Haz vs Danielll | InfraredShow Debate

oh here is

okay

first things first shut the [ __ ] up shut

the [ __ ] up first things first i'm gonna

lay down the rules for you

shut the [ __ ] up

shut the [ __ ] up you've been running

your mouth talking a lot of [ __ ] on

twitter saying i'm scared of you little

daniel boy

so we're gonna be here and we're gonna

lay down some rules first rule

you interrupt me you get muted

no second chances you interrupt me you

get muted for the duration that i make

my point second rule

daniel

and i want you to make sure you

understand this

none of it was a meme

when you were talking [ __ ] on twitter

did you just interrupt me

i'll just mute your [ __ ] ass since you

don't know proper manners

i'll explain it to you

none of what you said was a meme

meaning when i destroy you by the end of

this debate and i [ __ ] wreck you when

i mentally dominate you you don't run

back and say i was just for shits and

giggles and it was all a meme and i i

didn't have any uh theoretical or

intellectual investment in this

whatsoever i was really confident i was

going to beat haas that's your position

right now it's not a meme daniel

you weren't me me it was 100 serious so

when i wreck you by the end of this

[ __ ] debate

i will have exacted your complete mental

ideological and theoretical submission

i'm glad we can have this understanding

now daniel what do you want to debate me

about go ahead

you uh you didn't want to talk to me

daniel you wanted to debate me i saw

you're very aggressive you're very

aggressive language

on twitter

so what do you want to debate me about

i wanted to debate you on the topic of

china and how they are um a revisionist

country sure typically

okay uh well how do you want to begin uh

you accused china of being a revisionist

country i do yes on what grounds

uh for example they still maintain uh

private property even though they

already had achieved some form of uh so

the abolition of the commodity form uh

on their mouth

[Laughter]

