on the one hand you
have economic crisis that's a big one
right
and with economic crisis comes a
breakdown of legitimacy of the state
you also have another thing marxists
would call um revolutions in the forces
of production
and according to marx's theory
the content
the form of the state and the
institutions always lags behind the
content of
the forces of production revolutionizing
so when this happens
all of a sudden the state and its
institutions become outdated with regard
to some kind of more fundamental
historical and technological change
and at that point
um it becomes a site of political
antagonism and so on and so on so
there's many factors it's not just the
you know specific economic crisis but
it's also
the inability for states
yeah
okay
wow i i'm just i don't know i was
surprised that you and i would agree on
this essentially i mean i think you and
i generally were both pretty well on the
same page for this end of things i i
don't know i just i i try to look
through you know some of your content on
youtube to see if i could find like a
concrete position on this
and it was difficult to find but i
didn't have much time to
sort of comb through that right
um
i mean we can move on to vanguard
parties right because there's something
i'm sure you and i have like an absolute
disagreement on okay sure
right
so my argument is that vanguard parties
when
used and this is this extends past
leninism like we look at the nazi
vanguard party
as well
um i think the transferal of power into
the hands of revolutionaries just
creates
a newer bourgeois class
okay
what transfer are you referring to
so essentially if you have a vanguard
party that comes in and has a revolution
against the state and they come and
seize the power in the state and we
essentially we have these oligarchic
sort of because i i think that that the
revolutionaries themselves when they
come into power
they still have control over the
resources the state previously had
disposal of and of course since there's
i don't necessarily think there's a
dictatorship of the proletarian in the
sense that there's not really a direct
democracy and or the fact that these
vanguards can use the resources against
the people to oppress them
moreover a changing of power into
different hands
this is quite a sweeping claim so the
reason i asked you why is there a
transfer of power first before we get
into the other stuff is
the idea that there's a transfer of
power to the party assumes that there is
some kind of
spontaneous um
sovereignty of the people that the party
steals but actually there is no
expression of sovereignty of any people
of any class of any collective
outside a specific organ of
representation and reflection
and this is what a party is
the issue that you're describing finally
for the second issue and we actually can
look at history to see if this is
actually what happened or not
what you're describing is corruption
that's what it would be called
corruption so basically people are using
the state they're using their position
of power
uh to fulfill personal
pathological ends right you know right
so you do not think that that's like
almost inevitable with a vanguard party
considering
you set up these conditions that allow
a small class or small group of people
to be the ones to immediately have these
assets
okay
the issue is and exercise authority over
people which is my big issue with the
whole concept of a vanguard party right
do you want to let me know i'm not going
to deny the practicality of it in the
context of china under mao right
you want to let me even under dang right
like if dang made these market
liberalizations and reforms dude
can we hold your horses please do you
want to let me finish here
yeah sure okay
so what you're describing is corruption
because
even though the
it's really awkward to say like the
resources are in the hands of the party
but how is it like directly is there a
form of direct control or is it more
indirect through enterprises and organs
like does the party directly have the i
mean you have to we'd have to get into
like information theory and talk about
the details of soviet planning
throughout the various stages of its
existence but no the party did not
have like direct control over everything
to the point where individuals can just
be openly corrupt
now the problem of corruption
is an inevitability of any state it's
not unique to the form of a party it is
any state on planet earth is going to
have a problem with corruption what we
do find in history is that actually
communist states are uniquely disposed
with the ability to eliminate corruption
more even more so than bourgeois
democratic states because in bourgeois
democratic states
corruption
even discounting the ones that exist
secretly
is legal you know it's legal in the form
of open bribery of politicians by
special interests in order to fulfill
their goals and you know politicians
using their special personal connections
and so on and so on so
um
the issue of control
i need to just say something really
quickly yeah do you not think that
in the immediate aftermath of there
being a revolution which it often leads
to a period of crisis and lack of
infrastructure systems and social safety
nets so that people can rely on these uh
leaving these sort of decisions in the
hands of a select few people where they
can make these decisions especially
considering immediately we put all the
power in the hands of these people
because but you haven't that's the thing
you you haven't so you said we put our
hands in the power of the people but
there is no wheat again any collective
mass people
any
country right it doesn't have a
spontaneous form of unreflexive
sovereignty its expression of
sovereignty will be mediated in the form
of some kind of representative organ
okay so there is no we
giving them power
right so do you think giving control to
that representative organ can allow the
representative organ to oppress people
if you are that representative organ is
controlled by a small group of people
and of course this doesn't give the
actual working class for literary i
don't know if you
have a hearing problem and you can't
hear me but i'll repeat it again
when you say we are handing control who
is we what control did you have before
you handed it to them who are you to
hand them control what what are you who
are you are you an orphan you're
essentially a worker leaving it in the
reigns of these revolutionaries and yeah
you may have had a sin who the
revolutionaries are but how they act
after you
how how they act so now you're talking
about the transfer of power occurs is
you're talking about workers now so what
you mean to say is
workers hand the control over to the
party right
right
so what form of control did workers have
before they so-called handed it over to
the party
well not much i mean
not sure we're not talking about things
they had none at all because in order to
have control you have to have
organization and organization is the
beginning of a form that stands apart
and is
intelligibly distinct from the
unreflexive flux of
spontaneous masses
so other than a philosophical difference
what what differentiates the vanguards
from the previous people who
you know because if there's a revolution
there's an immediate transfer of the the
vanguard represents the interests
of the people so i'm a vanguard and i
just say all right i've gotten myself
into this position by manipulating and
conning my way around and doing all this
stuff is that how they got into their
position i think that's what i think
that's a rank
revision of history is that how the
vanguard so-called vanguard got into its
position that's not true when in what
circumstance was it true that the
vanguard party got into the position of
power through the use of machiavelli and
cunning and manipulation that's just not
true right you do not think that that's
not very possible because this is a damn
raw thing that could happen with like
okay
politicians routinely and you like if
you want to talk about machiavellianism
like hell i mean even look at like
stalin that was his favorite book like
the prince
okay we can talk about stalin in a
second because i actually do want to
talk about stalin um in a second but
i think what you're not really
recognizing when you're over inflating
the significance of corruption is that
