Infrared debates Marxoid

okay round

two we have the sovereign

finally you decided not to [ __ ] out

woman you're gonna start off like that

and that last guy that was in here was

so [ __ ] bad i think everybody is glad

to just be [ __ ] done with him so

let's not start off on the bad foot

um so i don't know how much you know

about

what the topic was or how it came up yes

i do i know everything about it

so just to start do you want a

foundation like are you saying that you

okay here's here's how this started chat

as far as i remember it

this guy said that socialism in one

country

is a form of revisionism in regards to

marx and engels's conception of

socialism

yes okay okay

that's it so your argument is that it's

not right it's not correct okay

cool i'm good with that all right so

just uh foundationally let's let's

discuss a couple things so that we can

make sure that we're on the same page if

you're cool with that

okay um so your understanding of

marx's conception of communism or

socialism do you agree that what he said

was that

worldwide revolution is is something

that's necessary in it and

inevitable to establish communism

correct

okay and you also agree that he was

concerned about the disappearing of

borders

increased globalization he he felt like

um without worldwide revolution

or what he called uh united action of

the workers that the capitalist

proletariat in these western imperialist

states

would eventually be too far gone to free

themselves

he didn't say that okay i mean we don't

have to we don't have to agree on that

that's

i would like some references about too

far gone

okay i can uh i don't have a bunch of

[ __ ] in front of me this is off the top

of my head so i

okay okay so okay we can skip that one

then so

do you agree then that marks talked

about revolution being um

constant action until the elimination of

capitalism and the abolition of classes

you said constant action yeah he talked

about it as a constant action that's a

quote that he used okay okay and that it

was not can you raise your volume

yeah yeah hold it

hello yeah yeah hold on

do you have a cam uh not on this

computer now

um okay this is as high as it goes in

discord uh if you want you can change my

volume individually for

you and then pick up better if you right

click okay let's continue

all right so

then the the next part of that

conversation would be

that marx also did not view this this

revolution this constant action

revolution as a

simultaneous event so that trotsky take

is

wrong right correct okay

and can we agree then that

foundationally the concept of socialism

in one country

it refers to the formal policy

that uh deprioritized um international

revolution on the agenda of the

soviet political scope and then asserted

as the primary um priority the task of

internal development

i contest the meaningfulness of that

statement

okay so i guess we can talk about that

for a little bit so

socialism in one country the arguments

that were had in the 1920s

were essentially about what direction uh

soviet policy was going to take right so

what their what their main focus was

going to be on whether or not they were

going to

continue to try to support some of these

um transnational proletarian revolutions

is that a better no that's inaccurate

historically

how would you put it by the time the

arguments took place

and they weren't really arguments rather

there was a united party

and they left opposition actually

of wreckers who are trying to change

the course of the party i get it and

everybody hates trotsky

by the 1920s the question of

transnational revolutions was completely

over

the notion that the workers were going

to uprise in the western countries

was not entertained by anyone at that

point

i would say that up until lenin's death

he still held out some hope about

germany specifically no

and that he knows he was viewed no well

before lenin's death by

years before lenin's death

sorry you're talking about like

kotsuki's view of it in like the 1910s

no i am telling you that in the 1920s

before lenin's death the german

revolution failed

yeah i understand that but they

recognized that there was this was not

an avenue to save the soviet union

right but still socialism in one country

this the point of contention here is

apparently that socialism in one country

is not a reprioritization of

um i told you i can test the

meaningfulness of that statement

and the reason i contest the

meaningfulness of that statement is

because

for you to say that socialism in one

country deprioritized

international revolution means that

international revolution could have

meaningfully been a priority of the

soviet government

but it couldn't have been what could

they have done

to make international revolution a

priority in the first place

the choice wasn't there so you don't

think that there were still any budding

like socialist revolutions happening in

any of the eastern european countries

there weren't by the 1920s there were

none okay

so and by the way even the ones that did

happen before the 20s

were clearly not popular revolutions the

hungarian

revolution was crushed with ease the

rest of them were crushed with ease

the soviet union could do nothing to

spread revolution

by that time and even when it seemed

like some revolutions were happening

those turned out to be uh completely

different than what

the bolsheviks who were hyping them up

thought they were going to be

right but you you don't think that they

could have sent

any level of resources or with all the

military militarization that they were

doing for the next few years that they

couldn't have put more of a focus on

on transnational proletarian revolution

no they couldn't

the soviet union wasn't even in a

position to defend itself from foreign

attacks

how could it have mobilized its [ __ ]