okay

how old are you

i am 20 years old

pathetic

so let's just uh address this specific

point you claim

that china is a revisionist country

because there exists private property

even though they had already eliminated

it and eliminated the commodity form two

false claims private private ownership

to a minor extent

even to a major extent depending how you

look at it existed throughout the entire

duration of the mao years second of all

there had always been commodities in the

history of communist china the very

origin of the modern chinese economy

lies in the dual circulation system of

dual circulating prices which has its

origins in the maoist economy with

chinese theoreticians have clarified is

that

the state soviet-style state ownership

in the people's communes that existed

during the mao era were not eternal

phases of true or a more mature form of

socialism they were actually forms of a

primitive accumulation and a primitive

socialism

actually

that represented the necessity of

building a national industrial system

and modernizing

the primary sphere of production but the

question of

the modern modernization of the

secondary spheres and the tertiary

spheres and so on and so on that could

not be addressed within the frame of the

old form of soviet-style planning so i

want you to get back to your original

point

with all of this in mind and explain to

me how china is revisionist go ahead

well first of all uh you're confusing uh

originally accumulation oh sorry

original accumulation my first language

is not english

um

with socialism for some reason you can't

be honest that's what chinese

theoreticians called the original form

of socialism in china there is nothing

controversial about identifying it as a

form of primitive accumulation and the

reason why is that the functional

primitive accumulation is not communism

it is definitely it's supposed to be

capitalist uh this is from did you just

interrupt me

sorry excuse me uh i know you don't like

being interrupted so i will you're 20

years old grow the [ __ ] up and have some

impulse control

primitive accumulation is not the same

thing as communism obviously but it is a

necessary stage of modernization in

general whether it's led by communists

or not led by communists and the form

so-called state socialism in the 20th

century took both in the soviet union

and china was very clearly a form of

primitive accumulation it very clearly

was a form of estranging peasants and

small landowners from their original

means of production and uh consolidating

them in some kind of form of primitive

accumulation now is that communism well

even to think in of communism in terms

of some kind of discrete system is

non-dialectical

never did marx write about communism as

some final system or some discrete

specific system marx viewed communism as

a process

marx viewed communism as a movement a

real movement which sublates the present

state of things communism does not have

some kind of blueprint or inscribed form

that oh this is communism this is not

communism we call communism

the free the force and the process by

which the present state of things is

sublated specifically as it's led by

communists by a communist party that is

communism so yes at every stage of

china's existence technically it was

communist now is it a society and a mode

of production that has been so

thoroughly altered by the process of

communism that it represents a mode of

production entirely distinct from

capitalism or uh the early stages of

socialism of course not but

no one knows when that would even happen

it could take a hundred it could take a

thousand years it has nothing to do with

what the essence of communism actually

is

so do you call yourself a leninist of

course

well

then you're just having a kawski a point

of view in which you for you say that

means a production are not ready for us

to reach socialism did i say that uh no

no wait yeah you said yeah you said that

uh even though the the economic system

is not based on socialism since it it

was led by uh communists i guess yeah uh

it would still be communism but it

didn't have the economic is that what i

said what did i say specifically daniel

since there's some [ __ ] in your ears you

need to [ __ ] get out of your ears

what did i say specifically i said it

may not be a society that has been so

thoroughly transformed by the process

that is communism that it is

entirely different and

unrecognizably distinct from capitalism

but that doesn't mean it's not communist

you accuse us of being akatsuki at the

position even though the decisive

significance of the revisionists of the

second international had nothing to do

with the policies communists would take

once they seized power and established

the dictatorship of the proletariat

their position was a matter of political

gradualism and political reform so no

it's not a klodzky position because

kotsuki's position was with regard to

the development of capitalism under the

rule of the dictatorship of the

bourgeoisie china is a country that is

ruled by a communist party a proletarian

dictatorship that has long been in power

after the overthrow of uh even there

wasn't even an overthrow to begin with

they just seized power but the point

still stands so no it's not a kotsuki

position you're talking out of your

[ __ ] ass

well

the communist party of china definitely

has billionaires even xi jinping is a

[ __ ] billionaire okay okay

stay [ __ ] watch your little language

little boy second okay how can you

[ __ ] justify how could you [ __ ]

want me to mutually

do not interrupt me

do not interrupt me do not dare

interrupt me little boy

you have made the leap from the question

of what is the meaning of proletarian

dictatorship to mouthing off

recklessly

and thoughtlessly about billionaires and

how xi jinping is a [ __ ] billionaire

well what does that have to do with

anything explain to me thoroughly

explain to me the connection before you

mouth off and start swearing like a punk

rock anarcho little [ __ ]

all right well first of all i'm not an

anarchist yes you are you are a [ __ ]

anarchist i am a marketer yes you are a

[ __ ] anarchist you are a [ __ ]

anarchist you adopt the cosmetic form of

being a little maoist but in objective

reality you have the ideological and

mental pathology indistinguishable from

a [ __ ] anarchist since you love that

word so much go on

um

well

how can you justify the chairman of the

communist party of china being a

billionaire and say that he is in any

way a politician why do i have why do i

have to justify that

well you're saying it's a dictatorship

of the proletarian

the characteristics of a dictator and by

the way we're just going off your

assumption that xi is a billionaire

which is an unproven claim

well isn't it i'm sorry uh if if it's

not proven then that's my mistake no

it's not proven

well anyway

at least we can both agree that he's

definitely in the millions

we don't no one knows his his net worth

but you're saying he's a billionaire

talking out of your ass but i i

let's just get we agree there's

billionaires in china even if it's not

jinping and there are billionaires in

the communist party however a tiny

minority of the communist party they

represent in comparison to the amount of

workers and

proletarians and peasants and farmers

that are in the communist party so i ask

you

how does that prove china's not a

proletarian dictatorship

well i mean there there's definitely uh

that there's definitely like for example

a billionaire who can

give orders within the

companies so that means that they have

political power over uh sorry they can

or can't

they can i said

billionaires who own factories can

definitely give okay

wait wait billionaires who uh have

factories

general people who embody capital

can definitely give orders with it to

their [ __ ] employees sorry i swear to

god so okay so they give orders to their

employees and

so okay daniel daniel you are a

you are a focaldean anarchist foucault

the french idiot foucault you think this

is a matter of power and control when

that has nothing to do with what class

is but second of all

under the under the soviet shut the [ __ ]

