Haz vs Jason Unruhe | InfraredShow Debate

hello

yes

hey uh do you want to come up

[ __ ] wrong button

all right

all right um hold on

let me pop this out

let me get this discord oh [ __ ]

actually

take a shot of this first

[Music]

okay um

sorry give me a sec

all right what's up

hey sorry

are we on right now yeah we're on right

now okay good good

so do you want me to just basically run

down what happened

uh yeah yeah the floor is yours

okay so basically caleb put out a tweet

earlier saying that third world is

support imperialism well that's an

outright lie

the the entire cornerstone of everything

that we are is anti-imperialism putting

anti-imperialism before everything else

um

i mean whether or not you want to agree

with the ideology or not

to say that we support imperialism is a

falsehood

um

so

uh

i i didn't see caleb's tweet but

hold on give me a second i got a

complete

desk

sorry about that

all right so

i

i didn't see his tweets specifically but

i think as materialists we do have to

distinguish what

an etiologist says their ideology is and

the real content of uh

what they're saying at the level of the

practical implications the material

implication implications and the

material implications are not about uh

what it would mean for their ideas to be

uh realized on the terms of the ideas

but what it would mean for their ideas

to be realized

um

in actual reality like

which isn't something that's can be

controlled by the ideas themselves if

that makes sense like for example one

can say uh that they are an

anti-imperialist

but

because of the specific way they're

positioning themselves in relation to

real existing imperialism they can end

up serving imperialism

okay so how is it you think i'm serving

imperialism

um

so

i don't know specifically how you are

doing it but

just for the hypothetical sake

um

i would say that

if you're addressing an audience and

basically telling them that they have to

hate america and oppose america and

patriotism and things like that

they don't have to hate america it'd be

beneficial but they don't necessarily

have to

well

but for the sake of argument let's say

you have to yeah well that's like a

consequence of marxism or marxism

leninism the net effect is the support

of imperialism because you're basically

nullifying

their ability to pose a threat to

american imperialism whatsoever

exactly how is being against america and

hating america supporting american

imperialism

well because you're making it impossible

in that way for people to practically

oppose the real existing reality of

american imperialism not

the one and how does that happen

well it happens because the only way to

defeat american imperialism as far as

americans are concerned

is to win the american masses

not necessarily

you could for the most part i mean even

if you did

hate america yeah that would be one way

to do it

anti-war activism and pretty much during

the vietnam war there was burning the

american flag yeah but that was not an

effective way of um that the vietnam war

was prolonged for so so many years even

at the expense of the anti-war movement

and part of that was because the

anti-war movement wasn't drawing from

the material basis of american statehood

which would eventually become the kind

of reagan uh democrats

the kind of working class that supported

nixon and later reagan

if you could tap into those people and

um

accentuate the contradiction between

them and the american deep state and

military-industrial complex which does

exist

you would be opposing imperialism more

effectively than any kind of

sloganeering or burning or symbolic

gestures could possibly example of this

is the fact that

whether we like it or not i mean this is

not our preferred it's not preferable to

us

but let's look at the past 20 years

the most effective threat i just want to

get something straight

you're going to fight the military

industrial complex

by

loving your country

yeah when

that is what it is

no this is an undialectical view because

no no america was born of slavery racism

genocide and land theft

all of those things are

what made america what it is

without those things america does not

exist but those things preceded america

no those are the basis for america but

those preceded the american states by

countries they are the basis of america

you're saying slavery existed before

america it was the basis of america if

it was the basis of the united states

why was a war in need of being waged to

give rise to the united states

because it was a concept of the

bourgeois ideas of property ownership

over the remaining feudal notions that

were still held by the uh by the

british territories

for example like what do you mean as an

example for example uh

you say the unconstitution about

property and all of that

and the removal of

religion from the government those are

all anti-feudal notions before that many

of the feudal notions were you had to be

born into aristocracy to own any

significant amount of land you had to be

born of aristocracy to do business etc

the whole point of the constitution was

literally was without saying it

but if you look at the substance of it

it's pro-capitalism but the english

civil war had already overturned the um

the feudal order proper both in england

and

for the most part

so i don't see how that that's what

that's what the constitution is

literally a pro-capitalist document but

the

america was never and america was never

feudal property it was always um

determined by well i know you men who

came from europe and you know own small

plots yeah there was no surfs and there

was no things i never said there was

yeah

the point of the constitution is the

opposite of that

that was not formalized until there was

the constitution

i mean even then you can't say there is

an america without land theft

okay you had to kill off the natives and

take their land

but that was something that again was

not essential to the founding of the

united states or the republic yes it

physically could not exist without it no

but you're not listening to what i'm

saying is that that was happening anyway

that was going to happen regardless of

whether they're literally trying to

separate native genocide and land theft

from america

no i argued uh a week ago that without

slavery there would be no united states

so i agree with that what i'm trying to

say is that so

that wouldn't have just seemed like it

just agreed but the us was not the

decisive factor in determining whether

there was going to be those things is

what i'm trying to say those things

existed before and would have existed

anyway

you're saying there would have been an

america even if the land theft wouldn't

no i'm not saying that i'm saying there

would have been land theft and there

would have been slavery even if there

was no republic

so the fact that they are there so in

what way did the republic make a

difference is the question

well literally the us army slaughtered

native americans

did the british not do that

particularly the u.s cavalry

did the british not do that and

so

america isn't england it's america okay

but you're not listening to what i'm

saying you're not recognizing the

decisive significance of the american

republic you're taking a concept of

america that doesn't materially exist

and say no i'm not well it could have

existed i'm just telling you where

america made a difference in history and

the difference wasn't that it introduced

all those things those things existed

anyway those were there

the only difference as far as the

american republic is concerned and the

american republic does not exist without

them

how do you know

well you see

it physically would have nowhere to be

if it wasn't there

explain how is it

you know where america physically exists

turtle island right

had the native population not been

forcibly wrong right now

okay but we're speaking now in 2021 why

is it oh oh

as long as we remove the historical

context of the creation of america and

everything it's done

but we're living here and now so i'm

asking you okay so as long as we

completely remove the material basis for

the existence of america and everything

i'm not denying the i again if it wasn't

for slavery you're not denying that

you're turning around and saying yeah

well it's a different time now

this is the i'm asking you what what

does it mean in 2021 now

oh so natives aren't marginalized and

had still have their lands they are but

for example why would it be incompatible

with the continuity of the republic and

even the constitution for example for

land reparations to be given to uh

native americans and for their rights to

be up they're treated to be upholded and

for them to be given more uh land and

more rights and all these

self-determination

why would that not be possible as long

as the republic uh stands

because the republic would still be on

their land even if you quote gave them

reparations

which by the way they don't want

so what do they want

so i can

so basically what you're saying if the

israelis throw a scrap of land of the

palestinians

then it's over

no the decisive significance in regards

to the israel-palestine conflict is the

fact that

the palestinians are still contesting

the land in the west bank in gaza and

elsewhere native americans are still

doing the same thing

right but

the difference is that

the native american population is what

percentage of the united states oh

because they were

basically slaughtered off

their claim is what not as valid as

palestinians

it would be proportionate to the amount

of space they need as a people oh so

basically there's not a lot of native

americans left so they don't get their

land back do you know what native

americans are demanding and what they

want

yes what do they want

they want their land back

and so they want the entirety of the

united states

only as their property

how however and i can taste this comes

from comrade number three

the political the uh the political

leader of the navajo nation and this is

exactly what he told me

who is a socialist by the way can you

okay so what is his name

uh his name is comrade number three i

don't know his real name

comrade number three and he represents

the navajo people

yes actually i i have a thing of him on

my channel him speaking about

decolonization et cetera and he wants

all of america for the navajo

there is

a question of what it is they want to do

and it's their decision to make not the

colonizer i'm trying to

and i can't find him so you're not gonna

find anything on a google he doesn't