politics is actually an objective
intelligibly distinct sphere
uh from the sphere of civil society and
its various private individual interests
in other words there is an objective
sphere of politics now if a so-called
vanguard is just going to completely
ignore and forget about its original
mission and just become immediately
corrupt it probably won't have
it probably won't be able to maintain
power for very long that's the simple
truth um states
right so what kind of checks and
balances come into play to hold the
vanguard party accountable
be notional there's no immediate control
over the resources if they're the
representatives
we're talking about a lot of things at
once so checks and balances is a form of
what marxists would call bourgeois
formalism and i'll explain why so in the
case of checks and balances you try to
make the objective and material premises
of state rule
you try to formalize those right because
the state is not all powerful that's
just objectively true no state is all
powerful it is literally impossible
states have a material premise they have
a material premise
in a certain class or they have a
material premise in general in the
people and the people over whom they
rule and preside over without this a
state could not last right as putin said
no state can survive without the
legitimacy coming from the people
dylan let me finish my point because
it's really important
okay
what marxist would reproach you with
saying is that you don't actually need
to formalize these material premises
because they're active actively
suspended in reality if you study the
history of communist states
and even today's communist china
you will see how the communist party is
very receptive and very cognizant of the
feedback that it's getting on the ground
from the people
and there's a dynamic relationship
between the two so when you ask the
question what are the checks and
balances the checks and balances come
from the public itself over whom they're
residing power communist party is not
all powerful it is not all-knowing and
it is not omnipotent it gains its
legitimacy and its um logistical and
operative uh
mechanisms from a dialectic relationship
with the people
right so you don't think a party could
basically come in and you know allocate
resources in a certain way shape or form
to say
the military to keep the military over
like ruling and you know essentially
kind of coercing people into doing jobs
and with the threat of death or things
like that because people are going to be
essentially if it becomes a work or die
dichotomy then they're probably going to
choose work in that case
first of all
um
it's not a work or diet dichotomy it's a
in a circumstance of war
which is the civil war it's a
work or diet dichotomy not because
you're going to get shot if you don't
work because if you don't work no one's
going to be able to eat
right food doesn't come from the sky so
if you don't work how are we going to
feed ourselves and clothe ourselves and
shelter ourselves right someone has to
do this this work
uh in a period of crisis when you're
pressed directly to those conditions
um
[Music]
now second of all this stuff about
allocating resources to the military
well in the later stages of the soviet
union's existence after world war ii
a huge proportion of its resources and
so on were allocated to the military but
does this represent a form of corruption
or does this represent the soviet union
trying to secure itself against the real
and imminent danger posed by a
aggressive
west and america who had revitalized
their own military industrial complex
clearly anticipating some kind of war
if you can't protect your state you will
be squashed and eliminated so how are
you supposed to protect
your
sovereignty
and your uh own state
i mean when you're with your advocates
so you you you would rather advocate
that
soviet peoples and other peoples living
in communist countries they should just
allow foreigners to completely seize
their country and see as they do fit
with their country
not really that's not necessarily if you
don't have a very powerful military
that's what's going to happen
right so you can have a powerful
military which is obviously the way that
you know bolsheviks after world war ii
went about it right i mean china as well
they have a very powerful military
but essentially to sort of avert the
kind of crises that come with allocating
so many resources directly to the
military instead of actually like
because there's going to be
discrepancies from a point of where the
military gets all these resources
the resources that are going to be given
to the people or lesser so essentially
what i'm trying to advocate for here is
through reforms essentially
i think america which is the leading
power in the world right now right and
we can't return their example is
completely bankrupt because you used an
example of the soviet union's need
to have a powerful military
as an example for why reforms are
necessary but in order to argue that you
have to argue that in the context of
the events of the collapse of the
russian empire uh your path your special
path
would have been preferable or more
possible even than uh the bolshevik way
so the thing is i'm not necessarily
trying to argue this in the context of
bolshevik you know
then you can
kind of argue though for
modern day america right i want to talk
about contextualizing but you the
reasoning you're giving for why it is in
modern day america we need so-called
reformism is because you're saying
a powerful military will be necessary
well a powerful military at the time was
still oppressed by the you know well
more expansive and powerful west
so i think that the only way one can
really achieve true socialism from here
is have the dominant power in the world
essentially reformed to socialism in
some capacity that was the prevailing
view
um
among marx angles and marxists for and
the bolsheviks themselves
until the facts of history proved
otherwise
the fact of the matter is that um
you cannot gamble on
the fact of the matter is that it was a
misinterpretation
of that was really coming from the
baggage of hegelian idealism that
revolutions will begin
from the advanced countries well as
we're seeing this theory has already
been disproven china
was
centuries behind america when the
communist party seized power and now
china is genuinely catching up and
remaking the world
um
the theory is being disproven right
before our eyes
that america
uh
success and victory of socialism depends
upon
a revolution in the most powerful
country because america will not be the
most powerful country forever
right so my big issue is that
america using the resources at its
disposal because you and i agreed
earlier
that the strongest power in the world is
going to you know push back if it is
threatened right so i think you and i
agreed on this
so when america essentially it's going
to become a battle of china and america
which i'd argue it's already started
becoming
and and the big concern is that the
superpower that is america is going to
repress china if china you know is
leading the socialist movement yeah
there's they're under a constant
strategy that is not dependent upon what
we in america do
we
uh so-called communists in america need
china china does not need us we are the
ones who have to learn from china the
most successful
right so china's going to become
threatened at an eventual point by
america whether it's in and i'm not
talking about already
living in america they already are under
threat by america and the liberal sort
of democratic establishment is the one
you know threatening china they're
trying to try to misinform and spread it
misinformation about china to get people
to turn their backs in the west on the
ideals of china and eventually it's
going to become threatened enough that
china is going to get serious pushback
from america and america is going to
i'd argue go for some kind of war with
china i agree but the leaders of china
are anticipating this and preparing for
it and if you ask me the odds do not
look good as far as uh
america's prospects at being successful
in this endeavor
so that's that's a big fundamental
concern for me though is that the most
powerful
democracy or not like liberal democratic
bourgeois country with these resources
that it has you know available to it is