up under the soviet style system they're

also giving orders in control nothing

changed there's someone's giving orders

in control if you're

operating a company you are giving

orders in control

that there's no difference between that

and giving orders in control if it's all

owned by the state what's the [ __ ]

difference

well first of all not

not every not every business in china is

owned by the state uh they actually have

did you listen to what i just said

yes you said that it doesn't can you

bring this [ __ ] out of your ears

okay uh well i asked you if it's a

private company doesn't matter you said

the reason why the billionaires make it

impossible that china's a proletarian

dictatorship is because they're in their

companies and they are giving orders

even though they're not managers are

they're giving orders to workers within

their companies what does that have to

do with anything if it's a state-owned

economy they're also giving away by the

way daniel you mute me one more [ __ ]

time then let me tell you what's going

to happen you

willingly concede the debate to me if

you interrupt me one more time you just

surrender the debate

i'm giving you the opportunity so you

don't have to disgrace yourself and

surrender if you interrupt me one more

time daniel you have submitted and

surrendered to me you understand

i do yes okay

so let me finish my point

you have not demonstrated the

significance of ordering workers in the

company when it doesn't matter what

system you have or what form of

ownership it prevails

those relationships will remain

are you saying that

socialism will maintain capitalist

relationships of production like china

has now in with private businesses and

billionaires

um

the primary problem is that you don't

know what capitalist relations or

production is capitalist relations of

production isn't the fact that managers

need to order workers to fulfill certain

tasks because no single individual knows

exactly all of the logistical and

technical and whatever necessities of

production that's just a technical

matter so that has nothing to do with

some kind of essentially capitalist

relation of production capitalist

relations of production are not premised

by workplace arrangements of power this

is a this is a perversion of marxism

that americans have created by funded by

the state department that comes from

foucault and it's an anarchistic [ __ ]

stupidity that has nothing to do with

marxism actually you're the revisionist

you are trying to revise marxism within

the frame of foucault's ideas about

power relations which has nothing to do

with marxism when was mark when did marx

ever identify the relations of

production in terms of workplace floor

power can you please cite for we cite

for me where marx talks about relations

of production being defined in that way

uh actually for example in the first

chapter of capital he goes over the

minute

he goes over the minute uh of uh capital

which we see

me something quote

do you want me okay let me go into my

copy of capital then yeah go ahead uh

one second

or actually i think i can find this

issue in my heinrich book uh i don't

care where you find it quote me

something from marx saying that

capitalist relations of production or

relations of production in general are

defined by who has a say in the

workplace over who you know bathroom

breaks and [ __ ] like that

yeah well i mean that that's way too

[ __ ] specific i'm sorry i'm not gonna

find you an uh one

one thing okay the workplace floor the

workplace whoever has control over the

workplace floor that's what defines the

relations of production are defined by

the arrangements at the workplace the

shop floor that's what defines relations

of production relation to productions

aren't actually defined by the

fundamental

of private property in form of ownership

it's defined by like the form of

cultural politics that happens at the

shop floor right so quote me where mark

says

sorry i interrupted you but it's mostly

just people who embody capital and

embody the interest of capital to exert

himself okay

i embody your mother's [ __ ] with my

[ __ ] every night what does it mean to

embody capital what does that even

[ __ ] mean well capital by itself has

its own internal logic to uh for example

keep expanding do not ramble and [ __ ]