have a social media so how do you know

he represents

the whole navajo people and he's their

actual representative because i've

talked to him and i've talked to his

people

you've talked to every navajo or you've

talked to no i've not talked to

everybody because there are official

organizations that are right so

basically you're good you're just going

to claim he doesn't exist

i don't know who you are

i don't know who you're talking about

okay

i'm saying there are

there are official representatives of

indigenous

organizations and people and

reservations and tribes there are

official tribes that are registered

recognized by the us government and oh

well it's recognized by the us

government because that's someone you

can trust

well who are you going to trust then

otherwise you're just dealing with

individuals

the people themselves

which people

the native americans themselves

but

that's the issue with individuals right

some many individuals can say well we

support trump many individuals can say

well we support this we support that so

i don't support the ones that how do you

know who speaks for all indigenous

people

no one person does

but that is the general consensus is yes

they do want their land back and even

now we've gone okay what but hold on

what is their land what land do they

want back do they want half of the world

they want the entirety of seaboard to

seaboard united states

some of them yes

to do what with historically speaking

they didn't uh have all of that land

they didn't even use all of that land

that doesn't even make any sense funny

i have studied

that is an and rand that isn't that's

literally what anne ramsey they

literally did not i'm not saying they

didn't exploit i'm saying that they

literally had no

it wasn't a sacred grounds for that they

didn't even operate in all of america's

seaboard to seaboard that's what i'm

trying to say

that's funny because i've had zionists

say the same thing about palestine

well they weren't using all of it so

therefore the colonization is okay

well we're not saying it's okay but

we're saying that they didn't use all of

it but we're not saying it's okay that

doesn't make any sense okay i'm trying

to talk about mine

okay historically speaking

you can actually map historical and

ancestral lands in various

so therefore it's okay to steal some of

the land

no that happened in the past

oh so it happened a long time ago

therefore it doesn't count

well what do you what would it mean for

its accounts

the land was stolen okay well no no

amount of saying since we're since we're

talking about the past and it's at the

weight of the past matters so much where

do you currently live

i currently live in canada so why don't

you pack your bags give your land to

indigenous people first of all with with

what money and by the way i don't own

any land you don't have a house i i no i

live in a rented apartment so give your

start giving your or share your

apartment at least with homeless

indigenous people

oh so very right wing argument you like

that on an individual level that i can

make any kind of a difference in that

way

but i'm asking you what are the

contemporary

so what the past doesn't count move to

cuba so the past doesn't count discount

i'm saying it does count so if these

pounds stop occupying their land now and

leave well if it can't if you like

socialism move to cuba it's okay

well for me the implications of

socialism are building socialism here so

why would i move to cuba if the

implications of socialism for you are

giving all of the native people their

language

argument

but the implications of socialism to you

are giving all indigenous peoples

argument so what are the implications i

can't give their land back i don't have

any land

you can give you give back something i

don't

own the apartment you can give your

belongings and you can give your i

belong they don't want my belongings

they want their land i don't have any

land but you're but you are physically

living in an apartment on stolen land

you're living on stolen land

so do you remember the clip of that

settler who was saying if it wasn't if

it's not going to be me who takes the

house it's going to be someone else

that's kind of how you're being right no

no no no no no no no that's not the

argument i'm making i never say it

sounds a lot like the argument you're

making no no no absolutely not because i

don't i don't i don't deny that i'm on

occupy land and it should change

how how is that

this is nice and so it's like saying if

you don't like a capitalist economy then

leave

no it's just the same argument no i

could easily respond

the it's not the same argument i could

easily respond to that argument by

saying that it's still stolen but but

it's not to say that the basis of

socialism isn't capitalism it's not the

same argument because

to get out of the socialism that you are

on stolen land just as i am

and it should be returned to those

people

and they can i i don't believe that's

the contemporary implication is that

they want all of america you're really

raising the bar no no i think you're

really trivializing the ongoing

injustices against indigenous people by

raising the bar so high you're lying

about what i'm saying

well you realize that

have you actually studied what

indigenous people do want because they

don't just want all of america they tell

me like i said some do want all back i

never said they all

i know indigenous people who are

fascists and i know indigenous people

too but i know some who are fascists and

who love mussolini and hitler stop

putting words in my mouth because i

didn't say that no i'm saying i know

indigenous people who like mussolini and

hitler do they represent all indigenous

people no well you can only go off of

the actual tribal leaders

and what

they are saying literally okay so some

people could stay some people can go

let's say it's up to them they even said

that they'd be willing to give some land

to uh descendants of slaves etc that's

not the question here the question

that's really convenient

hold on that's really convenient that

like that's their their view is

everything that conforms to white

western left wokeness

do you do you know that there's historic

wait do you know that there's a history

of conflict between um descendants of

slaves and slaves and indigenous peoples

you know that indigenous people had

slaves

and it's still their land and they can

still make the decision whether or not

they want anyone to be able to stay on

but it seems like it's so convenient

that what they apparently want it's not

convenient it's just what white western

leftists want no no no no it's not what

white left her western left

western leftists want to erase

decolonization entirely and why was the

response to me caleb and jackson

overwhelmingly negative

by the leftists

because your position was [ __ ]

so you're contradicting yourself no it's

the patriotism that was [ __ ]

i didn't see anybody getting mad over

decolonization that's exactly what they

were getting over there that's exactly

what they were getting mad over yeah

because you can't say you stand for

decolonization while supporting the

state or supporting the country

that is the colonizer you know okay do

you know the origins of this term um

decolonization within academia okay now

now now you're going to try to play

semantics

it's a complete white western left white

guild plan

land that was stolen and you are coming

up with justifications for it continuing

to be that way

oh we'll make treaties give them

treaties that they can't actually

that they can't actually turn down i

mean i mean you do know the history of

land treaties

i think you can

actually address their real demands and

claims on a fair basis that addresses

the needs of everyone who lives here

in

america i think that they would largely

disagree

okay let's say you're let's say you

let's say you're let's say you're right

exactly

what about america

does that does that essentially change

america's on stolen land if they had

agre they agree

to give that land to america

that wouldn't even be america anymore

is there land in your view that is not

stolen in history

what's an example of non-stolen land

the other half of the world

none of that land was conquered canada

united states australia that's who i'm

talking about

so no other land was taken forcefully in

the world

i didn't say that

i don't i don't so should that land be

given back as well

maybe depending on the case i don't know

i'm not talking about them so i am

talking about the western world

why

because the western world is the problem

the western world is the imperialist

core i i agree that it's imperialism why

are you trying to change the subject to

some other country

because i don't know why

i don't know what you mean by like we

live on stolen land well who doesn't

what do you what do you mean britain's

live in britain russians live in russia

so you don't think any british land is

stolen from indigenous people in the

british isles like the normans conquests

and those kinds of things depending on

the area

so should that land again either would

that be your advice maybe i would have

to i would have to research those

individual things

but i am not talking about those ones i

can't i think the point i'm trying to

make the points i'm trying to make

i'll throw you a bonus i'll throw your

point

no i'll throw you a bone even though you

know it's debate wise it's not a good

idea but i'll just do it to be fair i

agree that there is something unique uh

compared to the rest of the world

about the western colonialism in the new

world i agree it's not just like you

know the historical forms of conquest

and subjugation that existed elsewhere

so i'll just throw you that bone but the

underlying point i'm trying to give to

you

is that the only way to reconcile the

sins of the past

is to live

and address their implications in the

present you're not going to rectify the

so-called injustices of the past because

all of history is written in blood

slaughter war rape and injustice and

there's no way for you to like reverse

that or just make it so that that that

wrong can be right you have to come to

terms with the fact that this was an

objective part of the development of

history

and

yeah i just that was my point

that is an objective part of what is

america where i i agree but so what are

the implica but you're saying the

implications of that is that we can just

reverse that and give all indigenous

people all the land instead of

addressing the needs of the people who

live here now

[Music]