war machine

to overthrow the governments to the west

when it couldn't even defend itself

against these powers it had to sign the

treaty of brexit vosk

to save itself and it was also it was

also in the aftermath of just having

fought a civil war

trotsky's westward push into poland

completely [ __ ] failed

and i'm glad it failed because if it

didn't fail they would have had much

more problems on their plate

if they ever caught up to germany the

revolution would have been crushed in

its cradle

that is an interpretation i think that

it's a hypothetical about whether or not

they would be able to allocate well this

is the debate so let's debate about it

that's not the debate the debate is

whether or not it's a uh revisionism of

english and march

so you don't even have to necessarily

agree on socialism in the country right

about how it worked pragmatically

okay okay so back to mark since that's

the focus of this conversation

um mark spoke pretty explicitly

about uh the idea of

one uh socialism in one state uh mostly

within the context of france

after the bronx gave a temporal time

frame for this

well nobody gave a temporal time frame

um in fact one of the

one of the main things that uh was a

point of contention with the debates in

the 1920s

about lenin's position on it was whether

or not he was viewing socialism in one

state as a transient

um like uh like a transient form of

state or whether or not it was

intended to be like a a permanent

fixture of communism and

whether or not it was supposed to be

like who thought who who believed that

there was going to that

any given conditions of the soviet

government and soviet state

were permanent where did stalin say it

was permanent

i say permanent let's say long term like

as okay

for the not eternal okay

so long term okay what does that have to

do with if marx did not specify a time

frame

why is marks relevant to the question

because we're asking about whether or

not

it was i know why why would you perceive

why would you perceive a contradiction

drawing from marx

if marx never specified a time frame

that

socialism which is ultimately global in

its significance

the very insignia of the ussr and the

soviet state emblems was a [ __ ] globe

so yeah they were very clear about in

their understanding that ultimately the

victory of socialism and communism was

going to be global

the question is how you don't think that

okay so i guess that's another point of

contention that we're gonna i guess not

agree on here because

let's debate about it my my reading of

things that stalin was saying at the

time

was that this was going to be uh a state

that would

exist in perpetuity um when did he say

that

this was during some of the 1924 to

1920s okay do you have a reference that

stalin said this was going to be a state

that lasts to the end of time

again you're saying the end of time yes

this is kind of weird

are you aware of stalin's actual

arguments as to

the ultimate victory of worldwide

socialism and its relationship to

socialism in one country do you have an

ounce or smidgen of familiarity as to

the question

i'm not sure exactly what you're asking

so if you want to just say

sure i'll tell you what stalin said

stalin said that building socialism in

one country

is the path to global socialism because

socialism will be spread by example

the victory of socialism in the ussr

will set and

send an example to the nations which

actually comprise a majority of people

in the world as well as the developed

capitalist countries

and that is through this means of

acquiring global hegemony not through

direct force direct coercion

or even through uh quote-unquote

spreading the revolution by sending aid

in arms but by example

this is how stalin thought in his view

the worldwide victory of socialism would

be guaranteed

so this is a bit of a diversion from

whether or not it's a revisionism of

marks or angles but i

i do want to ask you this how do you

think that worked out

how do i think what how do you think

that worked out stalin's plan

it is it isn't over

okay um do you view current russia

as a communist or socialist no communist

lost power in russia

right and that was because of external

influences from the west which the

entire point of social can you shut the

[ __ ] up and stop putting words in my

[ __ ] mouth when did i talk about the

west

you want to talk about the causes of the

soviet union's collapse or do you want

to just acknowledge the fact

that stalin's writings and theories have

living continuity in modern day china

yes living continuity right so living

continuity is

sort of one of the principal things in

discussing whether or not something is

revisionist or not

so you can look at marxism as dogmatic

or you can look at it as

creative marxism this is a literal

stalin quote in the sixth congress

where he was talking about uh you have

dogmatic uh dogmatic marxism and you

have creative marxism do you think

creative marxism implies revisionism do

you know what revisionism is

yeah i do know what revision is you know

what revisionism is revisionism means

that the essence of marxism is being

revived but in

according to dialectical materialism in

order for the essence of a form

or the real essential content of a form

to actually persist and survive

the form must undergo changes and

transform

that is not the same as revisionism

which cancels out and completely changes

the essence

i guess that's where we would just would

come to a [ __ ] wall i don't [ __ ]

think we should come to a while i think

you should man up and [ __ ] debate

about it because you gave alex such a

[ __ ] hard time with your

keyboard warrior walls of [ __ ] text

why don't you actually respond to what i

just told you right now

this is perfectly consistent with the

dialectic view

we just fundamentally don't agree on the

definition why don't we agree do you

want to debate about why we don't agree

i don't care what you agree or not agree

with

i care about the arguments you're

willing to forward to

offer us a point of contention we can

[ __ ] debate about

so when marks and angles wrote in

principles of communism or section 2 of

the manifesto whichever you want to look

at here

they specifically pose this in a

question and answer form right so

is it possible to have socialists in one

country alone they said no by creating

the world market big industry has

already brought all the peoples of the

earth and especially civilized people

into such close relation with one

another

that none is independent of what happens

to the others right that is 100 percent

reconcilable with the reality of

socialism in one country

because socialism in one country does

not state that socialism is

ultimately possible to achieve in one

country

it just calls into question

the prevailing assumptions about how

that would work

i think that we have a fundamental

difference i know we have a fundamental

[ __ ] disagreement you want to get to

the

actual content of our disagreement and

debate about it because i don't care

that you disagree with me i care about

why you disagree with me

stop repeating that phrase we're

interpreting stalin completely

differently

okay justify your interpretation

compared to mine

the entire thing that stalin was arguing

for in 24 through 26 was

the idea of this uh isolationist all

tarky

economic system it's it's the same thing

that you have um

sure what does that have to do with the

claim about the ultimate victory of

socialism being global and

and international in nature well that's

the thing two solemn himself was

contradicting himself on this so so

stalin contradict

so stalin revised stalin stalin

stalin was a revisionist to stalin

himself revised stalin and stalin is

pulling from linen and lending and

pulling from

so maybe the issue is that you just

don't understand the dialectic method

that underpinned marx angles lenin and

stalin maybe it's not that they're

revising revising themselves constantly

maybe it's just that you're making

assumptions that they're holding a

dogmatic undialectical view of reality

you ever thought about that i have

thought about that and that's exactly

the conversation so here's the thing too

i'm not saying that it being revisionist

is necessarily a negative thing

linen was revisionist linden revised

himself from 1915 through 1922.

was not a revisionist unless you want to

redefine what the term revisionist means

in context when lenin levied the charge

of revisionism against kotski he wasn't

just saying

that kotsky reinvented the form of

marxism

or made new insights and contributions

to marxism

according to lenin people like bernstein

and kotsky

fundamentally revise the essence of

marxism

right i agree with that but that's not

what i'm talking about i'm talking about

linen changing his mind on the topic of

socialism in one country

from the things that he was writing in

1915 through 1917 to the point where he

was

saying completely different why why do

you have to interpret it as in he

changed his mind why can't you interpret

it as in

lenin never entertained the possibility

that he would come to entertain toward

the end of his life which is what if the

fundamental prerequisites of

civilization

can be built in a non-western manner

which is almost adverbiating what he

said

it's not that he revised or changed his

mind it's that he came across

a possibility that he before didn't

entertain it wasn't within the scope of

what he considered

possible it is true that the bolsheviks

believed

that the october revolution ultimately

hinged

on the victory of the revolutions that

were going to happen in europe that's

true

but in no way can that assumption be

justified as essential to marxism

or even leninism as stalin himself

will argue leninism

itself lenin's contribution itself

ultimately is drawn out through socials

in one country in other words

lenin's contribution to marxism goes

very deep and it goes deeper than what

was previously expected or imagined

what lenin did when he broke with the

second international

he himself did not understand the full

implications

so that argument is the same one that

stalin made and that

lev kamenev actually contextualized

because linden was trying to spend the

stuff that

uh or rather stalin was trying to spend

the stuff that linden was talking about

earlier in his life as um

[Music]