uh

waste my time talking about marxism 101

ex elaborate on what it means to embody

capital go ahead well that just means

you're embodying the for the that's what

you just [ __ ] said what does that

even logic of capital is to expand

itself so we got from embodying capital

to embodying the logic of capital what

does that [ __ ] mean daniel this is

this is basic marxism i don't know what

what to tell you embodying capital uh

this is the

okay if it's basic marxism

okay show me where marx says

that a the capitalist class is defined

by embodying the logic of capital

uh this is in

i'm pretty sure it's in the preface to

the first

i hope it is yeah

hold it

please quote it

[Music]

okay i'm gonna have to look for it in my

book i'm sorry i don't have this

specifically keep looking

just do control f uh embody

or embody i have a yeah i have um

i have a okay uh

i i have an epub which for some reason

is not

finding uh it's not because it's not

there

you ever thought of that

it's just not that [ __ ] there you

pulled it out of your ass

i'm not [ __ ] pulling it out of my ass

yes you are then find it i'm not then

find it

find where mark says embody that the pro

the class is defined by embodying the

logic of capital

[ __ ] does that even mean how do you

embody the logic of capital as an

individual it's the most stupid [ __ ]

thing i ever heard of

[Music]

complementary initial reading plan okay

let me title capital mix clear okay

pre-face to the first edition okay

tick tock

yeah i know [ __ ] i'm sorry it's

you're making you're putting in the spot

here making me [ __ ] i am putting on the

[ __ ] spot

he left

what was that

the [ __ ] was that

he literally just left

what

don't tell me

he's given up that easy

don't tell me he's given up that easy

what the [ __ ] is that

what

he literally just left

maybe me's computer disconnected is

internet broke let's wait

damn

that's [ __ ] pathetic

it's [ __ ] pathetic

that is so [ __ ] pathetic

that is so [ __ ] pathetic

what is this

what is this [ __ ]

okay they're back

i did you find it yet

hello

yeah hello can you hear me yeah do you

find it yet

uh

yeah it's okay

finally

find it let's quote it go ahead uh yeah

to prevent possible misunderstanding a

word i paint the capitalist and the

landlord in no sense

ie seen through the rose tinted glasses

here individuals are dealt

with only insofar as they are the

personifications of economic categories

embodiments of particular class

relations and class interests my

standpoint from which the evolution of

the economic formation of society is

viewed as a process of natural history

can less than any other make the

individual responsible for relations

whose creature he socially remains

however much he may subjectively raise

himself above them

okay

so i want to actually walk this back

with you get to the word where he said

embody did he say embody the logic of

capital or did they did he say embody

specific class relations which one

huh well they embody class relations yes

and class relations

quote the exact thing

uh the part with embodiment quoted

okay uh

let's insofar as they embody what

uh

yes uh

in so sorry uh to prevent possible

misunderstanding

my standpoint from which the evolution

no wait

in so far as they are the

personifications of economic categories

embodiments of particular class

relations and class interests okay

embodiments of particular class

relations in class interest is that the

word adverbatim

yes

where does marx talk about the

capitalist class embodying capital and

the logic of capital i didn't ask you to

find me a quote where he says they

embody a certain class and certain class

interest in certain class relations of

[ __ ] truism where did he talk about

them embodying capital are you stupid or

are you death

well if they if the the

sorry

uh i do not appreciate you [ __ ]

shouting at me so much like i don't give

a [ __ ] daniel you literally said [ __ ]

people

bro you just interrupt me you literally

just said [ __ ] come at me bro you

were being super aggressive and all of

your friends are claiming i was running

away from because i'm so scared to

debate the mighty daniel you're just

putting up such a challenge and such a

problem for me right now daniel i was so

scared of you daniel it's not like i

already anticipated that you were gonna

be a waste of my [ __ ] time and you

were not gonna introduce one novel

argument i haven't responded to in the

past no i was running away from you

daniel cause i i'm so scared of daniel

so daniel show me what you got daniel

show me what you got

okay um

yeah okay so

capitalist class is um is

known to embody the category of

capitalist classes

marx say they embody capital itself not

the capitalist class but capital and the

logic of capital since that's what you

elaborated it itself i asked you what

the [ __ ] do you mean by embodying

capital because remember the point is

you're saying chinese billionaires

embody capital i said how the [ __ ] do

they embody capital he said wow that's

basic marxism i said how is it marxism

where does marx ever use that [ __ ]