you don't need to address

their

or the people living here do not need to

address it they need to give and and

one of the differences with the

israel-palestine conflict too is that

that conflict is not based on the

humanitarian good graces of the

colonizer it's an actual like real war

that's going on

so if the palestinians were not aware

what's going on on

reservations and the history well for

example i would never appeal to western

morality in defense of the palestinian i

would say the palestinians and their

allies will be victorious

right because i do believe that

um whether i like that or not that's

just my assessment and my belief i

cannot make the same assessment when it

comes to

what if native americans are waging a

protracted people's war against the

federal government which they're not

it's not going to fare well for them

so therefore it's okay to just continue

the way it is you don't have a material

if you're not fighting for it then but

you haven't you don't have a materialist

view of morality what do you mean okay

okay according to the room and by whose

actions and morality is

even necessarily material

what it's not even an objective thing

but you're appealing to morality

no i'm saying how is one valid and not

the other well valid is a

moral

category no there is no addressing their

concerns

they make the decision because it is

their land so let them they address our

concerns so so they'll do it then

okay and

that's i'm not going to get in their way

but the u.s don't see them

but i don't see them conquering all of

america i just don't see it happening

who said anything about conquering well

then how are they going to get all of

america if not by just i didn't say that

they would necessarily would i said it

should be given to them

which is about morality okay so you're

saying that because they can't kick our

ass and take it back

then it's okay

that's materialism for you

so you're saying because they literally

can't so you literally making might is

right that's materialism for you

and by the way i'm not saying you

literally are yes you are you just did

well that's how you were interpreting it

can't kill us and take it back that

literally is might makes right

i'm saying whatever morality you have

has to be make peace with that objective

material fact i'm not saying it that

makes it okay you're you're whatever it

is or isn't okay you have to make peace

with the material circumstances and the

reality

yeah and the reality is the land on the

is stolen

and all you're really saying is that

they can't kill us and take it back so

it's ours

the land who is all you're saying who's

ours

what do you mean

who's ours i mean are you saying what do

i think should happen if i could snap my

fingers and have whatever reality i want

or am i talking about what is the

reality and how should the marxist and

materialists respond accordingly you

don't think

that you should fight to have the land

taken given back to them okay what does

it mean to fight for that

does it mean just virtue signaling to no

avail that's what i think you think no

that's what first world is due

so how do you do it then

well first of all theoretically

if you felt it was necessary not that

i'm necessarily advocating it you would

essentially destroy american society

overthrow the government or something

like that i am not necessarily endorsing

that officer

but there are plenty of um

all you would have to do is disable i

get i get it i get it that's the

anarchistic approach there's plenty of

groups that are working overtime 24 7 to

do that a lot of them are far right the

order of nine angels the atom often you

know they just want to destroy it all

right but they're not they're those are

federal honey pots that for people to go

and get arrested and go to jail and

theoretically so if you try to organize

if you try to organize something like

that you're going to create a federal

honey pot you're not going to succeed so

again you come right back to

might makes right

well i'm asking you oh you can't beat

the government so therefore it's okay to

remain the way it is

i never said that

no but that's exactly the implications

of exactly what you know the

implications to me is that

what you're calling the government or at

least society has internal

contradictions and that marxists are

trying to

accustom to them to themselves to those

contradictions and make sense of those

contradictions

i'm sorry what did what did that have

anything to do with taking down you're

saying nothing will change and that's

not true because change happens in an

imminent i'm not saying nothing

according to the internal contradiction

and not according to the voluntary will

of anarchy

you're putting words in my mouth again

i never said nothing changes

okay

well you said you said i think nothing

should change

that's not what i think because it's not

about morality it's about the objective

fact that

things are changing according to the

development of their internal

contradictions

yes that's not what i meant

so what did you mean i think it should

change

like what

what are you even accusing me you think

it should change right

yes

so does your should include a little bit

of reality or is it just something

purely here yes this is reality okay

then how but if it should then there has

to be a can this has to be a can too not

just a shoulder so yeah so it's stolen

but you're adding the but you're adding

if you say for example this cat that i

have it's a brown cat

this cat has four legs let's say the cat

has four legs i want the cat to have

this cat should have five legs is there

a bit of reality in that demand

don't compare them but don't make such

an idiotic comparison but it's it's like

an extreme comparison to try to explain

to you no way actually it's a pretty

stupid comparison but it's it's about

explaining to the relationship between

morality and reality yes i understand

what you're saying yeah the reality if

you're should it has no can or means

what you're saying is that you don't see

how it could be given back so if your

morality has no means to realize itself

you're ignoring you don't have a

materialist understanding of morality no

yes i do

so how is it okay how is your morality

materialist then

because this is stolen land and your

only argument is you can't force it to

give it back so therefore don't bother

and you know what that doesn't even that

doesn't even have to do with what the

entire debate was supposed to be about

anyway

what is america okay hold on this is

scotland's stolen land

okay

genocide nothing you say about okay it

happened before it happened before

america existed and some of it did

happen while america existed all of

these things are what america is all of

these things built what america is well

why why is it okay but that's still the

reality that nonetheless you inhabit you

live breathe and eat and drink something

and and and

nonetheless despite this reality there

still manages to be internal

contradictions that don't that don't

obey

merely being a result of this founding

sin you're talking about what does that

talk what does that have to do with the

fact what i'm trying to say is that you

have to come to peace with the facts of

history instead of having

i have to come to peace with native

genocide slavery you're telling a white

person to come to peace with that

yeah so what are you saying i have to

just accept that it happened okay well

it doesn't you're making it seem like

i'm asking you to like

go into a time machine and and not alter

the events of what happened you can't

you can't alter the events that's the

point so what what do you do going

forward so what did what to do going

forward it just doesn't matter so what

to do going forward

decolonize how let them the native

americans decide what they want to do

contracts by the us government they have

to decide autonomously what happens

so let them but the settler colonial

state that is america

brutally represses them to this day

preventing that from happening so what

you're doing is virtue signaling moral

indignation no it's not backing it up

with that literally no what are you

talking about

what is the implication of what you're

saying practically what does that mean

practically again practice is not about

practice is not about what you want to

happen it's about what will happen

so what does it mean practically i just

explained what america is and what it

does that's why you should not be able

to why is it that the way you explain

america is just this kind of protestant

calvinist more like morality of a world

of total depravity it just seems all too

conveniently white in western european

actually did happen and these things do

okay so you're basically saying this is

america america is our reality so

reality is evil corrupted and sinful and

fallen that's what you're saying america

is is bad is america our reality yes or

no is america our reality is our reality

so our reality is a fallen sinful evil

world right

the last time i checked the american

empire is a pretty [ __ ] evil thing

yes

okay but you're just repeating calvinism

i'm a muslim i don't know no no no no no

no no no so i'll explain to you my

theology

it has everything to do with it it has

everything to do with it it has

everything to do with it in my in my

muslim theology

reality is not evil fallen and sinful

there is a divine wisdom and ultimate

reconciliation in all the events of

history that's my muslim uh

understanding of the world break it to

you but there's no material proof of god

but you still are anything no i i am

religious myself

but i also know that there is no such

thing as an objective but you're a

fanatical calvinist protestant who

believes a world of total depravity is

protestant then why are you merely why

are you merely reproducing people i'm

being a protestant calvin well why are

you merely reproducing the world of

total depravity the theology of the

world of total depravement well i'm

saying that it should be changed

well how is it okay what are you even

doing it should be changed how will it

be changed

okay

we were never arguing that we were

arguing what we have to argue

what no we if okay then your morality

has your morality has no basis in

reality

and why should we okay your

moral prescriptions

are changing the subject your moral

prescriptions have no basis in reality

and changing the subject but your

morality has no basis in reality you

think this trying to twist morals and

all this other stuff what is america and

why shouldn't we support it you are

trying to get as far away from that as

possible i don't just see america as the

theft of genocide and stolen land how

could i

it's not just

that's a part of its history but that's

not all it is

all it is realism so hold on let's break

it down is that all it is

that is the basis of what is okay so

there are some other aspects of it too

so

justify its existence so morality is the

basis

the violation of morality is the

material basis of america to exist

so let's

let's

reign in the argument the violation of

your morality is the basis of america

okay no no we're not talking about my my

morality or

whatever morality the violation of

morality objectively what is america

what built it what is it today

what is its foundation and everything

that it is and that

is

america exactly you want to change what

it is no it doesn't address what america

actually is essentially speaking

essentially speaking it's a genocidal

[ __ ] war machine then according to

you

and this is your view not mine

had the american republic not been

founded

all of those things would have

eliminated there is no maybe

so had there been no american republic

so i i i have you on record to be clear

had the british empire continue to rule

the americas none of those things would

have continued to happen what exactly

what does that have to do with it we're

talk well if we're talking about what

america essentially is we're addressing

why

in what way did america make a

difference

right that's what's what defines it's

just distracting away from the essence

of what it is all these things that it

did to get to where it is well what if

the british had kept it so white

okay so the same thing happened with

with with with a british flavor so what

it would still be

wrong and decolonization would still

need to exist

you will not acknowledge the basis of

america you'll say that you will but

then you will go into all this other

talk about morals and [ __ ] that has

nothing but morality is the only basis

of your argument here

oh so you don't think that land theft is

wrong and land theft genocide and

slavery is wrong the reason i think it's

wrong is because i wouldn't do it now

oh

i'm against doing it in the here and now

how can i be against something that

happened in the past

you need to be told or have someone tell

you that

bad things happening a long time all

right okay hold on let me take a call

then give me a second uh yeah that's uh

that's actually a pretty [ __ ] up

morality that you have there

all right i just got off the phone with

george washington i told him he's an

[ __ ]