ultimately leading to this idea of

social media country but yes

the difference is that when linen was

talking about that

in that time period he was talking about

developed nations that he considered

right

for socialism and he said multiple times

that russia would you not see how

socialism in one country is a logical

conclusion of lenin

lenin's original distinctive insight in

the founding of the bolshevik party

i'm sorry i was talking did you ask me

if i if i do not see it

yes do you not see the continuity i if

you want to

um to explain that to me i'd be happy to

hear it i'll explain it

okay so the very the very basis

of lenin's distinct view in russia

contrasting with the rest of the

marxists

was that lenin believed that

the democratic revolution

is a necessary isn't necessary an

essential factor to the proletarian

revolution the bourgeois democratic

revolution

but lenin changed the logic for lenin

this was not a linear progress of time

which is going to be that

the big bourgeoisie is going to

overthrow then it's going to be us next

lenin rather said that the democratic

bourgeois revolution is going to have

its basis in the class distinctions that

were popping up

from below in the countryside and that

in the cities that were more developed

where the big bourgeoisie actually

prevailed

you are not going to find the basis of

the democratic revolution

so for lenin the democratic and the

proletarian revolution were going to be

code temporal in an alliance

between the democratic petty bourgeoisie

in the countryside

and the proletariat within the cities

and in the countryside as well

so we're talking about 1915 stuff yeah

i'm talking about the very earliest

writings of lenin the development of

capitalism in russia

right okay so so

it logically follows that

from this very same logic the revolution

is not going to

emerge or even depend upon the advanced

capitalist countries

it's going to come from the global

countryside

which is the colon the uh semi

capitalist and

uneven developed and the colonies and

all this kind of stuff this is the

logical conclusion of lenin's original

insight

which admittedly he and many others

themselves did not originally

grasp the prejudice among the bolsheviks

that the revolution was going to depend

on the european countries was a

prejudice left over from social

democracy in the era of social democracy

and by the way if it's a revisionism of

marxism

you have to ask the question as to why

marx and engels themselves

came to eventually believe and reverse

their original earlier prejudice

that the revolution was going to happen

first in the most advanced capitalist

countries like england

by the end of their lives marx and

engels were on the same page that it was

going to happen in russia

not england and that the english working

class was the

most unreliable working class

uh in con and europe as a whole

so ingles died in what 95

yes so in 94 he was still talking about

how the russian commune could only be

used as a stepping stone to socialism

under the pretense of western european

proletariat victory over the bourgeoisie

so i'm not sure where marx and engels

predict marx specifically said that the

stage in which

the commune could be used to leap to

communism with skipping the stage of

capitalism had passed but he entertained

the possibility first

but both marx and engels were on the

same page that the revolution was first

going to break out

in russia right but this is something

that ingles is saying in the year before

he died and he's still making the same

argument against this concept of social

country he's not making it against the

concept of socialism

in one country which was not even

entertained or on the itinerary at that

time

engels still believed yes that the

revolution a revolution of some kind

wasn't

underway in western europe uh and he

believed the war was going to break out

that was going to lead

to the victory of the proletariat on the

continent

obviously the war happened but the

proletariat did not prevail

in western europe so the um

the concept of the victorious

proletariat lifting

up the defeated proletariat just

completely

doesn't like how do you view that then

because that's that's something that

it doesn't it doesn't end up happening

no

right it doesn't end up happening but

that but is this because

uh angles was essentially wrong

or did he not draw the essence of his

own

material dialectical materialist view to

its uh furthest conclusion

maybe engels himself had prejudices

that he carried over toward the end of

his life which he did

he obviously did both marx and engels

had many prejudices

that were not logical conclusions of

their own brilliant insight that they

carried to their grave

i'm sure they had many prejudices about

uh

europe and europe's significance in

comparison to the rest of the world but

the question is not about

the this or that views marx and angles

had the question about is what was

essential to their discovery to marx and

engel's contribution

to humanity their discovery what did

marx do that no one else did before

what did he discover that was never

discovered before

that's the question that is what makes

or breaks revisionism

not changing one's views according to

different experiences and different

developments actually that is perfectly

consistent with the epistemology that

marx himself made very clear as the

philosophical

of marx's own thinking marx himself did

not have

the exact same views about the world

from cradle to the grave

again i think this is going to come down

to whether or not and again we're kind

of was mark's a revisionist

about himself because marx did not

retain the same views

his whole life about every single thing

in the world

right i understand that so when you're

talking about marx's writings um

i think that you go with the the most

recent ideas that he had

if you're going to look at it from a

doctor why that's arbitrary if he had

lived longer what conclusions would he

have come to based on different

developments

do you think marx would have clung to

those dogmatic views

in the face of the new developments or

would he have gone down the path of

lenin

i think he would have gone down the path

of lenin so far as he remained faithful

and consistent to his original

essential insight do you think he also

would have supported the np

why not i'm just i'm literally asking

that's not a gotcha

i think he would have okay

lenin made it very clear of this marx

and engels have not said a word

which is true of these new circumstances

they found themselves in

marx and engels said nothing they didn't

give a blueprint or a guidebook

they couldn't have these were new

developments

why do you think the um and again this

is not

debating it this is literally me asking

you why do you think there was such a

backlash against kotsky

raising these and even valmer before him

in the context of germany

they were both bringing up this this

idea of um

socialism in one country sort of before

it was

called that uh this idea of uh

prioritizing internal development and

turning inward

uh kotsky if if i was

reading him correctly and it's been a

minute he was mostly talking about an

interconnected

series of social estates that shared

borders and still had trade between each

other

but were mostly um what year did he

state this

klosky uh this probably would have been

like uh early 1900s

and from whom did he get flack

lenin was a disciple of kotski up until

the first world war

uh so linen okay so lennon was

specifically writing

against this in 1915 and 1917. yes

because it was a form of opportunism and

clearly

was a form of opportunism in relation to

the war

it was kotzke's excuse to basically

justify the betrayal of the second

international in the face of the world

war

that was uh had emerged

right well that's why i'm asking man i'm

not that's not a part of the argument

um

so the trotsky argument here uh

obviously i'm not a

i'm not a trot um and the debate that

they had in the 1920s

essentially focused around linen but

again

i'm i'm still i'm still of the mind that

it is a

it is a revisionism of what marx and

ingles wrote because we can point

specifically to but you haven't made a

single argument to justify that claim so

can we get to the arguments

the argument is that they literally

wrote it we can go read it and this is

how they posited the idea of communism

going forward what does that have to do

with revisionism

well how do you define revisionism

revisionism is taking in uh any

direction away from what the doctrine of

the

the ideology is so you're saying that

anything marx and engels wrote

regardless of the context was their

doctrine

so when they do the principles of

communism yeah i think that's a

doctrinal

document but we already established that

the principles of communism in no way

contradict

socialism in one country you establish

that i didn't agree with it but you

didn't make a [ __ ] argument in

response so can you make an argument