going to come in and essentially stop
the entire movement
and it is it's capable of that in this
very moment and if
you know china becomes more and more of
a threat that's what it's going to come
to and i'd argue that
militaries you know in the west are
going to form alliances and find ways to
oppress china so
i'm not sure what this point is about i
agree that uh communists should work to
do the best they can to win in america i
agree with that
in order to prevent war and so on and so
on i'm just making the point that
china is not waiting for us so right so
i'm trying to say that the best method
of going about achieving global
communism and socialism without actually
having an immediate threat or presenting
threats to
um like well everyone's basically lives
of everyone are jeopardized when you
know america starts going well you have
to go to war we'll we offer these
incentives to the military and the
people who fight in these battles right
so i'd argue which i've tried been
trying to argue this whole time that the
reforms that one can make in america to
get to a point where we become the sort
of you know the proletarians in america
and canada and all throughout north
america and then sure you know basically
established strong infrastructure
western democracies and western nations
which have her issues rooted in liberal
democracy however there's opportunities
available in which you know
the global communists can seize even if
it's minor positions of power
which
i mean it might not be like it might not
necessarily make a difference in the
long run however
any effort in you know preventing the
loss of life and casualties caused by
essentially revolutions is
what i'm arguing from this ultra
reformist approach and then eventually
like it's basically a brand of like
centrist marxism i'm sure you've heard
that term thrown around right
that i'm in between i tether in between
reform and revolution however i'm
leaning reform because i think that's an
important approach to setting up
the conditions in which the proletarian
can lose you know have the least
casualties suffer for the least you know
grave dangerous and you know
uh
right
and essentially set up
a better
i guess you'd say overall world
considering now communists and chinese
like chinese and american communists and
socialists are the ones who are
you know at the forefront
are you done
yeah
okay
i think the issue here and i tried to
point this out to you before
is that you're treating politics like a
strategy game where you have control and
you actually can choose what outcome it
is
revolutions are very unpleasant things
that's the truth there's nothing
pleasant about revolutions i agree
right so would you say then the most
immediate thing we can do is try to
control for all the variables possible
because
i think i think the best thing you can
do right now is stop interrupting me
because
i think you're just kind of
embarrassing yourself
how am i embarrassing myself
well because
you're you're not letting me
i don't know i'm i'm trying to explain
it to you but you just keep interrupting
me right so i've responded to um
you made a statement and i'm responding
to that statement how do you know that
that was my statement
because you stopped talking can you just
shut up for a second
christ
politics
is not a strategy game
we may agree that revolutions are
unpleasant but that does not address the
question of whether they're an
inevitable fact of reality if and we all
we have to do to understand that they're
an inevitable fact of reality is
recognize the fact
that no state
is eternal no state is divine no state
is omnipotent states come from dust and
unto dust they shall return
states have a material basis
that cannot be
controlled premised or legislated by the
forms
that are within the power of the state
itself to establish in other words
the basis of state power
is something the state itself cannot
legislate formally or establish so if we
recognize this fact
that revolutions aren't inevitable
however unpleasant they are
this is like if you're a hunter and
you're in a jungle
and
well do you like lions and do you like
tigers probably not they're pretty
unpleasant but if you're really gonna
provide for your family in this jungle
and be a [Β __Β ] man you better prepare
yourself for those lions and those
tigers and you better mold yourself in
the image of a warrior who can fight
lions and tigers and be cognizant and
accept that reality likewise a
revolutionary
isn't somebody who goes around
advocating for revolution because they
want to enjoy the chaos and turmoil of a
revolution
a revolutionary is just someone who
prepares for the inevitable fact and
who's
sobering up to the cold hard truths of
this world it's like growing up but
moreover what confuses me is that i
thought that on the question of this
business of revolution the matter was
settled these were your words not mine
i thought now we're moving on to the
question of the vanguard party but it
seems like you're all over the place
talking about china and america and
militaries and i just don't know what
topic we're on
right so my big issue with that is that
it seems to deny the fact that politics
has in fact been a strategy game
historically it's all about who
conceives power in immediate positions
of it which is why i don't understand
what like what angle you're coming at
this from because revolutionaries can
prepare themselves obviously for to
fight this big war and fight these
revolutions and you know seize power
however it would probably be in the
revolutionary's best interest they're
you know the faction in which they're
trying to
lead to you know success to have the
least casualties and suffer the most
this is going to get the most people on
board with your movement
and you know ensure the success of your
movement essentially again politics has
an element of strategy to it and i don't
know why that's not being factored in
here because okay
this is why politics is not a strategy
game
in the case of a strategy game you are
an impersonal uh omnipotent actor
you are confined by a certain level of
rules but your
your camera's hoisted up into the sky
you're like a god looking down
and you get to choose what happens you
get to choose the outcomes that happen
right but in real life you actually
don't get to choose what reality is
reality has an objectivity
that you have to surrender and submit to
otherwise
you will fold and be crushed by it
you will just be eliminated
the bolsheviks prevailed because in the
context of the czars russia they speak
it was a speed run right if you want to
talk about video games it was a speed
run they speed run the process by which
the most tough
resilient
wise smart people
were the ones that endured and
eventually seized power because the
people who had your mentality in czars
russia they would just die in siberia
and then they'd fold and then that's it
they didn't have us they didn't stand a
chance because they weren't tough enough
to accept the cold hard truths of the
reality
and so one can accept the cold hard
truths of reality and still play
politics as though it were a game
people are subjugated constantly to the
laws and the conditions that surround
our state
if you don't think that people function
out of an individual mindset with this
imperative for survival and all of these
other factors because if someone has the
ability to exert power over other people
they can remove the resources necessary
for this person's survival they're
essentially coercing them to defend
something that they may not want to
defend
so on top of this all they have to
factor in their own survival rate and
all these other things
are you saying that
what are you saying
so i'm saying that politics essentially
especially as people who live in the
western world
if we're trying to factor you know in a
way for americans and communists to
seize power over here or find a way to
power over here it is going to have to
work within the framework of liberal
democracy because we don't have the
resources available to us to essentially
find some way to
lead some kind of uprising or movement
like the movement is so incredibly small
that there's going to have to be a level
of this politics game played in order to
essentially be successful
okay
i don't see how that shows that politics