because i don't approve of what he was

doing

i'm sorry that was supposed to make what

point

it was supposed to make the point that i

can't account for the past i can't

change the past in the way you're asking

i know

so what is the what is the script you're

trying to draw a moral prescription

based on something that happened in the

past what is the implication now are the

passes you're you're just trying to

reverse the past you can't reverse the

fact that you reverse the past yes you

are you're trying to effectively reverse

the past and cleanse your white self of

your ancestors sins yeah because i'll

break it down jason

jason you have white guilt

you want to be free of your white guilt

you just want to be free of your white

guilt white guilt i don't even yes you

just want to be free of your white no

okay now you're just making personal

attacks because you can't back up your

oh okay okay forget about you personally

the people who are pushing this stuff

just want to be free from their white

guilt oh so the native americans that

don't like america native americans by

and large do not push

for taking all of america

seaboard to seaboard all of it you're

putting words into my mouth again they

are not pushing for these audacious

grand claims they are no they are not

and they don't love america either well

why should they reporting why should

they

they shouldn't

so

are native americans helped by american

white people them hey let me join you

guys i hate america too no you help them

by focusing on your own people focusing

on your own country and making right by

them that's what will [ __ ] help them

not by [ __ ] running to uh the

keystone protest and partying there and

acting like you're part of them they

want you to go win power among your own

people so you could do right by them and

you can address their current demands

and their current needs and work

something out with them in a fair way

they don't need you to virtue signal and

condemn america and hate america because

the basis of the american state lies in

the american people if you don't win the

american people you are not going to

challenge the actions of the american

state

you think the american people are the

state

that is the basis the material basis of

every state on earth literally think the

united states government is the american

people it is materially based in the

american people yes

as all states are

well there's a pretty big disconnect

between the american people and the u.s

state well i didn't say it's

subjectively based in them i said it's

materially based in them

yeah so that's pretty a pretty

outlandish claim yeah there's a big

which basically means separation between

two and so which basically

so what if you win the american people

you can pose a threat to the current

order

um trust me the american people don't

pose a threat to the american order

look and to be in in all honesty first

world people that includes canadians so

why was the media and the deep state so

worried about this thing they were

calling populism

it seemed like they were really scared

of that and they were really um worried

about the threat of populism because

they didn't want violence there's a big

difference between them being worried

about street violence and there being a

revolution there's a fear i know a lot

of americans can't tell the difference

it's not about no they weren't worried

about the street violence during the

black lives matter protest they were

worried about the people the american

people

starting to disobey the institutions

that rule over them

effectively leading to a crumbling of

the deep state in the establishment

that's what they're scared of they're

scared shitless of that because formally

speaking we are still a democracy and

you can get people like trump elected

still formally speaking

you think america is a democracy

formally it is yes

well the term you're looking for is

bourgeois democracy sure but that's

that's what that's what by the way

that's what democracy that's what formal

democracy means bourgeois democracy

that thing where the ruling class picks

who runs the country

that's what they've been getting away

with but the way you pose a threat to

that is by forming a base in the

hinterlands and in the countryside and

encircling the cities

yeah and i'm sure the american people

will be doing that any day now

well that's the job of communists and

you see how you're serving american

imperialism by telling communists that

they shouldn't do that

i'm not saying that they shouldn't do

that well that's what me caleb and

that's what me caleb and jackson said

specifically every time this accusation

has been made resistance in the first

world revolution in the third

it's right there resistance and then

will over and over and over again just

ignore the fact that i said so what is

resistance in the first world what's an

example

black lives matter anything that you

mean something that's run by the

democratic party

did you let me finish

something that is like that but outside

of it

what's an example

would you let me answer

i'm sorry anything that runs at that

would that would destabilize the society

in general i don't care if it's right

wing

i don't care if it's radical islam

as long as it destroys the american

empire

so you're saying you're wagering that

these things will destroy the american

empire i'm not saying that i'm wagering

these things in my personal view i think

global warming is going to kill us

before any of this happens

but that's not an excuse so your message

in practice indeed is one of defeatism

yes or no

it's not really defeated yeah we can't

do anything just sit back and wait for

something to happen no no no no no my

statement

is that the american people will not do

revolution

so if you cannot do revolution

then destroy america okay

okay

two problems there's two problems how do

you know they can't do it second issue

okay

okay go ahead sorry

the second issue is how are you going to

destroy america

i i the second one i literally just

answered that

you didn't answer it you said you're

gonna wager that abroad you know radical

islam

right-wing

i just said anything right

what are you going to be a magician who

puppeteers all of these things like as a

conduit like it seems like you're saying

sit back and and wait for those people

to do something

otherwise how you can't control those

things that's literally the same thing

as waiting for americans to do

revolution when they've been saying oh

yeah we're gonna do it i've never

advocated for waiting

well that's literally what's happening

well no what's happening is that i'm

trying i'm trying to personally build

any minute now any minute now we're

going to do it

no i'm trying we're going to do it right

after russia

we're we're gonna do it right after the

great depression oh oh it's building

right after the great recess what i'm

trying to do building in the 1960s dude

we're good what i'm trying to do

what i'm trying to do is build a media

platform that will eventually help and

steer and inform um parties if you even

got even the slightest amount of real

influence the government would shut you

down

you'd be confused

i'm willing to wait and test it and see

what will happen

well

i don't need a crystal ball to see that

if you do become yeah but

but the difference between me and you is

that i'm actually willing to like

like prove it like okay you're you're

not seeing anything in fact the opposite

has always been true

in fact this is where marx actually

marx's prediction actually was wrong

what was this he said

he said that the advanced industrialized

countries of the world that would be

germany and england at his time were

going to be the ones to lead the

revolution because they were the most

proletarianized i don't believe that

i don't that's what he said i'm just

saying that's what he said well my my

view

no no i'm not finished i'm not finished

that's what he said

the opposite was true well he was

actually the less

he and engels came to recognize that

later in their lives yes and even lenin

recognized that the industrialized

advanced countries which we now which

today would be the first world

will sell out

every single struggle to democratic

reforms

that's not true

that is exactly what has always well i

can try to explain it for you but every

single time please don't interrupt

exactly what's going on i'll explain it

to you show me one advanced

industrialized country that went into

revelation you're getting the theory

wrong really wrong no i'm not getting

the theory wrong i'll explain

explain what really happened yeah so

marx later in his life acknowledged that

the revolution was going to happen in

russia it did um lenin obviously

recognized he could explain why it is

the bolsheviks triumphed within russia

rather than the advanced countries but

his message actually wasn't one of

despair and defeatism to um not arguing

defeated please don't interrupt me to

the first world um communists his

message was that

russia countries like russia the less

developed countries

explicitly and overtly

made intelligible the fundamental

distinctions whether sociological or

programmatic or

like theoretical in terms of the party

with which people in the so-called

developed countries can make use of

it to learn from so the point is that

people in the advanced countries

need to learn from the experience of the

successful communist revolutions and

parties

not just despair and say it's not

possible because we're not poor and

desperate enough as they were so for an

example of that for example which many

chinese communists actually endorse and

it makes intuitive sense to them is that

how you learn from maoism and the

experience of maoism in america

is applying

being able to have insight into the fact

that the fundamental sociological

distinctions that were essential to the

events of the um the revolution within

china can actually be discerned within

america with more insight america does

have a countryside that can encircle the

cities we do have a popular broad strata

that is applicable here we do have not

just farmers or whatever but we do have

a rural working class

that mao's theories and his thought

can apply to

so it's in china that these things

become intelligible to us

and become apparent to us and it's the

job of people

in communist con sorry it's the job of

communists in the advanced imperialist

countries

to learn to humble themselves and learn

from these experiences so the logical

conclusion of marx being wrong does not

mean

that communists can't do anything to win

power and or even try to win power at

least build a base

of power a movement within advanced

western countries

so that's a wrong interpretation

so that explains why it has been a

complete historical failure in every way

shape or form which is why we have the

inversion denominator i think the reason

for the failure though is that

communists in the west are much like you

people no no yeah that's [ __ ] that's

[ __ ]

no it's brilliant it's exactly the best

[ __ ] you that is that that is

complete [ __ ] they are nothing it's

a hundred percent the fact they they

were they were completely contemporary

everybody is just like me a defeatist oh

that is ultimately what they really say

they're gonna do it they really believe

they're gonna do it they form up a party

and then it never happens but what are

they doing what are they doing

they forget

every communist party in the first world

makes the same mistake

no one

follows them

yeah i agree wants to i agree but i

think the reason no one follows them is

because they're wrong and not because of

the people it's not in their material so

let's let's

walk up to a construction worker and

make seventy thousand dollars a year

give him a rifle and say it's time to do

revolution give up uh i would never do

such a ridiculous

mistake because he would laugh at you i

would laugh at that proposal myself

that's an anarchistic volunteeristic

revolutions don't happen because people

just say i want to overthrow the

government and that's it no revolutions

happen because of the objective

development

communists sweep in

yeah in some objective way the

government does collapse it's legitimacy

collapse

what

when nobody supports communists in the

first world to begin with

well whose fault is that is it the

people's fault or communist fault i'm

thinking it's the communist fault i'm

saying it's the material conditions well

you're saying the people are to blame

for not buying into my ideology i'm

saying your ideology is wrong

it's not in their interest to fight

why why isn't in their interest of white

they're not going to give up their

middle class life

no one's asking them to why why would

you ask them to give up their middle

class life

no one is going to give up their life to

just go be a guerrilla fighter and live

a life

why does anyone need to be a guerrilla

fighter in america that's stupid just

said you believed in revolution

who do you think who's supposed to yeah

because i believe the objective laws of

social revolution are not the same thing

as a volunteeristic adventure of being a

gorilla so you're basically saying

violent revolution is not going to

happen

you don't go out of your way to be

violent no

you don't you don't go out of your way

to be violent don't know what revolution

is

if that's an objective consequence of a

revolution then whatever but you don't

go out of your way to be violent that's

stupid

so

you oppose violent revolution

i oppose adventurism

no you just literally yeah i oppose

criminal adventurism and um oh

stupidities like that of course i do

yeah so you you literally just said so

you don't believe in violent revolution

you literally just said that well

violent revolution just seems like

adventure is the government who is it

that's going to overthrow the government

and bushwick society

um

it's not going to be voluntary

people aren't going to voluntarily fight

the revolution

what revolution are you talking about

when we talk about an objective

hypothetically i'll try to explain it to

you so when we talk about revolution

there's two aspects of it there's an

objective social revolution and there's

a political revolution objective social

revolutions follow the laws of history

they happen because of revolutions and

the forces of production

right this gives rise

to a strata that is um that

fundamentally socially changes in its

composition this is a social revolution

okay now let's talk about reality yeah

in reality someone fights it i can give

you an example of this in reality for

example american workers have been used

to manufacturing jobs and guaranteed

jobs and white picket fences in middle

class houses and this kind of way of

life well when jobs got outsourced and

overseas and we're seeing rise to the

fourth industrial revolution we're

seeing rise to a social revolution

occurring right a former mode of

production is changing and shifting and

transforming into another

and a former class

uh

is breaking down and being

proletarianized in a new way okay so

that is a social revolution that is

happening now and it has been the source

the primary source of america's internal

political contradictions since the nixon

era right nixon championed this working

class later reagan was trying to do it

paradoxically the democrats abandoned

the working class and moved on to get

support from urban uh liberal cities so

when does this become like an actual

revolution

i think you're just talking about a

fantasy not reality no in real life

revolution is a tremendously violent act

that's why mal wrote revolution is not a

dinner party that was that was his

explanation for why things were being so

violent and destructive

why are you so fixated on the question

of violence is my question because

that's literally what a revolution is

sure it may inevitably be that but

no that's not the essence of the point

there are objective social revolutions

arguing something that is not violent

revolution you're a sock dem

but marxists don't advocate for violent

revolutions

they may recognize that revolutions [ __ ]