this time instead of

saying that this is your argument even

though i gave you a rebuttal you gave me

nothing in return

the argument is that where did marx and

engle specify a time frame

again you you're focusing on time frames

i'm not no

you're implicitly assuming there's a

time frame because stalin did not think

that

socialism was going to only be in one

country and wasn't

ultimately going to be global for the

very reasons stated in the principles of

communism that nowhere did stalin

disagree or contradict that you're

assuming he did

because stalin rejects the stupid view

which is a straw man of marxism from day

one

that the revolution first of all only

implied the political overthrow of

governments and that second of all this

revolution

was going to be simultaneous which is an

absurdity

not even marx and engels thought it was

going to be simultaneous

uh angles did say something about

simultaneous but i agree with you

excited but it was uh it was in uh

deutsche ideology that um uh empirically

communism is only possible as the act of

ruling people is it one stroke and

simultaneously which presupposes the

universal development of productivity

hold on hold on hold on

economy which goes along with that let's

read the exact same

let's read the citation angles

are you german ideology

can you give me a direct quote yeah

at one stroke let me see if i can find

it from that yeah empirically communism

is only possible as

you should be able to find it from that

okay empirically communism

is only possible as

this isn't even something i agree with

but since we want to talk about it

hold on i'm looking for it

on no you're good in pure i can't find

the source

hold on

okay let's try com

i guess empirically is probably not the

best word to use since it'll have

multiple translations

okay here we go and this was marx not

angles i believe

um development of productive forces

empirically communism is only possible

as the act of the dominant peoples

all at once so

marx is saying dominant peoples what

does he mean by dominant peoples are you

aware

so again you're you're assuming that

this is something that i agree with no

i'm not

i'm trying to demonstrate to you that

marx himself changed his view

that's not uh not really the

point is it yes it is the point the

point is

how can you say this is the essential

doctrine of marx and engels when marx

himself changed his view

marx did not think that communism is

only possible as the act of the dominant

peoples because

russians were not dominant peoples and

marx came to appreciate the

revolutionary significance of russia

or the end of his life him and he and

engels were simply ignorant about russia

they didn't know anything about russia

they only knew about germany and they

made a lot of assumptions

about russia and about others which in

context they were correct within their

polemics with fellow whatever but

ultimately they just didn't know about

these other countries and their

significance

well i think that's part of why lenin

was changing his mind too toward the end

of his life he was innate but how is

that a revision of the how can it

how can that be part of the doctrine of

marxism when it's not with mark's view

toward the end of his life so marx

betrayed the doctrine of marxism

why do you get to decide what the

doctrine of marxism is or isn't it

but uh sorry

well we're talking about marx right now

forget about lenin or talking about

marx why are you saying that this is the

doctrine of marxism

i don't understand your question can you

reword it

why are you saying this is the doctrine

of marxism

that's not a rewording it's the same

question yeah can you answer

i don't understand in what context

you're asking the question

i asked you what is revisionism right

you said

it is revising the fundamental doctrine

of marxism

right and you gave me an example

of this contradiction this revision in

the fact

that stalin's socialism in one country

contradicts

what was written in the german ideology

which was 1845

where marx says empirically communism is

only possible as the act of dominant

peoples correct or incorrect

yeah sure and for you i don't know that

was marshall

for you this is an example of the

doctrine of marx

for me that is an example of them

specifically saying at one point

that yes and that's the doctrine of marx

that is that stalin is revising yes

no mark never changed mark's never

changed his mind on this yes he [ __ ]

did it's what i'm trying to tell you

he did change his mind because he no

longer believed

that it's only possible as the act quote

unquote of the dominant peoples

moreover he didn't believe it was all at

once or simultaneous

okay do you have a citation on that yes

i do read what read what

marx wrote about the russian revolution

i mean like a literal citation like okay

let's look at the end

letters between marks and angles we're

going to have to dig through these

marks angles where angles talks about

all it's going to take is a prince

see marxist.org if someone in chat can

speed this up that would be great but

the guy wants a citation and what

happens when you get your citation

then i'll concede the point no it's not

fine enough

what was the quote which it's where

angle sets and all it's going to take is

a noble here or there and this is going

to be

where the revolution breaks out it's

going to spread to all of europe

everybody's still talking about

spreading like

so i guess the other fundamental point

of this is do you so do you want this

citation or not because you're gonna

have to shut the [ __ ] up and help me

find it

i thought chad was looking for it for

you man i mean you're gonna have to shut

the [ __ ] up and let me find it

okay

so you deny that marx appreciated the

revolutionary significance of russia

toward the end of his life i think

there's a difference between

appreciating the

revolutionary significance of it and

saying that uh it in and of itself

was um a form of socialism or that it

was a victory of socialism

listen we're not talking about that yet

what we're talking about

is whether marx clung to the view at the

end of his life that

communism is only possible as the act of

the dominant peoples

of whom russians were excluded well we

know that engels did

because he said this in 1894

but angles included russia so the russia

do you not hear yourself right now the

russians are not the dominant peoples

but russia was pivotal and a key part

of what marx and engels believe to be

this european wide revolution

i guess it depends on your

interpretation of whether or not there

was ever a period where

you could stop having the victorious

proletariat mobilize the defeated

proletariat

what i don't understand this is why we

talked about constant action at the very

beginning of this conversation

constant action is extremely vague and

ambiguous it can mean a billion [ __ ]

things

constant action in the context of

marxism was uh revolution as constant

action until the elimination of

capitalism and the evolution of classes

so

when you have this communism or

socialism as one country policy that

turns completely inward and

stops trying to spread ideology i don't

think that how did it stop trying to

spread ideology

me you're making a bunch of [ __ ]

baseless assumptions and i'm trying to

pin you down on this one thing

stop trying to move away from it marx

and engels

change their view of what you're saying

is the essential fundamental thing

in marxism that's what i'm trying to hit

you with right here and you're trying to

worm your way out of it not worming away

as [ __ ] i'm still here what are you

talking about

but you're avoiding the [ __ ] topic

i'm really not i just don't know what to

look up to

why are you saying this is the essence

of marx's doctrine when marx and engels

themselves

clearly did not stay true to this

assumption

and again the fact that they still

toward the end of their lives

considered the revolution in europe to

be necessary

doesn't mean they still believed that it

was only possible as the act of

so-called dominant peoples

all at once you don't do not get that

you're still focusing on this all at

once [ __ ] i never said anything about

simultaneous that's trotsky

that's that's trotsky's [ __ ] no it's

right here in the quote all at once and

simultaneously

which presupposes the universal

development of the productive forces

and the world intercourse bound up with

communism

here's another issue that you're not

getting at which

actually leaves an open door for marx

even not having contradicted himself

and this very passage not having

contradicted

stalin you want to hear it absolutely

you didn't finish the sentence

marx said this presupposes the universal

development of the productive forces

and the world intercourse bound up with

communism

what's the kicker what translation i

have is which presupposes the universal

development of the productive force on

the global economy which goes along with

that

that's fine it's the same [ __ ]