is a game it's not a game it's
absolutely a game if i'm a
like democratic socialist or whatever
who gets elected into public office and
i find ways to make people agree with me
i've got to play these games like okay
here you go i've you know
i've bended my knee and i've given
medicare for all and i've given all
these policies and all these reforms to
make people want to agree with me so the
game i'm playing here is that when i
essentially offer these policies to the
people it's not just in an effort to
increase their quality of life but it's
to make them agree with me
here's the problem here's the problem is
that communists are not bending their
knees
uh you can be bending your knees that's
fine
um ben this is what when i'm saying this
because
when you talk about politics you just
kind of sound like like mussolini like
you're not actually participating in the
class struggle you're just cynically
kind of uh in a detached way kind of
just operating in it in order to fulfill
some kind of final ends this isn't
a communist position even as far as the
relation between the minimum and maximal
program is
lenin is very clear about the fact
that it's it's not just the fact that
you have to use the system it's that you
don't have your own system you can pull
out of your ass you're in reality you're
participating in this reality it's not a
game this is a reality it is a real
sight of struggle and you have to be
cognizant of that fact and participate
in it because that's where the reality
is it's not a question of
what is the final goal or what is the
final lens
um it's a question of that
right so the material conditions
surrounding the fact that i'm trying to
make the world a better place for
everyone to work in class especially
when i play my little politics game
which i've said and you can say this
that i'm being cynical that i'm doing
this you know machiavellian thing or
whatever but i'm acting like when i
legislate and choose to be you know some
kind of legislator i'm acting in sort of
altruistically in the best interest of
the people yeah that's that's my way
that was the the bourgeois socialists of
the communist manifesto the fabians who
thought that they were elevated above
all struggle and that they were
empathetically acting like daenerys
targaryen as a benevolent kind of
aristocrat for the right so i don't need
to act like a benevolent aristocrat i
can come from like a very grassroots
position and still help people through
playing the game of politics
if that's what leads to better outcomes
conditions that's around them i don't
see why
but there's people who think like you
like aoc and aoc just sits on her ass
and can't do anything when she's in
power so
i mean maybe you can do it go do it
don't let me stop you you know hey i'm
going to try and do it that's
essentially the plan and yeah i think
aoc and her okay and
[Music]
are you going to have like um
a measurement of like okay now i realize
i failed and i don't know what i was
talking about like how many years will
it take for you to realize that you're
wrong like
if you fail i mean i'm gonna have to
like actually experience this firsthand
yeah you want to talk about experiencing
objective reality then i'm going to have
to go through the paces of essentially
leading my
little conquest of socialism or whatever
this is but i don't think that through
playing the game of politics you can
deny the very real
um
benefits in the western world that
someone like bernie sanders has provided
to the movement
yeah but i think we would disagree about
why you know and then the second thing
is do you watch game of thrones no
are you sure
yeah i think you're getting a lot of
things from game of thrones
nope
i just heard about friends
i've never watched an episode of game of
thrones okay
well
i i think we've gotten off topic and
you're talking about your idea of what
you want to do and i don't know why it's
relevant do what you want to do don't
let me stop you i don't know
but
um
i don't see how you put forward a
convincing argument for why
uh communists should not strive to have
independent parties
so i don't have an issue with communists
having independent parties like that's
not my problem with the vanguard my
problem is with
the relationship between the proletarian
and some of the vanguards
and i think what is that relationship in
which we play politics like i've said so
is it
the first thing i want to ask you we
need to reduce the amount of harm felt
by the working class
and this is you know you're saying oh
you need to prepare yourself for this
[Β __Β ] revolution all this [Β __Β ] right
my thing is it's if this is avoidable in
any way shape or form we can try to
avoid it and we can move in a direction
where we can you know reduce the harm
that's essentially the goal here and of
course there's going to be suffering of
course there's going to be strife and
i've accepted that that is a just a fact
like you said of objective reality
however that being considered
any way to reduce or minimize the harm
and of course minimize the loss of
people who actively participate in the
movement because if there's blood shed
that means you're losing valuable
members of the part of the party of the
movement so i think you're basically
arguing politics and get away from that
okay i don't think this is a discussion
about the philosophy of harm reduction
which i don't agree with anyway
but
so you're speaking for yourself i don't
share your philosophy that the whole
goal is to reduce suffering it sounds
like a western buddhist like
you know
hippie [Β __Β ] that i have nothing to do
with
but all right
what i'm
i'm trying to reel us back into a
discussion about why
we shouldn't why i should not strive
for an independent party you mentioned
that you do you have an issue with the
relationship
vanguards have with the proletariat
and i just don't know what you're
talking about when you say things like
that
so the thing is throughout this whole
conversation you've been saying all this
stuff that has to do with oh you know
states will wither in the dust but
states will put up resistance and when
the state puts up resistance this can
lead to destroying the working class as
well and the people who live within this
country which is why i've been talking
about playing politics this whole time
this machiavellian approach well yeah it
might seem like sinister but the the end
goal is supposed to be altruistic
that that makes for like a good tv show
but
i'm sure it does but still what i'm
trying to say is that
okay
you so what you're saying is that
uh i my argument was that parties should
prepare themselves for an eventual
revolutionary situation and you said no
they should not do this because
never said that don't put words into my
mouth well i i i'm not
okay that's not the what i said what i
said please clarify
wait wait wait what i said was that the
working class can prepare itself for of
course revolution and remain resilient
and strong and avoid you know succumbing
to
whatever happens you know because a
revolution obviously is inevitable we've
agreed upon this however you don't think
that the harm that comes with a
revolution should be avoided if they can
be like there's steps one can take
that's the opportunity sure that
problems that come with revolutions are
less so
then how are you
[Music]
okay then how how will you ensure that
in those steps
so there are precautions we can take
which is what i've been advocating
for
all the time who is we wait so wait wait
i'm gonna i'm giving legs i'm giving you
an example right now okay i'm gonna give
you an example
the bourgeois
has the monopoly on capital and by pro
proxy the monopoly on resources
so if the bourgeois puts up a resistance
to this working class movement basically
what they're able to do by putting up a
resistance to the working-class movement
is they're able to inflict more harm to
these you know
probably the proletarian by inflicting
harm on the proletarian we're losing
essentially this sort of insured success
so when i take precautions in advance
through reforms you know through higher
taxes through sort of leveling the
disparities between the owning class and
the proletarian they are able to put up
less resistance this is a way i can
factor into my whole battle plan which
is if i want a socialist end goal right
by removing problems