language he said let me pull up a quote

and the quote you got me merely talks

about embodying class interests and

class relations not embodying capital

daniel are you keeping up with the

debate daniel are you keeping up

okay so

if the if the capitalist class is not

embodying the logic of capital which is

the the law the expansionism that is

normally associated with it within our

own structure right now

then

what the [ __ ] are chinese billionaires

who own business

okay daniel you just made a [ __ ] dumb

ass out of yourself when you just said

that

daniel let me explain something to you

daniel you want me to explain it to you

daniel

capital

first of all the logic of capital isn't

just expansion there's no reason to

[ __ ] think that endless expansion

wouldn't also be what defines communism

actually marx and angles are pretty

clear that endless expansion is what

socialism and communism entail as well

so no expansion itself is not the point

the point is daniel it's so easy marx

talks about all the time mcm money

commodity more money the end goal is

just more money more financial

abstraction more

money

shut up shut the [ __ ] up daniel since

you need an education about marxism 101

since you don't know anything you're

[ __ ] talking about it's actually not

true that the capitalist class is what

embodies the logic of capital

actually daniel you want to know which

class does embody the logic of capital

literally embody it

okay sure

the proletarian class daniel it's the

proletarian class that actually embodies

the logic of capital they are the only

embodiment of its [ __ ] logic marx was

very clear that cap that labor is the

essence of capital marx literally

literally literally says labor is the

essence of capital

where excuse me

let me look it up

all right

hold on

i'm waiting

no one give the [ __ ] that you're waiting

who the [ __ ] are you

okay

so

this is what mark said mark says

he says this in the

third manuscript of his economic and

philosophical manuscripts private

property and labor okay

1844

yes okay

so he does not add verbatim say labor is

the essence of capital like ad verbatim

but he says

the subjective

essence of private property private

property as an activity for itself as

subject as person is labor so how do we

get from that

to capital or labor is the essence of

capital because capital is the form

private property takes in capitalist

society

it's money commodity money private

property becomes instrumentalized

or assimilated in in this process

of the growth of capital and the

accumulation of money and profit so in a

capitalist economy it follows logically

if the subjective essence of private

property is labor and this is what

applies in all modes of production then

in the capitalist mode of production

the essence of capital is labor the

subjective essence of capital is labor

itself and therefore is embodied in the

proletarian class

well that just

uh okay so i haven't actually read the

economic manuscripts of 1844 i can tell

you haven't

oh okay um

from what i understood from the quote

yes uh

cap

a lot of a lot of labor does embody

capital in that no it's not a lot of

labor the whole point is nothing bloody

capital in that it creates capital but

what i don't know

it doesn't simply create capital it is

the subjective essence of capital

capital is the form labor is the essence

real labor and not just labor at the

individual level of the proletarian

working but labor at the level of

society at the level of the development

of the forces of production is the

essence of what capital is capital is

merely the form yes but this is but this

is not but this is just arguing uh on a

different scale on the interest of but

the capitalist class and therefore the

billionaires do not embody capital they

don't embody capital how could they

they don't bear the marks of capital on

their [ __ ] body there is nothing

about them that embodies capital they

relate to the process of capital

accumulation externally they are not

internal to the process they are not the

internal embodiment of the process the

proletariat is you dumb [ __ ] you don't

know anything about marxism and you

thought you were gonna be this big

[ __ ] challenge to me

okay first of all uh i didn't say they

embody capitalist and they create

capital i said they embody their logic

exactly

capital and that i ask you to embody the

logic of capital

but the proletariat is what embodies the

logic of capital dumbass

no yes they do

they literally do

or the minute which is commodities the

commodity production what is labor what

is labor

labor indeed labor in the abstract it's

the neighboring okay

labor is a commodity dumbass yes slavery