it's the same [ __ ] as regards to this

point the other part of this too is

shut the [ __ ] up i'm pinning you down

here this is the kicker

the kicker is there was no universal

development of the productive forces and

that very

enigma that very problem is why

they no longer believed it was only

going to happen in western europe

because the universal development of the

forces of production

didn't happen you had a situation of

uneven development

this is the very source of the whole

[ __ ] problem what also didn't happen

communism it didn't like if you if you

look at uh

how does marx define communism well we

covered that at the beginning right no

we didn't cover it actually i don't

think you know what the [ __ ] you're

talking about

i think you're assuming that marx

thought communism was the same thing as

some kind of hypothetical

communist society which is not true marx

appreciated communism as a real and

objective force

in history which in no way is the

equivalent to some kind of

end goal society

so you don't you don't view that as the

you don't view his view of communism as

the

complete victory of communism

of course it's undialectical there's

never a so-called complete victory

this is the problem of people who tried

to be marxoids

but don't understand the philosophical

foundations that gave rise to marxism

this is literally the problem oh that's

certainly an interpretation but

can you make an argument and debate

instead of saying that's certainly an

interpretation because i'm here to argue

who's right then who's [ __ ] wrong

and so far you're [ __ ] wrong as far

as this debate's concerned

a fairly subjective reading of it so

it's not a subjective reading

we're arguing about the [ __ ] reading

itself

you're saying stalin contradicted marx

and angles and revised marx and engels

i'm contesting that point they didn't

revise the doctrine of marxism

whatsoever which is why in 1924 he

writes uh on the foundations of leninism

which has

um parts supporting this this broader

international revolutionary action uh

where he's talking about

um the efforts of one country like

particularly peasant countries russia

are insufficient

um for that the efforts of the

proletariat of several advanced

countries are necessary

and then as he's trying to argue this uh

this policy prescription that he has

for these um socialism and one country

policies he

changes and he's trying to retracts on

foundations of leninism and instead

where does he retract

no no he retracts it by releasing then

the problems of leninism to bolster his

own policy prescriptions

where does he retract the releasing of

the problems of leninism after writing

on foundations of leninism with the

collection of his articles that he wrote

you're saying when he published it he

took out what he said

yes okay so he didn't publish it so what

is that

so what what do you mean he didn't

publish it

he didn't publish the part where he said

it depends on the european countries

no he did that was in those on

foundations of linen so what are we

talking about

what did he retract give me the part he

retracted

he he completely stopped focusing on

that part of it and where did he retract

it

oh my god man when he wrote the problems

of leninism

can you show me where he retracted it in

the problems of leninism

yeah hold on

section four the question of the victory

of socialism in one country it's pretty

[ __ ] section four

question of the the question of victory

of socialism in one country

the question of

socialism in one okay concerning

questions of leninism is the part

victory of socialism in one country

yeah i don't know i said the problems of

leninism i haven't looked at this [ __ ]

in a minute

question of the victory of socialism

here we go

so he quotes

the pamphlet

so where where's the retraction so we

can speed this up right underneath that

he then says but the pamphlet the

foundation of leninism contains the

second formulation which

which says this second formulation was

directed against the assertions of the

critics of leninism against the

trotskyists

who declared that the dictatorship of

the military in one country in the

absence of other countries

could not hold out in the face of

conservative europe to that extent but

only to that extent

this formulation was then adequate and

undoubtedly it was of some service

subsequently when the criticism of

leninism in the sphere had already

been overcome in the party when a new

question had come to the fore

the question of the possibility of

building a complete socialist society by

the efforts of our country

without the help from abroad the second

formulation became obviously inadequate

and therefore incorrect

so is is that the same as retracting it

i believe it is yes no it's not

because he's saying in at the time and

in context it was true but new

conditions have arisen

which render it inadequate to describe

the current conditions

the entire 24 to 26 debate was about

recontextualizing linen to

make it appear to the the communist

party establishment that stopped

acting like lenin didn't [ __ ] end it

with an

open-ended question which was what if

the fundamental re

prerequisites of civilization can be

built

in a way different from europe that's

what lenin said

i posed the question because he himself

didn't know clearly

implying that it was an open question so

stop assuming that it was a dogma of

lenin's

that the victory of socialism in one

country was going to depend

on western europe because it was not i'm

not we're i'm talking about historical

context i'm just talking about the

debates between 24 and 26 i haven't made

any

yes because it was against the

assertions of as stalin himself put it

it was against the assertions of the

critics of lenin

and against trotskyis who declared that

the dictatorship of the proletariat in

one country in the absence of victory in

other countries

could not hold out in the face of

conservative europe and it was adequate

at that time

so given the history of uh the ussr and

where it ended up do you think that that

was true

you're making such an olympic leap

though because oh no i know

the ussr lasted for 70 years you really

want me to encompass every [ __ ]

chapter of the ussr's history

beyond this point the significance and

contribution of stalin

was immortal it lasted beyond this the

ussr's own existence

clearly that's not where the history is

ultimately going to be judged

so stop talking about uh in 1991 the

ussr dissolved

okay what does that have to do with this

specific dispute though because

why listen you you really think this the

soviet union

dissolved because stalin was wrong about

this why did it dissolve in 91 then

why does china still survive that's so

[ __ ] stupid

china's weird china's uh that is weird

okay you what you were saying is stupid

if stalin was wrong he would have been

wrong

way earlier than he was now who's

putting a time frame on it

i am putting a time frame on this what's

wrong with that i am putting it

the issue with putting a time frame in

the context of marks and engels's words

is because they never [ __ ] said or

even implied a time frame

i think i am implying a time frame i'm

even explicitly stating a time frame

70 [ __ ] years is too long to judge

the significance of who was correct in

the disputes of uh

the soviet union oh where's the soviet

union now what a stupid thing to say

what a stupid thing to say why why don't

you just ask

seven years is not that long yes it is

really [ __ ] long it's almost the

whole [ __ ]

person lives

it's listen too much passed between the

time stalin wrote this and the collapse

of the ussr to pin it down to stalin

you [ __ ] might have not pinning it

down to stalin yes you are

do you know about khrushchev's secret

speech yeah and i know about the [ __ ]

bruce

[ __ ] stagnation too like come on man

yes there's a lot of things what about

gorbachev

and i know and then i also know about

the [ __ ] so this is

this proves the possibility of so so in

your view

despite all of these real details that

were decisive

the actual problem is that generally

socialism this what all comes down to

is that you can't build socialism in one

country that's how you're going to

simplify it

i yes i do simplify it like that but

that's only simplification for the

purpose of stating the point it's not

like i would sit here and be like

uh the fall of the ussr was a straight

line from social media i can't believe

we have such a [ __ ] weasel here

i can't believe we have such a [ __ ]

weasel you're the second biggest [ __ ]