my question is uh are you god
are you god is just my question am i god
yeah you tell
me you talk like you're you talk like
you're a god who's omnipotent can you
have all of this so i don't think i'm
american however i want you to like
logically
come to this conclusion with me do you
think a working or a bourgeois class
with
access to less resources
is going to put up as good of a fight as
a bourgeois class with a monopoly on
power
i mean it has in history
the bourgeoisie did not prevail in the
soviet russia
right so do you think that
if the bourgeoisie in russia
had less power it would have been an
easier time for the bolsheviks to come
into power there would have been less
life loss you don't think that no
so you don't think that if the bourgeois
had less power there there is no there
is no less power the bourgeoisie has
power or it doesn't if the bourgeoisie
does have power however there is ways of
determining which level of power the
world wants to deserve to other people
by the resources available to them such
as
all right you don't think that the fact
that the bourgeois has this all of this
capital that makes it coercive and makes
people need to come in to work at this
facility i think you're very naive about
politics you're thinking of it like a
strategy game where there's like
resource meters and you just have to
lower them so there's not resource
meters but when it comes to
logically that having more resources me
in obviously someone else having access
to less resources because no matter how
you slice it if the resources come out
of this pool the big pool and go into
the little pool there's going to be less
necessity for this owning class to sort
of manipulate and exploit this you know
i think i think you don't understand
that when you start seizing resource
resources it's really weird how you're
wording these things
from the bourgeois class
you are making an act even if you're
okay even if you seize
a grain from the work ruling class
you're making a symbolic declaration of
war it's there's it's not something
where there's like a spectrum of how
much you can lower it the minute you
lower it a little bit that's where
you've begun a war right and that's how
the class struggle
it's not how the i mean i'm just
assuming that you're framing of it in
terms of like raising resources or
lowering do you think that higher taxes
are essentially a
active war against the bourgeois and the
ruling class no oftentimes they're an
active war against the people because
raising taxes usually just raises taxes
also on working people and normal people
and raising taxes on the rich
is really a cope
um
i think i think i can simplify this
discussion actually maybe i can get to
like the root of what your position is
it kind of sounds like you're like a
malthusian who thinks that classes form
on the basis of a war for finite
resources but according to marxists
there there is no eternally finite
resources
what there is is
a given mode of production and the
threshold of any given society's wealth
is going to be determined by the level
of development of its productive forces
so the real goal for communist is not to
seize resources from the ruling class as
much as it is to develop the forces of
production
in a manner that puts
the newfound wealth in the hands of the
people as opposed to this working ruling
class
i completely agree with you on this
actually like i think that's a good
thing and i think we're able to do this
if we like subsidize worker cooperatives
and things like that in america but
i don't see why i don't see why that is
i mean uh
development of the forces of production
this doesn't mean
you fund
certain enterprises because you find
them more virtuous or better or more
socialistic but they're they're the ones
actively getting resources these finite
you know material resources into the
hands of the working class this is just
what you you just said this
finite rules are if the working class
essentially has something i don't agree
with your mouth i don't agree with your
mouth fujian position that it's a war
over finite resources i just don't
okay so you don't think that essentially
the
bourgeois class who's able to exert
pressure onto the working class which
they've done time and time again right
this is work demonstrated through
history and i think i think you in a
really bizarre
um almost psychotic way
it's like you think that
the economic sphere and the political
sphere are the same thing and that like
the these are the exact same thing and
that the bourgeoisie has economic
warfare against
the truth is is that politics and
economics the site of those things are
discontinuous so what's happening
politically in terms of
so for example a political party which
represents the
proletariat um
is going to be dealt with by political
means okay the primary form of the class
warfare the political class war is not
going to be
this battle over resources it's going to
be like for example laws passed by
states repressive measures
um media campaigns info wars things like
that cultural wars it's not really going
to be this thing where it's like you
know oh it's a matter of who has the
most resources to win the strategy game
it's just not how real life works
right so that agrees with my position
then because politics they are you just
made it sound like politics are attached
to the economy the bourgeois has access
to these
resources they have available to them
can we stop using the words
these active what you said there these
active media campaigns and things like
that and the lobbying is a very real
thing that happens right to appeal the
special interests
this is what the republicans were doing
can we please stop using the word
resources it's super weird it makes it
seem like it's minecraft or something do
you you just mean money okay you're just
talking about money right
well a party an independent party needs
money but there is nothing holding back
a party from getting the necessary
amount of money to kick i mean you
realize that even the democrats are
adopting a strategy of small donations
small donations are really the source of
how you get political resources
he combined small donations i mean you
have to understand something even all of
this money that these oligarchs and
corporate people have
that pales in comparison to the combined
of the consumer strength of the masses
um because they get their money from as
you should know the cons the consumers
the masses right that's where they get
their resources and power from in the
first place
so i really need to say this because
this is super important and this goes in
hand with my point
the reason that these consumers are
paying all this money to these ruling
people
is because they have something they have
like i said resources because money's
value is only determined by how people
are going to give it up to get things
again like i said resources that's the
important thing to talk about here and i
don't know why it's not it's not yes it
absolutely is the fact that you would
just you know not value resources in the
way that they're distributed in society
is absurd to me
this is the reason for the reason why
you approach the politics resources are
used to control societies and they can
be no no it's not no it's not so
absolutely the primary the primary form
in which private entities exerts
so-called control over so-called
resources is not actually by owning each
and every individual piece of raw
material and commodities it's through
brands it's through trademarks and logos
and it's through um
corporate enterprises and things like
that and those in turn direct the
production of certain commodities
in a certain direction
not on the basis of reproducing the
power of the bourgeoisie politically but
on the basis of accumulating profit
these are enterprises whose goal is to
be profitable for investors specifically
for
shareholders right in the case of
corporate so there's a discontent when
they want to deal with maintaining their
power politically that's a different
thing okay so you're making it seem like
we're living in like some kind of like
minecraft uh
minecraft multiplayer pvp battle where
it's like oh who has the most resource
it's not how it works dude wait but the
money is used to keep it so that they
are above the
working class that's what they do
by paying off politicians it happens all