did you just say they don't

they may recognize that revolutions may

inevitably very specifically and in

all

history of revolutions when these things

actually happen they were violence

marx even he never advocated for them to

be violent

marx never advocated for violent

revolution dude you're [ __ ] done

you're [ __ ] done

he didn't you're done

he recognized that revolution no he did

he said it had to come from violence

he said that it will inevitably be

violent probably but there may it might

not in england or in america but then it

then with imperialism the state

machinery must be smashed so yeah it

will inevitably be violent i'm sorry but

he's not

he's not saying it it's but he's not

saying it will be violent because it

should be violent

he's saying that because it has to be

what does it mean hassle bourgeoisie

don't go away by themselves

we didn't move from feudalism to

capitalism peacefully either

we didn't move from primitive

accumulation to feudalism peacefully but

you don't advocate for violence

violence is how it changes

no violence is a part of how it changes

you don't advocate for the violence

itself violence is jason i think you

just want to learn sorry you're sorry i

think you're just bored in one alarm

that's what i think i just think you

want to larp the first first i was a

defeatist now i'm a larp which which is

it

i think you're a defeatist because you

realize you can't lie you are full of

[ __ ]

marx specifically said it was violent it

has always been violent because it

always has to be because the bad guys

don't go away by themselves but

revolution isn't the voluntary act is

the problem

you see the thing is it kind of is no it

obeys doesn't just happen by itself but

it obeys social laws

it's not a voluntary act and absolutely

not always necessary in all of them if

you are going to stand here and say

revolution is going to happen without

violence or that marx didn't advocate

for violence you literally don't know

what you're doing i don't know if a

revolution can happen without violence i

don't think it can it can't but that

doesn't mean i'm going to advocate for

violence see the difference because

that's literally how it works so if

you're not advocating for literally how

it works what are you doing okay

what does it mean to advocate for a

revolution go ahead

that's what it means that's what a

communist revolution is so you want to

ask people to violently overthrow the

government no

under the right conditions they will do

it and i would say under the conditions

of the first world they will not do it

that is why revolution is not possible

in the first world

until

the only exception would be is

if there was enough of an economic

crisis that broke the first world down

to the level of a third world country

then it might be

possible you know the problem with this

theory is that third world countries

only enter revolutionary situations

when a middle class becomes downwardly

mobile from its previous position

rather than people just being poor and

desperate and people are just poor and

desperate there are there is no

revolution so the philippine revolution

has been going on for like what almost

50 years which is why it's not a real

revolution

real revolutions don't last 50 years

states last 50 years you could you can

do a revolution badly

no it's not a real revolution it's just

not

okay now now you're playing it's it's it

didn't happen instantly overnight so

therefore it's not a real world i don't

i think there's a difference between

overnight and 50 years don't you think

there's a lot of room yeah i i i think

there is just because they're not doing

it very well

or maybe there there are other factors

in and i would say that their revolution

is actually failing

but it's not a revolution

unless you have a a strange

definition of revolution that i'm not

aware of a revolution means you're

overthrowing the government they're not

doing they are they are trying to

not very well so if i try to overthrow

the god if you try to overthrow the

government are you are you doing

revolution movement

so how many people do do you need for it

to be okay so now you want to play

semantics i just want to know why you

tolerate a revolution

look this debate is already over

you already refused to acknowledge that

the the basis for what america is and

despite tried to go off into all this uh

morality stuff and calling me a

calvinist and well because

it seems like the only significance you

have went and said revolution wasn't but

hold on

a violent fact but the reason you

started that way literally just admitted

that you're a sock dem

okay but the reason we

started that way jason was because you

said that

the basis the material basis of america

is defined by morality and i don't agree

that it's defined i said it was defined

by slavery and genocide

things whose essential significance is

moral

uh and

so they still are the basis of america

and when you champion there's a

difference between the basis america

that's what you're defending

the difference between the basis of

america and

an immoral fact

of america's founding you you want to

play that you can't come into terms with

you're playing you're playing word games

you're trying to pretend that none of

the the slaves

you can't just lose an argument and

accuse the other person of playing word

games you're losing the arguments here

you literally lost okay fine what let

the public think what they might i'm in

the hands of god but all i can say is

that yeah the hands of god are pretty

[ __ ] useless

and i say that as a religious person

myself

okay

yeah i'm in the hands of god that's like

sorry that's complete [ __ ] well i'm

i'm open to whatever the public will

think of it is my point me too so i just

want to state my piece

yep and my pieces to erase the history

of the united states and pretend that it

has no bearing on what it is today i

think you want to erase turn around i i

don't want to erase trees

yes you are undo the damage that was due

which is the racing there's a difference

between i'm trying to under the damage

that was done and pretending you're

erasing this

i'm not erasing it

the damage you're talking about is a

fundamental fact of history that cannot

be reversed

no but you can give justice to the

survivors

but the survivors don't want justice in

the form of reversing the history

altogether

i'm not talking about reverse it's a

part of our communists or lying about

what i'm

percent based in morality your position

is 100 percent entirely yes i do stand

on the moral position that slavery and

genocide are bad things

well you were just ignoring that okay

here's all i have to say on it right

this is a fundamental fact of history

it's a history which we reproduce we eat

breathe and live in this dirtied and

sinful reality all those crimes so the

difference between you and me is this

the difference between you and me is

this we are all marked by sin and

there's sin and in a fallen world all

around us my point is that we can find

meaning in this history and we can

reconcile this history your position is

that we must commit ourselves to

completely erasing and reversing this

on anything we must cleanse ourselves of

the sin of the forefathers that is the

basis of america a complete christian

prejudice

what the [ __ ] are you talking about

you want to wipe all the sins away as a

prerequisite for getting to work

yes or no this has nothing to do the

sins must be wiped away before we can be

communist yes or no

i think we cannot be communist until

that happens until we wipe the sins

clean state christ sacrificed himself

until we give justice

so who will die for our sins to give us

this clean state slavery

no one really

theoretically even has to die

should i offer myself as the christ

who redeem humanity no you're acting all

of the crimes

are gone you are pure now western white

leftist now okay so yeah you're just

going to reduce it to insults okay

okay i think we're done here

you literally want to ignore the history

of the united states that's not what i'm

saying i'm just saying you have a lot of

cultural exactly but you have a lot of

cultural and theological prejudices that

i don't understand oh i'm sorry but your

religion has nothing to do with this

no but yours does god has nothing to do

my religion doesn't but yours does

you're a hardcore calvinist you don't

even represent all christians

not all christians you don't represent

most christians but you are a hardcore

calvinist

you are a heart with the same thing vosh

no i'm saying you're mia calvinist the

way vosh calls people fascist

that's exactly what you're doing right

now but okay

so

i i i'll reason with you i'm willing to

i'm willing to reason with you about it

okay

i'm calling you a calvinist and i'm

trying to reason with you about it

because you're

is pretty much the same as the calvinist

understanding

no why not what's the difference you

ignore the history of slavery and

genocide you you share the same what

makes your view what makes your view

different from a calvinist you share the

same thing as a fascist

you're being a fascist okay but i can

reason about myself

it's fascism you try to ignore slavery

and genocide as the house somehow it's

but you're not you're not actually

reasoning you're a fascist

but i'm not just calling you names i'm

trying to reason about it isn't it

i'm not just calling you names jason yes

you did you were calling me you were

calling i'm trying to explain to you why

i'm saying what i'm saying because the

only way for you to be right is to try

to rip the context out of what i was

saying and then call me religious well

okay how about i just don't call you

religious i'll just call you an idealist

is that fair oh okay so acknowledging

the history of the united states is

idealism okay no but that's not you're

not just acknowledging history you're

creating an entire a practical and moral

prescription for the present based on a

certain moral understanding of the past

that is a meaningless phrase

that doesn't mean justice to people who

have been wronged as a man that can mean

anything

i think i already outlined what that is

and who are you to outline that when

native indigenous when by and large

indigenous people are not outlining it

the way you're saying i'm wrong because

i'm white even though that's what that's

what would be justice okay

who are you to speak for the justice of

the holy [ __ ] oz you are [ __ ] full of

[ __ ] but you are not indigenous people

you are

so how do you know what justice means

for them

technically i don't like to play this

card but i am

but that doesn't matter but how do you

know

okay but how do you know what justice

means for them because that's what

they're asking for and the only thing

that's what they're asking for how do we

how do we know that they

what the [ __ ] do you think idle no more

means what do you think that the whole

resurgence they're they're not asking

for that they're not asking okay so

you're saying that they're not they're

not asking they are not asking for all

okay america and i didn't say they were

asking for all land back this is the

third time so what land do they want

back that must lead to the destruction

of the republic no what it is exactly

that they want

why must it lead to the destruction of

the republic

because the republic is bad i don't

think you've noticed that more morality

that means nothing oh i'm sorry a a an

empire built on imperialism slavery and

genocide is me being the republic was

founded on the basis of seceding from

the empire the the republic was founded

on the basis

it has become one

also because we have allowed the british

uh intelligence to conquer our country

so therefore it doesn't matter well the

british the british ruling the british

ruling class conquered our deep state in