weasel to ever come on my [ __ ] show

i asked you a direct question so this is

your example well not exactly

no that's what you're saying you're

saying the ussr collapsed

because stalin was wrong about socialism

in one country but guess what

not because he was wrong about socialism

and country but because trotsky

was it's not about anybody it did not

collapse because of any one person being

wrong

but the criticisms of socialism in one

country during the twenties you think

they were affirmed

by the soviet union's collapse in 91. i

think they were referred but the soviet

union achieved

too much before that collapsed and had

cemented its actual world historical

significance

too much and too thoroughly for you to

say that 91 is going to decide who was

right in those

debates during the 20s that's the issue

if i had to pick a year i would probably

say uh maybe 85 when they started losing

hold on

the eastern european countries but

regardless listen the soviet union

built a real society

that's fed and clothed and in which

hundreds of millions of people lived

inside of

and that never got stopped getting

[ __ ] with by the imperialist west

what's your point so the entire

the west is not the blame for the soviet

union's collapse whatsoever the west is

a non-factor in the soviet union's

collapse

a complete non-faction you don't think

that reagan's [ __ ] uh no i don't

[ __ ] think

was [ __ ] relevant it was all internal

to world communism

everything was internal the west was a

non-factor the the west

was an issue since the beginning you

think that was new no it wasn't

the new thing were the disputes

happening internally in the world of

communism

the new thing was the sino-soviet split

for example the new thing were the

disputes going on within china about the

fate of socialism

the new thing was khrushchev's

denunciation of stalin the new thing

was the inability for socialism to

in the ussr to acquire a reinvigoration

like it did in china

through a cultural revolution those were

the new things that were [ __ ]

happening

those were the reasons you know what

that it was at the west that forced

gorbachev to [ __ ] cave in and uh

so-called uh make the [ __ ] political

mistake and the

disastrous mistake of politically

liberalizing the country

what did the west force him to do that

no it [ __ ] didn't the west is a

non-factor

in the soviet union's collapse if

anything i'll say america

america i don't think america even

foresaw the extent of that collapse

america itself was surprised by it

america was like what

i mean it put america in a situation of

unprecedented uh

uncertainty about the future even

america was a little bit spooked by it

so no the west was not to blame for the

soviet union's collapse not at all

so the the tariffs on oil that reagan

put out in the 80s that cause

such major economic issues that you lead

to the point where they

only they only aggravated the issue

that was already in place why did the

soviet union have to become so reliant

upon oil in the first place

because you realize it's just having a

global marketplace which goes back to

work no because the soviet union was not

always an oil rent-to-your state

the soviet union used to have domestic

industry that it exported

it wasn't it didn't rely on oil like a

rent to your state it was only in the

brezhnev era that this had to happen it

became an

oil rent your state like saudi arabia

all right so why did this stagnate from

the 60s

uh the 60s to the 70s because the

fundamental

the primary stage of socialization

and what if you want to call it

primitive accumulation

industrialization was pretty much

accomplished fully

and the question was what's the next

step what's the next stage

and this was an open question it was a

blind alley

china responded to this in its own way

the ussr

had to gripe with attempting to respond

in its own way

and it obviously failed to respond but

it's not just a matter of a failure of

policy we're talking about an

existential

and generational crisis the essence of

not only marxism leninism but communism

and socialism in general had to be

rediscovered in a new way

just like how it was in china during the

cultural revolution

and that didn't happen in the soviet

union

so given that collapse of the the soviet

economy or stagnation into collapse

but you're just saying oh the whole

thing was doomed because in the 20s

those guys turned out to be right

but that that doesn't exhaust the detail

of what actually happened there was more

details to it than that

i just said it's not a straight line man

no but you're [ __ ] footing around

because you're too much of a [ __ ] to

own up to how stupid your position is

okay so without the uh without

taking advantage of the western imperial

estates going through the great

depression from 29 to 41

what do you mean take advantage well

take advantage in the sense that they

had a hundred thousand different uh

immigrants from western capitalist

countries come in and they had ford

setting up [ __ ] factories and stuff

so

so no so oh no no this is not

uh this is not any sort of um i'm not

saying it in a bad way i'm asking

hypothetically had they not had this

stroke of luck of these western

countries

sort of um it wasn't a stroke of luck

there's no such thing as a stroke of

luck

the same factors that gave rise to the

great depression gave rise to the

october revolution everything was

interconnected there's no luck

so your cope here is that the soviet

union merely got lucky

even though marxist had at this time

always been predicting a worldwide

breakdown of capitalist

uh production and worldwide capitalist

crisis which was vindicated in the 29

collapse in the stock market

that was just a stroke of luck right

that's not any more vindicated than

the [ __ ] fall of the ussr is

vindicating trotsky

but it but it's what do you mean i'm

saying it's not a stroke of luck

i'm not saying the collapse of the ussr

was a stroke of luck but i am saying i'm

saying it doesn't vindicate trotsky but

it doesn't mean it was a stroke of luck

what i'm saying is that they got lucky

in the sense that they did not directly

have a hand in the

the causes or like uh of of the great

depression so according to you had the

great depression not happened

capitalists would not have taken the

opportunity to invest in the ussr's

indus

industry i think it would have been less

likely yeah

no you have no evidence for that

well that's why i said you're just

coping that's not cope

yeah okay so so the reason why was they

got lucky because the great depression

happened and that this for some

mysterious reason this incentivized

companies afford to go help

uh industrialize even though russia is a

very resource-rich country

which the world was interested in

objectively because the world is

interested in

profit rather regardless of whether

there's a depression or not according to

you it's only because of the great

depression

i didn't say it was only because of that

but also when bucharen was talking about

this when he was talking about socialism

in the country and he was talking about

[ __ ]

essentially an antarctical economic

development system

um he was making the argument that they

would be able to pay for all this with

[ __ ] surplus grain and progressive

taxes okay

they didn't expect any sort of influx of

capital from the

from the western capital states like

they ended up getting as a result of the

great depression

so what like i said a stroke of luck

that there was a huge problem with the

the um

so wait wait wait you're saying

that bucharan

was so so you're saying the capitalist

gave the u.s sarbance a free [ __ ]