the time exactly so they do it through
funding think tanks institutions
lobbying and um funding media that's
what they do right right they have
restored which is money because money is
a resource and they're using it
to lobby and gain control this is what
is just the surpluses that are coming
from their profits just
spare money they have to spend on that
the primary goal that they have with the
soldiers they keep making more profit
which gives them more power over the
working class no they do not care about
power over the working class they just
care about profit it's nothing personal
kid it's just business i know it's not
anything personal however when they have
this they they're still taking from
these people like i don't understand
where the fundamental disagreement is i
don't care what jeff bezos's intent is
what he's doing through him trying to
make as much profit possible you know
he's doing all these things making
conditions for his workers less bearable
other [Β __Β ] this is just a consequence
if his philosophy is only motivated by
profit then he's still going to find a
way to make it maximize his profits
it's actually not just profit
primarily for someone like jeff bezos
for these new platforms
it's not even really pro profit's just a
measurement of their success it's really
about maintaining
the platform maintaining amazon making
amazon making sure amazon can grow
making sure amazon can invest in other
things and make more things like it's
not really so much i mean like personal
power is not really a big factor in this
whole thing and i think the consequence
of him keeping amazon afloat is it means
he's going to have to squash his
competition he's going to have to squash
all these other people
if someone purges a threat which
competition obviously does competition
being able to be started by everyone
else in a given society if they're able
to you know he's gonna have to squash
them in order to keep his platform
afloat which means he's causing a direct
consequential harm to the working class
jeff bezos is trying to
[Music]
work in the interest of the amazon
corporation
and part of that interest of the amazon
corporation is keeping itself sustained
when it keeps itself sustained it's
going to have to resort to all the
measures possible to keep itself alive
because like i said
this functions with the business too
because a business is run by people and
survival is an imperative
you ramble so much can you just stop
rambling and getting well i'm rambling
and everything i'm saying is coherent
and makes sense so whether i'm rambling
or not doesn't matter i don't i i i
cannot discern a point from what you're
saying what is your point
so my point since we led this
conversation in this direction
is that you're all like oh politics and
economics are completely different
things they're separated from each other
in reality whether you want to say that
i'm being naive because i'm playing
political mind you're putting words into
my mind that's exactly what you said and
you can rewind this and go back and say
i cannot
keep talking over me dude you know what
i'd love to keep talking over you
because the [Β __Β ] you're saying makes no
sense and has no value you sound mad as
hell so i'm not mad as hell yeah first
of all
no i'm just right as hell that's all
there is to it and and the way you prove
your right is by making it so that you
talk over your opponent so they can't
reveal what a dumb ass rambling idiot
you are
well then i'm doing a damn good job of
it
yeah anyway dylan what i said actually
was not that you're alleging that
politics and economics have a
relationship something i never denied
i am accusing you of thinking that
they're the same
thing that they operate on the same
plane in the same level but what i'm
trying to say is that they operate on
different
intelligibly different levels
the correlation is so strong though and
this is the point i'm making they might
as well be the same thing the way that
they're tied into each other and how
they're used they're not the same thing
no if you want to talk about objective
reality right then you'll understand
that the political power that certain
people have
also factors in with their economic
standings the correlation is that strong
but that doesn't mean that jeff bezos
exists to have political power
i never said he did just the fact that
he does what the conditions that
surround his life so okay let me just
reign this in and simplify your argument
as far as i can hear it what you're
saying is that the goal is to impoverish
the ruling class as much as possible
because that way the ruling class
won't be able to use its spare
chump change in order to
direct politics the issue with that is
that you're not taking into the account
the fact that
the most most of the capital right that
the ruling class uses is not for
purposes of um
using it as a political resource but for
the economy so you're basically saying
let's bankrupt the economy as a whole
so that they can't use they won't have
enough if they don't have let me just
put it this way if the ruling class does
not have enough money to bribe the
politicians they don't even have enough
money to exist in the first place
uh that's
a really absurd way of characterizing my
argument the goal isn't to bankrupt the
ruling class the goal is to try and make
it so they're unable to exert power over
the proletarian
and by power they can have money they
can have money but we can set it up we
can set society up in such a way
that people are able to have relative
levels of power to each other
through making it so people are able to
get an education be able to set
themselves up for positions where they
can you know become like bezos become
like gates whoever they can look look i
i don't i don't uh
necessarily disagree with that as far as
a minimal program is concerned but the
two points of contention i'm unpersuaded
by first that the means by doing this
can be outside of an independent party
and that second
um
the only
that second
you know uh
i guess what is your really what really
is your point about this reformism like
oh the only reason a revolution would
happen is because we weren't we didn't
take the necessary precautions to ensure
the smooth success that's not been the
point though the point is
no no we can reform and reform until we
get to a point because a revolution is
inevitable like you and i agreed upon at
the beginning of this conversation
let's talk about potatoes
did you agree with jimmy dore's forced
the vote
no
it's a childish way of playing politics
sure
you are talking you are sitting here
making all of these audacious claims
about
your
desire to have reforms and reforms and
reforms
and
for free no one even paid you
you sitting here
and opposing
probably like the simplest way to
actually make medicare for all may be
possible
just medicare for all in the middle of a
[Β __Β ] pandemic
you can't even
reform your way into medicare for all in
the middle of a [Β __Β ] pandemic
how are you sitting here talking about
all your little audacious plans for
reform
so like i said the conditions
surrounding which people can do you
think that like one or two people who
support medicare for all on a party are
going to just be able to push it and get
it passed because this is like this
really really stupid way of looking at
things like but but all of these
democratic congress people are on record
saying that they support medicare for
all and that moreover and that's them
playing politics to get your vote
that's exactly what i don't know why
don't you just hold them to it why don't
you just hold them to it because there
are things surrounding like oh you know
all their like do you want republicans
to get into power
uh you're going to laugh you're going to
laugh mr reformist is making excuses for
why you're going to there's no [Β __Β ]
streets okay wait wait you're making
this this is a really super challenging
reformist you're going to do all these
reforms you have the [Β __Β ] balls to
challenge the democrats about medicine
yeah because the establishment holds
enough power over the people to make it
so they can't push the reforms it's that
simple why can't why can't why are you
shooting because this republican seizing
power these [Β __Β ] conservative liberal
hacks are going to come in and take over