our country and became our ruling class

so yeah we became an empire but that's

not how the republic was founded no but

that's what it is

that's what it became

that's what it is and that's what it was

always so do you think it's an american

people's national tradition to be an

empire

when our national tradition is

our national tradition is to secede from

empires not to become them really

because i could have sworn there was

stealing of mexico the constant

supporting of uh endless wars to steal

territory that were highly supported by

the american people even if they weren't

supported by the american people it's

still a reality

i'm sorry but they were supported

by the american people because the

people leading the american people

whereas lenin understood was a labor

aristocracy

and were um petty bourgeois elements

aligned to u.s imperialism that were

leading them and london

didn't just say that you should concede

the battlefield to those elements you

said communists should lead the american

people in contrast to those elements

manifest destiny

what about it

you're basically argument

well manifest destiny included many

injustices against indigenous people i

agree but that's not all you are are not

significant today

they may be but you have to go on a

case-by-case basis you know

they they are relevant it is the basis

of america you have an idealized version

of what america is detached from the

material reality of what it has been how

is that it has always been and what it

will always be i just don't think

morality is the basis in the essence of

material reality that's all no but

slavery is a material thing that

happened so is genocide and land so

these are material things that happened

which you are trying to i agree that

they don't matter they materially

happened i didn't contest that

no but your eye you're essentially your

position so because they happened that

means

that's

that's all material reality is

now

it doesn't have to be but that's the

basis for it

what do you mean by basis elaborate

that's what built america

so elaborate

america exists physically on a space

that was stolen

by slaughtering off the population that

lived there and then brought a whole

another population from africa

to do work on it

so now how is it the basis right now

because that's what built up america

so how is that the basis now

it is the basis because that's the

foundation

is a foundation the past or is the

foundation something that exists in the

present

actually it's something that exists in

the present too because that's what

built it up so how does it exist in the

present is my question

america's privileged position in the

world and not even if it wasn't

privileged but positioned in the world

it literally exists on stolen land what

part of that are you not getting

i know you keep repeating these moral

indignations

oh my god but i failed to see the scene

theft doesn't matter it's morally so you

are you can't get over how much you're

out land theft doesn't exist you can't

you just can't get over how much you're

outraged about something that happened

hundreds of years ago

and you can't get it over trying to

whitewash it and pretend it never

existed

i never presented today

doesn't matter today oh exactly how far

back i guess i'm just not a calvinist

who sees sin all around me and i feel

like i see and breathe the sin all

around me they're sitting all around me

i feel the smell of the sin i don't

live that way okay you're going right

back to the personal attacks i'm sorry i

just don't

understand that way of approaching

reality

yes everyone who disagrees with me is is

a calvinist

i just think you're a calvinist yeah

okay sure yeah everyone who doesn't

agree with my ignoring of history i just

don't detect i don't like

i don't i'm not like haunted by the

spirit of sin all around me i don't have

white people with america today i don't

have white people

yeah attacking skin i don't have white

there you go ad hominem again you're

just going out okay on the one hand

you're saying i'm denying everyone who

disagrees with me is white guilt

calvinism

well what else do you want me to say

you're telling me that you can't if you

cannot understand that america stands on

stolen land today and the legacy of that

theft and what it still does to people

to this day then there's no helping you

yeah but you're you're saying that the

implication is that all of america must

cease to exist because of this sinful

past i disagree with that yeah and it's

sinful present as well

because that sinful past and sinful

present

is what it is

there is no there is no there is no

divorcing that

the 900 military bases that exist around

the world today are a thing that today

so are you are you

so

you are aiding the demise of american

imperialism

by isolating yourselves from the masses

so effectively you can't pose any threat

no no

in the way that you think that they're

just going to suddenly become

revolutionary and do something even when

all history has proven the opposite

i don't know why you're getting so

excited on the basis you can go ahead i

don't expect that you agree with me i

don't expect first worldlist to agree

with me but you're just kidding

go ahead go cosplay revolution tell

everybody that they're the biggest i'm

not cosplaying revolution i'm cosplaying

no you're you're talking like i'm not

cosplaying revolution

mongols

but i don't know why you're getting so

like

you're talking like you're going to do

revelations

you're going to do revolution you're not

going to do it you can go ahead and

believe that you can go you remind me a

lot of our relevant dude you're getting

high off your own supply of copium and

just excitedly repeating mantras of

straw men that i've never said

no that's that's that's an outright lie

no you're just like getting excited on

based on narratives instead of following

the line of argumentation that's been

presented

you're getting like high off now like

you're like that guy's like you're going

away for aristocracy you deny the labor

air stops it's like why don't you take

it back a little bit

reel it back in a little bit and focus

on what's been said

i never

said i have never ever said

that americans are just going to

suddenly wake up one day and become

revolutionary that's a straw man

argument i've never said that they're

not going to be even in a protracted way

or whatever it is that you think it's

going to happen well i think revolution

means something different to you than

what it means to me yeah i'm sorry in

all of existing history it has been

violent revolution to you is like a

millenarian kind of like larpy like a

voluntary act realize exactly what the

revolution and chinese revolution were

they were very hey jason jason do you

know what do you know what the merging

is the merger

no what is this thing you made up

i didn't make it up a guy named chris

chan believes there's going to be a

merger

and it's like the ultimate site of like

the absolute in the future okay you're

quoting christian stop

but that's how many american leftists

think of revolution they think of it as

like this thing in the future that is

going to be like the ultimate and

absolute realization

of the inner like aesthetic

craving and striving of the subject

hasn't shown up but i think that's a

non-marxist view of how revolutions

would represent no that's actually

idealism what you're talking for oh wait

they're just going to suddenly wake up

one day

there's going to be a grand revelation

and all of a sudden everything's going

to be okay

sorry i've never i've argued the

opposite of that

then why are you then why are you

bringing it up

i'm accusing you of bringing it up not

me no i don't think that at all

well you think of revolution as a point

of like the absolute in reality the

ultimate and absolute kind of thing that

happens in reality no i said it's a

military matter it's a violent military

matter

that's how that's

literally it's one class overthrowing

another

i'm sorry guys

it's not it's not literally just denied

it

it

okay it may be a military matter maybe

okay even though but it's not

do you know what okay what is

volunteerism in the history of marxism

why do marxists accuse other of of

volunteerism what does that mean when

they do that

i have no idea what that kind of sounds

like [ __ ] actually

i don't know what it is lenin talks

about it

okay

what does he mean by it

he means by volunteerism people who

think that revolution is something that

is enacted in reality rather than

something that obeys

uh historical and social laws

yes and in real life you need material

conditions and you need the effort to

actually do it

no actually uh it's not oh you won't

need the effort to actually do but by

effort do you mean a voluntary act of

taking up arms

right yes

yeah that's that lenin calls that

volunteerism

you literally think people just

spontaneously just rise up all of a

sudden no lenin addresses the

distinction between scotland what

yeah they're two sides of the same coin

spontaneitism and voluntarism share the

same refusal to acknowledge the decisive

significance of the party

as the organ of the interests of the

material proletariat in reality the

party is in reality it's a part of

reality it becomes a part of the people

and part of reality that would be yes

violence is necessary no the party must

become part of reality

yes i agree and by becoming part of

reality

it seizes revolutionary moments

and acquires power

and how do they acquire that power

um

they acquire that power through the

breakdown of the state and through

acquiring the support of the masses the

trust and support of the people and they

solidify that power and that basis

obviously on the basis of um

the military power in the case of the

october revolution it was the support of

the sailors and the soldiers

that allowed the bolsheviks to

consolidate power

that's not the same as antifa going and

you know i didn't say that i said

it kind revolutions

just sounds like by violent revolution

you mean people just taking up arms no i

said violence in the end is necessary

along with everything else

what do you mean by violence

stop stop stop stop stop stop stop

stop

you [ __ ] idiot what you [ __ ]

dumbass get the [ __ ] out of here it's

not even a real gun

it's not a real gun

no

you can't get a [ __ ] ak in canada

i'm illustrating my point you pick up a

gun and then you fight

i'm not saying that's yeah but that's

volunteerism jason that's what [ __ ]

volunteerism means that's all there is

and why does any why does it have an

orange tip

because it doesn't need one

so aren't they supposed to have orange

tips

airsoft guns don't need orange tips not

here

dude that was so stupid

you could have just

said your point don't bring props and

dude

you have to understand

you

you have to understand that you're

talking about his volunteers that's not

what the bolsheviks did they didn't just

pick up a gun

they did i never said they did they

defended themselves in a civil war when

they were attacked for seizing power i

never said all they did was violence

that is another so how did mao sees

power of china

well largely by killing the nationalists

after killing the japanese

so what's the detail that's missing here

was there a central chinese state that

he randomly rebelled against and then

took took over

what do you mean randomly rebelled

against no this the the chinese state

collapsed because of the japanese

invasion that that civil war and it was

the war there was it's called the

warlord era in the 30s there was no

government to take up arms against so to

speak there was an all-out civil war

already a warlord era the communist

emerged triumphant

so you're saying the nationalist party

didn't have anything

i'm sorry you're full of [ __ ]