i never said it was free so what the

[ __ ] is your point

what do you think trotsky's point

trotsky's [ __ ] plan was to turn the

ussr into a fascist dictatorship where

he was going to enslave

the peasant majority and turn the ussr

into a war machine

let me rephrase what do you think

trotsky's plan was with global trade

what was it well he was very much

talking about

uh continuing some of the nep [ __ ] and

having these open trade channels

and using technology at what year what

year was he tagged because trotsky's

plan was super industrialization even

more hardcore than the

biggest stalinist collectivization plan

right but it wasn't industrializing

specifically with indigenous technology

and capital where

bucharans was and he just thought we

could just increase production on the

ship that we already have

okay right so this influx of

of capital and technology from the west

is really

again i'm not a trotskyist but this is

essentially what trotsky's plan was from

start ignoring all the fascist [ __ ] i'm

talking about so so

bucharan bucharan thought that all of

the industry was going to be built from

russia alone it was going to all be

russian technology

that was the argument that they were

making this these debates is that you

have a citation

technology in capital citation yeah

indigenous technology interesting word

yeah okay please site

yeah give me a minute

and then there was also the stalin

thought he was just gonna get all this

money from the [ __ ] treasury which is

not how it works

um so stalin didn't believe that no no

stalin and car and we're not on the same

page about that at all

okay so what was the point you're trying

to make

that trotsky was the one that was

essentially

advocating for it but bukharan did not

agree with sorry stalin didn't agree

with bukhan why are you bringing trotsky

into it

well stalin didn't agree with bukharin

but stalin also didn't agree with

trotsky there's multiple

viewpoints on this so stalin said you

they were going to

foreign technology to try to push

industrialization in the ussr with their

own indigenous technology that they

already so

you just give me the citation for

indigenous technology yeah give me a

minute

it'll probably take a minute

so and according to you most of the

technology this ussr

employed during its industrialization

was not indigenous

hello yeah sorry i'm looking up

something give me a sec did you answer

the question

hey man you you what did you say earlier

when i tried to ask you something when

you were looking up something

do you uh do you have j store like a jar

account

uh i can access whatever you need

did you send it

have you sent it i'm still looking up

give me a second

i found stalin talking about it but i

haven't found i have a car and talking

about it

what stalin said was uh from a country

which imports machines and equipment

into a country which produces machines

and equipment in this manner the ussr

will become a self-sufficient

can you please link it to me i can't

[ __ ] listen or hear anything you're

saying let me read it myself

by the way you were wrong about the

stalin quote i'm going to read the

to give more context which one

the defect in the formulation or what

renders it inadequate that he identifies

is that it joins two different questions

into one it joins the question of the

possibility of building

socialism by the efforts of one country

which must be answered in the

affirmative

with the question of whether a country

in which the dictatorship of the

proletariat exists can consider itself

fully guaranteed against interventions

and consequently against the restoration

of the old order

without a victorious revolution in a

number of other countries

which must be answered in the negative

this is apart from the fact that this

formulation may give occasion for thing

so you see the only way to guarantee

that the proletariat can exist

against intervention is through the

revolutions in the other countries in

question

but that doesn't mean it's impossible to

build socialism in one country

i guess it depends on how long you want

it to last right

did you not listen to what i said i

heard you it's

about the question of the guarantee of

foreign aggression right so

what do you think is more effective

against foreign address than a bulwark

of

uh like-minded states or looking inward

and over-militarizing to the detriment

of your

food and industrial production

what the [ __ ] are you talking about okay

so what are you talking about stalin

literally just said

despite the revolutions not spreading it

is a possibility to build socialism by

the efforts of one country

just because it would be easier nobody

ever [ __ ] argued that

if it's [ __ ] easier for other

countries to be socialist with you

that's fine but if that's not in the

realm of your [ __ ] choice it's not

relevant you [ __ ] idiot

you're acting like you said oh which one

would be better they don't have a

[ __ ] choice you idiot

again i guess that depends on again

you never take a [ __ ] position you

and link me the [ __ ] jstor or

whatever by the way

you never take a [ __ ] position you

always wheeze like well depends on your

you just take the [ __ ] positions and

debate about it like a [ __ ] man

buddy this isn't that serious yeah it is

serious

that's really not yeah because you're a

dumbass that's why

you're a [ __ ] fake marxist marxoid

doesn't understand the actual

philosophical foundations of marxism

so you run your mouth saying all sorts

of dumb stupid [ __ ]

about history and about marxism making

yourself making an embarrassment of

yourself

okay well it depends on your

interpretation that's not how you were

arguing with alex

you weren't saying depends on your enemy

you were making solid affirmative

statement dogmatic statements with alex

i saw what you were talking with alex

yeah but now you want to grow a spine

and actually defend the position

i've given the position i again think

but you've never defended it

angles you've never defended it you've

never been able to defend that

angle said one year before his death

that it's

that you have not established that that

is part of the doctrine of marxism

i guess it depends on whether or not it

depends on just development

depends on guess it depends on yes

you're then

you just like that guy yesterday you're

literally an npc i guess it depends on

guess it depends on so

something that they wrote explicitly

like uh what two months before they died

is not um no it's a circumstantial

statement about the current situation

and no way is that the essential

doctrine of marxism

not everything marx and engels wrote is

the doctrine of marxism

clearly it couldn't be because they

changed their interpret their [ __ ]

understanding of the events

as they were unfolding through the

passage of time

so no not everything they wrote is the

whole this is literally what

stalin described as talmudistic

dogmatism

which is incompatible with the very

dialectic view of mocks and angles

themselves

they themselves were able to [ __ ]

shift their view while being consistent

to their essential foundation you're

just assuming that a

central foundation is some kind of body

of dead

text which is [ __ ] uncompatible with

marxism

marks and angles literally

were explicitly clear that the essence

of the correct position cannot be

contained in ossified

doctrine or dead text or sentences or

phrases

and they literally add verbatim say this

[ __ ]

you're literally betraying

the very [ __ ] spirit of angles and

marks

and using their words against the living

[ __ ]

content using their words against people

that are

taking positions though you're using the

words of marx and angles against the

very living essence of what marx and

angles

were drawing as their foundation for

those same [ __ ] words

that's the [ __ ] difference so then we

circle back to

lenin's view on revisionism and if

that's your take that it's a

it's a living doctrine then any form of

revisionism to it no it's not i just

[ __ ] told

shut the [ __ ] up i already explained to

you that you can contradict

the living essence of marxism and that

is revisionism

that is not the same [ __ ] thing as

having a new

perspective or new position compared to

angles and marks

based on changing time and circumstance

you don't know how you're

opportunistically identifying the latter

with revisionism

but that is not how lenin used and

levied the charge of revisionism

against kotsuki if lenin thought that

was revisionism

why did lenin write imperialism the

highest stage because lenin wasn't

smart enough to recognize his own

revisionism you're such an idiot

like lenin wouldn't be would have been

the biggest revisionist then

lenin's strategy within russia marx and

engels didn't say a word about it lenin

drew from

showed an example of how this was in

line with marx's view

for example it marks his view about the

situation in france and how marx was by

no means dogmatic

you know the dogmatism about the

advanced proletariat that was coming

from social democracy marx was very

dynamic

and very open-minded and open-ended

about concrete situations according to

different countries

marx thought that a true people's

revolution can happen in france through

an alliance between the indebted

peasantry and the proletariat lenin drew

from that is an example

of the fluidity with which marx was able

to acquire concrete analysis of concrete

circumstances

against the dogmatists but otherwise

lenin would have been considered the

biggest revisionist because

yeah you'll probably find a passage of

marx and engels which on face value

seems to contradict

what lenin will say does that mean

lenin's a revisionist

yes but that's not a problem i think

that's the problem here is that you

think that

no but you're you are opportunistically

abusing the word

revisionism because okay if you want to

call revisionism

any [ __ ] apparent formal disagreement

with marx or angles

that's fine but what lenin means by

revisionism is much more specific

okay so then based on the first

definition then yes

socialism in one country is revisionism

of marks and angles but it's not

necessarily

and marks and angles themselves yeah

it's not necessarily a revision of

marxism as a

living doctrine and and marx and angles

themselves were a vision as with regard

to

their own position too never said that

they weren't

okay good so everyone's revisionist no

one can no one can actually not be a

revisionist

if they weren't revisionists then you

wouldn't have to make the distinction

between

marxist leninist and marxist or [ __ ]