that's not true
that's your very real scripture
that's not even [Β __Β ] true you're
talking about it
this is [Β __Β ] proof of why
revolutionaries are better than his
reformist reformers [Β __Β ] out and cave
in even when it comes to reflection
even when it comes to the simplest most
reasonable reform nothing radical
medicare for all during a [Β __Β ]
pandemic you [Β __Β ] out
i'm a reform ass i want to get a reform
it's a strategy
this is a politically inconsiderate
stupid way of fighting you're not even a
reformist you're literally just a
reactionary
a reactionary to what what have i
reacted to other than your stupidity to
the american reformist progressive cause
to get medicare for all during a [Β __Β ]
pandemic
yeah so the thing is is do you think
that we're able to that simply push the
vote
do you think that's everything's
happening
yeah and if you can't you could
kickstart a movement to literally
overthrow everyone all the sitting
congress people in the democratic party
next midterms i mean they tried that on
january 6th that didn't go damn well did
it
what
never [Β __Β ] mind do you think that
it's that easy to throw together a
little party and have your little merry
dance through congress and throw aoc out
of her little chair
like you can unseat the people who
opposed it even though they were on
record saying they supported it yeah
yeah so
deciding oh [Β __Β ] the republicans are the
ones who are going to see power if i
don't keep this in power
dude biden won the [Β __Β ] election you
can chill about the republicans now
can't you that's what you were saying
harm reduction
in congress
they said they were going to push biden
left and all they did was become to the
right of biden himself biden pushed them
right
in here i know you want to talk to your
child objectively objectively you are
though how am i to the right of biden
because the only because
i i bet you if biden was like
sufficiently pressured
he would probably like do medicare for
all if he was like
pressure biting into it however jimmy
dore's real grasp
you can't even pressure the [Β __Β ]
congressional democrats to do it
do you think you can just wave your [Β __Β ]
around and have a magical medicare for
all up here by saying we're not going to
vote you back in
do you think jimmy gore has the platform
to sway erections
no alone he does oh good there you go
you gave us an answer
i'm so happy hey you want to keep
screaming dumbass remember to let me
explain why
i i mean screaming seems like a vibe
alone couldn't do it but if all of the
influencers on the [Β __Β ] internet all
of the other big ones were on board they
probably [Β __Β ] could the problem is
that dumb asses like you were shooting
people shooting yourself in the [Β __Β ]
foot saying now we can't do it you guys
are the ones who [Β __Β ] up the whole
[Β __Β ] thing for no [Β __Β ] reason i
don't get it how are you [Β __Β ] people
are you paid
political [Β __Β ]
political
you're moving with some fake movement
you have this little immaterial [Β __Β ]
you threw together and hoped and prayed
at work
you're gonna be the emperor of america
daenerys dylan targaryen you're gonna be
the savior of america altruistically
benefiting the working class from the
reigns of power
dylan peter bayless from game of thrones
that's what you're going to be making oh
i'm i'm machiavellian playing the game
for the working class go do it dude go
do it you [Β __Β ] [Β __Β ] go [Β __Β ] do it
go do it and i'm gonna [Β __Β ] laugh at
you when you fail and you are gonna fail
i promise and your [Β __Β ] movement has
failed too you have 9 000 followers on
twitch do you really think you're gonna
have to end and a few months ago i had
half of that so i'm rising and i'm
growing and i'm not gonna stop growing i
had 200 viewers a few months ago now i'm
at 600 700 on the [Β __Β ] regular i'm
verizon
do not use my twitch and youtube career
as an example of failure dude because
that's the most successful [Β __Β ] [Β __Β ]
you've ever seen on the [Β __Β ] internet
what a horrible [Β __Β ]
attempt 600 followers are going to go
win an election right now
600 viewers and i'm gonna do way more
than you ever will in your whole [Β __Β ]
life little boy i promise you what that
much promise you that much i promise you
that much i vow that much i vow on my
ancestors grave that i will have way
more of an impact on this world than you
ever will please keep me wrong you
remembered as the guy who screamed at
children on the internet i'm so happy
we'll see whose legacy endures and lives
on dylan
all right
like i don't know what you did to it you
hit something
or did something and it's been i didn't
want to say anything but it's been
sounding weird since i don't know what
you did
me neither
want to get into the q a yeah let's do
it all right
um all right so let's pull up some of
the super chats that we have
uh from eucalyme dylan i'm on your side
but can you stop deep throating your mic
i can't understand a word you're saying
okay i think that's something that he
did to his mic actually um you'll you'll
notice it when you watch it back down
like there was a point where you
actually touched your mic or something
and it like i don't know if you
unplugged something or did something oh
yeah no i accidentally unplugged it yeah
so it's making it sounds like like
echoey or something um all right so from
marcus this is sargov
uh dylan keeps
misusing material conditions to mean
standard of living and that's not what
that means kid read marx
that's a stupid [Β __Β ] statement
material conditions don't have to be
standard of living they just have to be
the objective things we like using that
word around here that surround someone's
life so it doesn't mean standard of
living it can mean where they were born
where they grew up what school they went
to it's all this [Β __Β ] [Β __Β ] it all
matters that would that would be
actually personal background not
necessarily material conditions yeah
personal background the conditions that
surround their upbringing i'm happy you
came to that conclusion
i'm willing to bet you don't know
anything about what material conditions
actually means
um okay so
oh god
i'm from p1 uh thanks for seeing my chat
the reason reform failed is because as
dorr correctly pointed out the justice
democrats did not withhold their vote
from pelosi and her seat simple
okay
um let me see what we got here and the
ones that i can pull up
um from full metal i think specific
question for haws do we need the
vanguard party to end these west wing
i think we need like a netflix vanguard
party so we can um
dictate the future seasons of house of
cards and make sure that people won't be
inspired by it in the way this guy look
as much as
i don't watch [Β __Β ] tv
somebody asked to chat i remember
breaking that one down if um asking if
dylan has seen house of cards i think
that was from i don't watch tv i really
don't yeah
no no you can go through my netflix
right now the last thing i watched was
the office
okay um
game of thrones like well who hasn't
seen game of thrones that's terrible i
can't report the [Β __Β ] out of here
all right so from bob dude thanks for
the super chat uh why does haas think
that politics and money are
discontinuous um
uh it's such a silly statement i can
wait i can he clarify and have dylan
respond
yeah because if you read marks money is
to make more money and
some of that money is used to influence
the outcome of political
ends so there's a discontinuous
relationship they're related obviously
but it's not one continuity there's a
discontinuity between them it's as
simple as that
should i respond to that or sure if you
want to so my big issue with that line
of thinking though is that if we want to
look at reality we see the effect having
money has on the world around us and to
activate doesn't matter it
it doesn't uh that's not a response to
what i said though
okay well i mean like if you want to
talk about what mark said that doesn't
really matter
what matters to me
okay i'm happy it matters what matters
to you is what kevin spacey said in
house of cards and i like marketing
kevin spacey is a is a fun little man
um from fennel he said what's the true
definition of socialism it seems that
socialists cannot agree on a universal
definition just curious
um um you want me to respond yeah
uh a mode of production