and by the way the russian that civil

war happened after the revolution in

russia

yeah but the revolution in russia wasn't

just people taking up arms and

overthrowing the government oh i know

we've we've already agreed to that

that's not what it was so what is it by

violent revolution you mean

if it's not what happened in russia or

china what is it by violent revolution

you mean

bourgeois state does not go away by

itself

i don't understand what you're not

getting about the reason it doesn't go

away by itself is because the

proletarian party must have the

logistical organizational

and mass support to acquire hegemony

over the state

yes to replace it

so you're arguing that no violence is

necessary along with all that

it may very well be necessary but it's

not the point the point isn't violence

i didn't say the point was violence i

said it so why are you so fixated on it

because you you said that why can't you

just

run jason why can't you just follow the

laws

you just you said why can't you just

follow why can't you just follow the

laws which majority you didn't believe

in violent revolution

i said that you don't advocate for

violent revolution

which you shouldn't you should never

advocate for a violent revolution in

this kind of situation

well i i know because first of all

people won't do it

but that's because it's not just because

people won't do it it's because it's

stupid

oh okay when the internal contradictions

can be developed and that's okay

when the internal contradictions can be

developed legally

why would you advocate for a violent

revolution it makes no sense because

that's what it is because no because

you're a subjectivist who believes that

internally and morally you've arrived at

a position that condemns the entirety of

the american state and gives you the

right to overthrow it violently

but that's complete individualist

subjectivism you don't have the right to

overthrow the us government violently

you know in order to have the right to

do that

you have to develop the imminent

contradictions

that are the basis of the u.s state and

follow through with them the imminent

contradictions you just you don't have

the right to overthrow governments just

because internally and subjectively

you've decided they're immoral and don't

have a basis to exist

there has to be an imminent objective

and material basis for a revolution

it's not just based on your own moral uh

condemnation

i was saying that the american people

are going to do it

it needs to be done

the system does need to be done they're

not going to do it because it's [ __ ]

stupid

no because they won't do it period

so because the american people don't

want to join your fantasy larp they're

all so now it's a fantasy yes that's

exactly what it is jason

you brought up you literally brought a

fantasy prop toy

about needing a gun about violence

because there is violence

stupid larp dude

violence in a revolution is a stupid

larp

as you're putting it yeah it is

no it's not how i'm putting it you are

twisting my words you are making it say

that i'm saying that it's just violence

that's all there is no i never said that

you are a liar

i never said that i never gave the

impression so what are you saying that

it was unnecessary so defend yourself

and clarify what are you saying

i'm saying that it's a part of the

larger revolution that's part of the

larger revolutionary effort

and then you said

that you didn't believe in using

violence so i that's not what i said so

i don't wait i took that to mean that

you didn't believe in you you just

accused me of being a liar but you just

lied about what i said hold on i just

lied about mine

hold on i'm trying to explain i took

that to mean

that you said there would be no violence

at all

i missed that's not what i was saying i

just said that i just said i

misunderstood what i said is that you

shouldn't advocate for violence

you never advocate for violence come on

down to the revolution people don't

worry there won't be any violence no you

just don't advocate for you say we

follow the laws you know what yeah okay

here's what you tell them

you tell the people you follow the laws

and if

they if the government starts violating

its own laws and effectively collapses

at that point our bourgeois democracy

collapses

then as our founding fathers told us you

have a right to uh fathers are complete

[ __ ] but it's it's the reason i would

bring it up is because it's it's it has

but it has legitimacy in the eyes of the

american people to defend themselves and

their liberties and their rights

whenever that's another criticism that

should be made

which what is the criticism

that the constitution that monstrous

piece of [ __ ] should even have any

i don't think the constitution is really

that bad it's really easy it's complete

reactionary capitalist garbage

there's like one or two good things in

there

but materially that they do they don't

actually exist well it has a different

meaning for the american people

than that

oh so you really do have freedom of

speech

no and the american people interpret the

meaning of the constitution as the

founding document of a country founded

on the basis of

declaring independence from the british

empire and being a union

state that's by oven for the people

and we literally know what the founding

fathers meant by the people he met

specifically not the black ones

specifically not the red ones and not

the women because they weren't actually

people and they literally meant well why

why is it that communists have

consistently praised the founding

fathers like mao and lenin and marx and

those people stalin because of those

people impressive role that it played at

the time

and even then i would actually criticize

them for it

the united states i i i wouldn't i think

they were right i think before i think

when mao said he wanted to make

posthumously make george washington a

member of the communist party i agree

with mao

washington was a slave owner

yeah and first of all when mao said that

was late in his life and i really really

wouldn't take the stuff you said late in

life very seriously well i think you're

a revisionist then because i take what

he said

meeting nixon is a good thing that's

something i think it was a good thing

yeah

uh okay so so it was a great training

the revolution is is okay what's that

literally betraying the revolution what

revolution

the chinese revolution how did he betray

the chinese revolution by meeting by

meeting with the enemy and proposing to

work with them against the soviet union

the soviet union was engaging in

aggression against china at the time and

china was just trying to defend itself

you're literally supporting the

sino-soviet split wait why were the

soviets amassing troops at the border of

china

they had a conflict that doesn't mean

you signed but they even before the

conflict they were interested you know

what

you literally just defended siding with

imperialism i side with china during the

suno soviet split i do

and you support them meeting with nixon

to engage in collaboration against the

soviet union they were defending

themselves from a foreign aggression so

you think that they needed to

collaborate with the united states to do

that

um

they had to do whatever was necessary uh

[ __ ] they didn't need to do that and

it really wasn't the united states per

se that they were collaborating oh no of

course not they were actually

collaborating with nixon against the

democrats too

that's why mouse said he likes the

republicans more than the democrats

he said that his words literally just

defended mao allying with the united

states imperialist power

[ __ ]