leninism no marxists are also a

revisionist everyone's a revisionist

you're a visionist i'm a revisionist

he's revisited she's a nervousness

if everyone's revisionist why you've

been loving the charge of revisionism

since everyone's a revisionist

i don't think everybody's who's not a

revisionist people that take

what marx wrote as doctrine who

i mean who but taking what marx wrote as

doctrine

is revisionism because it contradicts

what marx himself writes

about dogmatic doctrinaire positions now

doesn't it

no it doesn't because you're not talking

about yes it does marx and engels were

very clear that dogmatic doctrine air

positions are incompatible with the

dialectic perspective

so if someone is taking a dogmatic view

in relation to marx's writings actually

they are revisionist because it

contradicts

the express written words of marxism

there is no

there is there is no way to not be a

revisionist according to you

if that's your take then no it's your

take it is the logical revision

it is the logical conclusion of your

take logical

conclusion of your take is that any

change to what is written is not

revisionism

it's part of it being a living living

doctrine right

which is the actual [ __ ] marxist view

yes okay so then really just any change

can be made and koski was right

no that's not true because lenin means

something more specific

when he charges caught you with

revisionism than that you [ __ ] idiot

kotsky's [ __ ] crime is not only doing

that

you're [ __ ] not so big [ __ ] [ __ ]

idiot

you [ __ ] typed so much in my discord

and you're such an

airheaded [ __ ] [ __ ] don't mean what

part of the fact

that lenin was levying to the charge

against kotsky

not simply oh changing us wording you

know having different

positions based on different

circumstances but a fundamental

betrayal of the essence the living

essence of marxism

have you [ __ ] do you not [ __ ]

speak english or something

do you not think that socialism in one

country is a fundamental part of

what stalin considered to be socializing

going forward from the time

and in no way does it betray the living

essence of what marxism is

as a matter of fact it is because it is

perfectly compatible not only perfectly

compatible but

perfectly an expression of a living

dialectical materialist view

it is literally the logical conclusion

of marxism

given the circumstances it is

there is a perfect line of continuity

from marx to mao a perfect

it is so perfectly clear how one leads

to another

based on the essence of what marxism is

you can make one for [ __ ] trotsky too

it doesn't mean that no you can't

because

trotsky's permanent revolution was

literally an anarchistic [ __ ]

betrayal of

it was not dialectical it was a

one-sided anarchistic

permanent negation there's no negation

of the negation with trotsky

that's the issue so you don't think any

of kamenev stuff was

suffice revisionists either even though

even though he was arguing against

stalin

because he could draw a straight line

from that [ __ ] too no you can't

stalin represented the straight line

stalin was the straight line stalin

alone

stalin alone is the person who had the

balls to take

lennon to his conclusion and not step

backwards

like kaminev bukharin zenobiev

and trotsky and the rest of them were

doing

only stalin was faithful enough to lenin

to take it to its furthest

and most logical conclusion

the rest of them were bogged down from

by prejudices from western social

democratic marxism

that really

what is your contention there that

stalin didn't have any prejudices

stalin had prejudices of the social

democratic western marxism relative to

mao yes

but not relative to them relative to mao

yes i would make that argument

stalin did have certain prejudices left

over from the era of social democracy

that do not that turn out not to be

necessary conclusions of

marx's original insight at all and i

think mao demonstrated that

well where we disagree then i guess is

that we're not you're not we're not here

to talk about our disagreement we're

actually here to debate about who's

right and who's [ __ ] idiot

okay well i think we've uh i think we've

covered that so

no we haven't because you haven't made

any arguments

i mean if that's what you feel that's

fine chad did he make arguments

did he respond to my arguments or did he

just say well

depending on how you interpret it

you haven't [ __ ] regained your honor

and i you want to debate alex

yeah i don't give a [ __ ] not right now

though you want to debate alex

yeah we could do that later i'm not

doing it right now i've been talking why

not right now

because i've been talking to you for

what like two [ __ ] hours dude from a

country which imports machines and

equipment into a country which produces

between

this in this manner

okay wait so stalin is saying

first we will import machines and

equipment and then they're going to

produce their own well that's what

actually what [ __ ] happened

he was talking about what they were

before he wasn't talking about

this was he was in the context of that

quote he was talking about

what they were prior to his like desired

implementation of but they did

eventually produce their own machines

and equipment

they did eventually do that i agree okay

so what was the point of this quote we

were talking about

uh internalization i believe at this

time and we were talking about um

using indigenous technology as the

phrase that was with the but and you

haven't proven that what stalin meant

was that

producing like they they did

eventually start producing their own

technology and indigenous technology

that is what happened

can you demonstrate that i didn't prove

that yes i can because what you were

trying to prove

was that stalin was saying we're going

to immediately stop

using importing machines and we're going

to immediately build our own

indigenously and that's how we're going

to solve the crisis that's not what

happened that was bakarin but i can't

find it right now man

bucharan himself didn't even say that no

one thought they were going to

immediately stop

importing machines and equipment from

other countries

now we're back on time frame so

immediately is sort of a

sort of like talking about eternally

when we're talking about permanence of

a social dimension yeah you seem to have

this issue with scales of time

you seem to have this dogmatic

assumption that if stalin says

socialism is possible in one country

that that means

it is eternally possible in one country

which he never said

i think linen was a lot clearer about it

being a transient state than stalin was

stalin was specifically positing it in

these debates what do you mean transient

states

uh well again when he was talking about

this a lot of it was coming up in the

context of uh we're gonna collapse if we

don't get help from the

the winners of the proletariat and when

they didn't get that help what did

lennon say

but again this is they didn't get the

help so what did london say saying that

that was linden's final position

i'm saying maybe maybe lenin himself

didn't know the full implications

of his own [ __ ] break with social

democracy

which social social democracy and its

western prejudices gave rise to the

shocking and catechismic betray

betrayal that gave rise to lenin's

rejection and split with the second

international so there was a lot of [ __ ]

from social democracy that they were

inheriting

it was part of that same corruption

that's fair

yeah i can agree on that that's fine

what i was pointing out though is that

um

when we're talking about time frames

there were times when somebody was

specific about

time frames but this wasn't an example

of that that with the quote you just

sent me is not an example of that no

i'm not talking about the quote anymore

man i'm talking about linen but

it's whatever

all right dude it's been fun it's been

about it's been over an hour i got stuff

to do

so i appreciate you taking the time

honestly

okay you have to debate alex next i

don't have to do [ __ ] but uh i will you

know

okay all right man take care