uh whose mode fulfills social and common
ends
there's only one definition i care about
and that's getting the means of
production in the hands of the working
we know we know what chomsky taught you
it's okay
chomsky was right then base chomsky
nah he's actually full of [Β __Β ]
um all right so let's see what we have
jotted down oh wait we got another one
um
thanks for the super chat you'd climb um
when has revolution ever worked in the
first world living standards continued
to rise due to reform two percent of gdp
went towards social spending in 1900 now
40 percent why can't we keep performing
to 100
um because literally no one would argue
that the welfare states model of um
spending money you know to like keep
disabled people and old people and
unemployed people afloat is a viable way
to sustain an economy of scale so that's
why you can't and the second thing is
that you couldn't even maintain the
welfare state that happened after world
war ii it was rolled back in the 1970s
even in the scandinavian countries after
the soviet union collapsed because there
was no more any there was no longer any
pressure to maintain those things
okay
um
okay from maxwell uh thanks for the
super chat uh question to dylan
how do you plan to reform the labor
aristocracy
i don't know i really don't haven't
thought about that one
okay i'll write the bullet on that i'd
like to find a way and when i figure it
out
all right so
so from java bolt question for haws
you said you don't care about harm
reduction if this is true why do you
care about socialism if the level
if the level of harm is the same in a
capitalist socialist
is this
if the level of harm is the same in a
capitalist
socialist is the same
what is socialism offering then
capitalism isn't this one that writes
very well
um
first and foremost it's a philosophical
disagreement with something that has its
origins in british utilitarianism
uh i don't come from this background of
utilitarianism i don't view
reality as a lever with which to
maximize or minimize
this or that variable it's not just
about harm it's any variable
to me
socialism is about
um something in reality it's about
articulating and participating in
reality in a certain way that's what it
is to me
okay
um
from real pluto
uh question for dylan what if any
marxist works have you read works i'm
guessing books like books
okay um i mean i'd have to pull up a
list it's quite a few
i mean i was tom brittany before i got
on stream i reread one of my favorites
which is socialism scientific utopian or
maybe it's the other way around i am
tired
um i started anti-turing
um
i read
left-wing communism and infantile
disorder
um i've read imperialism the highest
stage of capitalism
the communist manifesto
there's quite a few things i've read
actually i mean like if you want me to i
don't really feel like
going you know
um unrelated coma would like to know
what haze was eating
uh i was eating
uh ethiopian chicken
on rice not on ninja bread
and the reason i had rice is because i
don't know
first base thing that was said all night
by you
um
so from
baby tossing bandit serious question i'm
pretty politically illiterate so i could
be dumb but is china actually run like a
socialist communist country i know they
have the communist party
but the name alone
doesn't mean much right
so china is a socialist country and i
like
yeah i mean china is essentially being
run and then this sort of
fashion to where they're trying to at
least get to communism by means of
socialism and market reforms and they're
they have a gradual process to which
they're trying to get there with
um
let's see what else we got here
so from
red devils advocate
okay once they want to know what was
your most embarrassing moment
i don't know if that's like just in
general or
um
but we could just move on
uh when your dad caught me with your mom
okay
i feel like we walked into that um
okay
so um
black lennon question for dylan wait i
think i no i think we already read that
one okay
um from western artifact to haws one of
your comrades claims freedom of speech
is stupid is this your position seems
like if you're going to trust a worker
to run the government they should be
able to talk
um what are my comrades i don't know
what you're talking about at least in
the current context of big tech
i am for the maximal amount of
political speech possible i will never
be behind any form of
political censorship
on these big tech platforms
um let's see what else we got here
from
cute root ask them what happened after
stalin's death
if hazard doesn't believe commies play
much what do you say machiavellian game
match [Β __Β ] i can't say that word
machiavellian did i say it right
so since we have a dumbass in the chat
what i actually said
um i guess people needed to explain to
them was that this is not how communists
can seize power from the perspective of
a bourgeois state
um there are various intrigues and plots
that happened in communist states
uh but i know we get it dude you watch
the movie the death of stalin you know i
know that's where you got it from too i
know that's where you got that from too
and uh congratulations you're so smart
for watching that movie
but yeah
okay
um
from ukulele
uh social spending dropped for 60 to 40
due to neoliberalism um and now it's on
the rise again the overall trend is up a
small dip doesn't change that yeah well
it's almost like uh you're making a meme
uh the more social spending a country
has as a percentage of his gdp the more
socialist er it is actually that's not
true
um
a lot of things can be spent in the name
of social spending that have nothing to
do with socialism at all
but good job dude
okay
uh let's see i think we're
kind of almost done but
um let me pull up some of these i guess
you know what i think
i think we could probably end up there
um all right so if you guys want to do a
closing statement final thoughts we can
do that
uh dylan you want to go first
mean sure i guess my closing statement
was we kind of got way the [Β __Β ] off
topic
doesn't really matter i'm sure it was
still good content and uh yeah
well
i have a lot of fundamental
disagreements with what my opponent said
in regards to politics and economics
being
all like
discontinuous and all of this other
stuff
i mean
i don't know i guess i didn't really
convince him but i hope i convinced the
audience i didn't really come with a
closing statement because i didn't think
we'd be here
okay
um all right so
oh
yeah it's a shame we didn't actually get
to like argue about the topics at hand
like about parties and
revolutions
um
but um it's interesting that he thinks
that capitalists um primarily exists to
hold political power and not to make
profit
which is interesting but
[Music]
loving the mischaracterization of my
argument
they're not discontinuous then they're
the same thing
they're not
all right well argument wasn't that they
only exist to make profit well you
already had your closing statements
all right so i'm gonna put our
discord link
one more time in the chat because we
have just rebuilt it for the millionth
time and hopefully it'll last longer
than the last one so go join that um
we are
we're going to be back tomorrow night at
9 00 pm eastern for a debate on
afghanistan and we are going to be doing
also a live interview with i believe it
is who is it um
uh
martinez perspective um so we're gonna
be doing an interview with him tomorrow
at 4 pm eastern and
um
everything else you can find on the
schedule we just did get another
superchat really quick so let me claim
has imagined not being
oh i'm hearing myself i go being against
censorship on the internet platforms but
unironically defending ussr this dude is
a beta male
he'd be
making it in the okay that'll do um all
right so i'm gonna close this down yeah
and just uh quickly address that fact
yeah
uh completely different context
completely different situations but
thank you for giving all of this
generous money to make a dumbass of
yourself
um
and yeah free money
for the
so so which i support so yeah
all right so i'm gonna try
to do a raid again because i am figuring
this out
um
somebody with not a lot of people
watching uh i actually gotta go now but
all right thank you so much for coming
on
we'll see you thanks a lot bro see you
later man see you good night
okay guys i'll see you on the show
circus show