so you

better

advocating the opposite of maoism but

your name is literally maui

yeah i'm sorry but that was completely

but i agree with the decisions mao made

uh sorry that was an an incorrect

decision i do not support i i don't

think it was i think i think the blame

sorry well i think the soviets um oh the

soviets forced the chinese to la with

the united states they really did

actually

they really did what do you know about

soviet agents approaching the americans

about teaming up against china and

i would criticize them for that too so

what was china supposed to do to defend

itself

well it physically could defend itself

it didn't have to turn around the united

states and hey can we work together

so how did they work together as my

friend how did they materially work

together um that was so bad forming

diplomatic alliances against them

diplomatic relations

primarily trade relations if you

remember

which ultimately benefited who united

states or china in the long run

benefited both of them in the long run

who did it actually benefit

technically both of them

no it benefited china and heard america

really bad in the long run yeah well i i

would because the chinese were smart and

they knew what they were doing even then

okay let's say let's see let's just say

it benefits because i'll explain why you

want to know why that is though

well because from the chinese

perspective they have a more kind of

eastern traditionalist spiritual

perspective on what revolution means for

them revolution isn't a millenarian you

know romantic thing that just suddenly

happens

it's a lot it's

generationally they think of it as a

long game they think of it as something

that happens subtly that's something

that happens subtly accumulating into

something big yes a rupture

but

they don't think of it how you think of

it no and they were right about that i

haven't just i haven't china is the

premiere

is the ascendant and premier

world power now because of that wisdom

and you are in canada with a toy gun

take the personal shot didn't you

well you're criticizing miles decisions

and you have to go

yes i can criticize him yeah well you

have to i can disagree with his decision

yes his decision which led to china

being the premier power of the world

something he couldn't even dream of at

the time

oh my god you really everything china

did ultimately was to its benefit in its

favor

oh the chinese billionaires would agree

with you

well we can actually i was going to talk

about that today too we can talk about

the fact that the communist party

has made it very clear now decisively

that this new class as they call them in

china

will have no part of sharing power with

the common if the communist party deems

it fit

they will all be eliminated if that's

the resulting consequence of this

decision

what's that

the capitalists don't have any power

also the capitalists continue to exist

exactly why

they have no power whatsoever why do

they

exist on the base because for now

they are serving the interests of the

communist party but they're starting to

not it's like it's starting to actually

slip we saw with jack ma we're seeing it

with evergrande now and we see it with

the ways in which the chinese communist

party and this is what i wanted to talk

about on stream is starting to promote

small enterprises and small um

businesses that are coming from the soil

of the chinese people to prevent the

monopolization and the rise of powerful

monopolies like alibaba and jack ma's

empire so they are undermining the power

of the billionaires and this doesn't

serve the interests

capitalism by creating more capitalism

no it's it's well

you have to understand and obey the

objective laws of the forces of

production and the social revolutions i

i hate to break it so it's no longer

capitalism but the uh

the productive forces have already been

built up and they were probably built up

about 20 years ago how's that

they literally physically existed

yeah this is it's just an nep without n

that's not no it's not it's not an nvp

and an ndp was a implicit form of

sharing political power

with um the kulaks in the countryside uh

with with whom the soviet state did not

have the power to alter or change or

eliminate they had to form a negotiation

and deal with them yes and exactly where

are the kulaks now

yeah because the soviet state the

communist party of the soviet union

management

stopped them the way that they were

supposed to because they took power they

took complete economic power and

political power of the country just like

china would criticize them china never

relented its power though this communist

party in china never relented its power

and never gave shared power with anyone

the new class exists on the good graces

of the communist party they can fall

just in the same way

and you know they're not necessary right

those those capitalists are not

necessary

up until this point they have been

for a period i would agree yes but that

probably ended about 20 years ago

well you know more than the um

1.4 billion chinese people i'm sure

oh no i'm not saying i know better than

them

you know more you know more than all of

their marxists all of their philosophers

all of their academics all of their

researchers all of their um

scholars and all of their experts and

all of their leaders

you know more than all of them you know

what's best for china more than that i

know whether or not they ex whether or

not the the productive forces existed

yes

in a way that they are just blind to for

some reason no they're not blind to it

they just don't care

why don't they care because they're not

as pure as you are

no because they're not doing marxism

and you are

oh i don't see how what that one has to

do with the other

well you're saying they're not doing

marxism what does it mean to do marxism

are you doing it

who's doing it

well you could take what the soviet

union was doing

the soviet union doesn't exist anymore

because it collapsed because of what it

was doing

no it collapsed politically from

internal form i didn't also economically

no no

so the brexit stagnation never happened

that was from capitalist reforms

the question reforms were a response to

the stagnation

uh i'm sorry but no capitalist reforms

are what just just where what damaged

the were those that did that those under

happen under khrushchev or when did they

have i'm not exactly exactly talking

about the cosegan reforms those were a

response to the stagnation

and your point would be capitalist

reform still destroyed everything

i think you're talking about gorbachev's

reforms which were disastrous but those

came long after the economic crisis of

soviet central planning

actually there was a problem with soviet

central planning because they were

basically trying to do too much

and that what they did was they decided

well we can still compete with the us in

terms of standard of living as long as

we let you know the market come in

and do some of that organizing for us

which ultimately turned out to be a

mistake

so what should the soviet union have

done stopped growing and have its

economy collapse

no one advocated it for it to stop

growing so how would it have continued

to grow you know the basis of soviet

growth up until that point was in things

like steel production the development of

the primary forces of production there

was no light industry to speak of or

very little light industry to speak of

that there was no way the soviet union

was going to develop um a computer

industry that was going to rival the

west there was no way the soviet union

was going to view computers they had

computers but they were it was so slow

compared to the rapid pace of

development that was happening in the

world sorry that's not true soviet

computers were actually very good

i'm not denying that but their

development was very slow compared to

the development in the west

i would disagree with that and so would

paul cox shot okay

so i don't know if it's over there for a

abolish economic planning do you know

what the feldman chinese never abolished

economic planning

yeah they did no they didn't they did no

they they literally don't plan their

economy the economy is planned to this

day no they have a guide they don't have

a plan and in fact i can pull up an

article where z specifically says that

it's oh you mean you mean directly

planning the inputs and outputs of

production this is what economic claims

no it's not

sense is no that's not necessarily what

it means at all yeah that's that's

exactly what it is

that that is what it

is no it's not yeah it is

no it's not it's not when you hand over

that's that that form of planning is

only possible when you can set

determinate quotas based on predictable

outcomes

which are only things like the basics of

the primary sphere production when it

comes to the light consumer economy

which is the huge driving force of

economies of scale now so

one and department two commodities are

what

so you don't know what

department one and department two

commodities are

yeah but the soviet

soviet economy could not develop light

industry the light industry was not

developed yes they did no it wasn't

i can literally pull out the book that

has they did not have a developed light

industry there was constant shortages of

light industry goods the soviet people's

uh

the soviet people's

demand for more access to these goods

was not being fulfilled

they were demanding more goods yes

and the soviet union's not necessarily

the amount of resources existed for it

so it's about physical that sounds like

a malthusian argument

i hate to break it to you and caleb

maupin but the the world is finite and

the soviets actually had a finite so you

agree with it

you

so you agree with

malthus and not marx by everybody no

sorry that's [ __ ] you're putting

words in my mouth

but that was the

mark said the fundamental driving force

of economies was not based on scarcity

of resources

but was based on specific modes of

production malthus was saying

that it was based on the scarcity of

resources so you're saying the

historical explanation that the

economy was based on scarcity i said

there was you're saying the reason why

they put in the world is finite i agree

the world is finite but our ability to

um interact with the world is infinite

um

x amount of steel i mean part of me iron

ore does exist in the world and i i

don't know what you're saying will

interact with it so yeah i know because

you don't you're just not very creative

or aware

you know houses used to be built with

mud and dirt and some still are i'm i'm

sorry exactly how is that supposed to

make more iron ore

well because you you're making is your

idealism supposed to make more let me

finish i can explain

if you say if you say asteroids i'm

[ __ ] out the use for iron ore

can be replaced by something else with a

refined development of the forces of

production

if it eventually ran we ran out of it i

can't see how we're gonna run out of it

in any decisive way anytime soon

okay anytime soon but yes we will

eventually run out of it

by that time we will probably have

essentially not anytime you we'll

probably have ascended to the 17th

dimension or something like that's

nowhere near where we are now

okay we replace it with another metal

and then when that metal runs out

yeah that's history i'm not i'm not

that's history i'm not arguing for

de-growth i i don't get what it is that

you're

i just don't think you have a

you just don't have

a correct understanding of history is

the problem we're trying to attribute

trying to attribute the soviet union's

inability to provide

uh consumer goods for its people on the

basis of limited resources that yeah

so the problem wasn't the system it was

just they didn't have resources

because they didn't go around invading

countries and stealing them like the

united states and the but they still had

very extensive relations with many trade

relations with like the non-aligned

countries and yes but that doesn't that

doesn't care they they couldn't trade

the only the only trade restrictions

that they could possibly say

huh it's not the same thing as

imperialist plunder

yeah what's your point

so yeah it's not exactly the same thing

because they're not going to be able to

get as much for the same price because

they are giving a fair trade for it

where's the united states no actually

stealing we're essentially getting it

for next to nothing

by taking over countries and controlling

that's a really simplistic understanding

of no that's uh that's how exploitation

works

um

exploitation in the marxist sense or in

the sense of

like exploiting vulnerable positions

exploiting vulnerable positions of

countries

the united states was fleecing them

along with the other imperialist powers

whereas the soviet union

it's not really directly about resources

though

in some in some cases it was like uh

in the central

sorry in the um central american

countries like banana republics and so

yeah i could see what you're saying with

that where they were just taking

resources in many african countries it's

just a matter of taking resources but

the bretton woods system was not just a

system to funnel resources from third

world countries

it was a complete global monetary system

it was

yeah that that was about giving trade

advantages to some countries over others

to develop industries it wasn't just

about like you can't just explain the

development of the forces of production

at this time purely in the form of

the exploitation of resources

no i wasn't doing that it's about the

flow of global trade and things like

that yeah i know but that's not what i'm

saying but china's opening up allowed it

to tap into these foreign markets and

access these technologies and develop

its own forces of production the soviet

union was in a way isolated

from the world market in this kind of

way that reinforces my point

yeah but

it wasn't just because of resources it

was also because it didn't have access

to the differentiations and the

concentration of capital or the forces

of production the methods of production

that were existing not just resources

there was plenty of resources the soviet

union had access to the issue was

technologies

trade relations and things like that

there's a pretty great relationship i

would agree

you're saying this and also technologies

and forces of production i'm sorry they

were incompetent when it came to

technology is that

no they weren't they did extremely well

for what they

were able to do when it came to

technology but in terms of

like other countries could just trade

and rapidly share and great share

technology and build off of each other

so we didn't have to do all that alone

which is really tough

yeah that's tough

again that

like for example

you know

very few countries actually developed

these decisive technologies by

themselves

i would agree

okay

i'm not seeing your point

my point is explaining all this in terms

of resources just doesn't work there was

a systemic problem

i would say it was mostly resources you

would say it was mostly resources yeah

it wasn't

okay it was it was a systemic problem of

the actual allocation organization and

distribution of goods

i'm not denying there was a problem

so there was a big systemic problem that

was the reason

yeah we agree that there was a stomach

problem but we don't agree unnecessarily

on what it was

well here's why because up until this

point the primary

driving force of the soviet union's

growth was developing the primary forces

of production once this task became

complete the soviet economy became began

to stagnate

once department one company because it

didn't have an economy that could adapt

to a modern

uh consumer

or post-modern economy whatever you want

to call it it didn't have a system that

could adapt to that

i would agree

on the basis that

it was never supposed to be like the

united states where it's just an

infinite amount of commodities

everywhere for everybody but that's not

what i'm saying i'm saying

it couldn't grow economically i'm saying

it couldn't i'm saying it couldn't and

it's not designed to and it couldn't

satisfy the needs and wants of its

population no it satisfied the needs

it's not it's it's the wants that were

different well it came to a point where

even the needs could no longer be

satisfied

like what

during the 80s there was just shortages

of needs just basic needs yeah

i i did a video on that where a soviet

investigative show showed how they were

being deliberately wasted like he

literally had the video of it happening

yes and then then lost his job the next

day

i don't know what video you're talking

about but uh you would see it was the

soviet investigative journalism show

called 600 seconds

he uh i i can't pronounce his name

anyway

in an investigation he found like trucks

and trucks of food that were thrown into

the woods

and he

video videotaped it did an expose on it

and then lost his job

there was a

there's a copy a copy of it on my

channel hey that's really mysterious but

i still wouldn't say that this um

this renders

a lot of sabotage

there probably was sabotage

but then again

it all comes together there is also a

pro a systemic crisis you know

yeah i don't deny that there was a

crisis

[Music]

so we done here

i guess

okay

so i we can't come to an agreement

about

much anything but um

yeah i guess that was it

okay

see ya

okay bye

you