the only class that is a commodity

that is literally embodying the process

of mcm the process by which

money

becomes more money by means of

commodities is the [ __ ] proletariat

they're the only class that sells their

labor do you know anything about marxism

i do yes no you don't don't [ __ ] you

don't know

the mcm is the logic that the pro that

the

[ __ ] purchasing follows uh sorry i

saw her again i know you don't know it's

not the it's not the process the

bourgeoisie follows the

busy

did you just interrupt me did you just

interrupt me again

you follow c did you just interrupt me

again

yeah okay whatever uh he did interrupt

you i'm sorry so did you concede the

debate

well no but yes you did

well this is your show so you can do

whatever you like yeah you just [ __ ]

surrendered and conceded to me that's

okay we can keep going listen daniel you

didn't hear what i [ __ ] said the

bourgeoisie participates in the process

of capital accumulation specifically as

the agents as the subjects accumulating

money accumulating money

not even necessarily capital right

because at that level

you transition to joint stock companies

and you transition to more socialized

forms of private ownership right

insofar as they're merely individuals

it's just money

they can own the capital but not

necessarily but so it's primarily money

at the individual level okay

you interrupted him many times dude so

what it's my [ __ ] show and i'm the

elder he says things that are

inessential to the debate and he mouths

off rambling on saying [ __ ] that has

nothing to do with anything

now daniel

the capitalist class does not embody

capital or the logic of capital explain

how they do if they do please explain

how they embody it go ahead

well first of all they need authority to

maintain it uh so for example they use

policemen and they use the

other daniel me and daniel

yes have you ever looked in the mirror

and just thought god i'm stupid

uh no did i ask you if they need

authority or they exercise apparently my

name is not haas i asked you if they

embody

how do they embody capital your response

to that is that they

use authority and hire police whatever

that even [ __ ] means does that have

to do with my question how do they

embody capital in the logic of capital

daniel well they embody it and that they

use authority over is proletarian

subjects in order to

uh for example

work in their businesses uh how how how

how does that

show that how does that prove to me or

demonstrate to me

that

that that's that they embody it how does

that mean they embody it how does that

mean the logic of it in that they have

to use for example

people to work to create commodities

if they if there was no bourgeoisie to

enforce the rule uh their own rule there

there wouldn't be a proletarian that's

not true

that's not true do you even know that

police didn't always exist the

proletariat as a class didn't emerge

because of the actions of the

bourgeoisie they emerged because of

things like land enclosures and other

forms of separating peasants from their

original means of production

why did you [ __ ] interrupt me daniel

okay who the [ __ ] are you to interrupt

me i literally

told you at the beginning of this debate

if you interrupt me you concede and

surrender the debate

all right i'm sorry

and i let you off off the hook the first

time this is the second time guess what

happens the third time daniel

i get kicked probably

and by your own admission you can see it

because i said do you understand daniel

that this means you concede and you said

yes this was your admission not mine

daniel you're the one who accepts and

daniel by the way you've already

accepted that you've surrendered by your

own admission we have you on record

uh

red guard

redguard dumbass in my chat but how can

you measure the value of labor by labor

labor is a commodity dumbass obviously

labor is a commodity

you really think there's a dispute as

far as the question of labor being a

commodity of course it's a [ __ ]

commodity

yeah so

first of all the proletarian

the wardrobe class rose up specifically

during that first enclosure and during

what is what is called

no it did not

that is literally not the origin of the

bourgeoisie at all

like the wardrobe revolutions from 1848

and

[Music]

preceded those revolutions by hundreds

of years do you know anything about

marxism why the [ __ ] would you come on

my show and insult me and all my voice

okay sorry i interrupted wasting our

time

you really think the bourgeoisie arose

as a class during the enclosures

what the [ __ ] is that

they they

they became the ruling class during that

time yes

no no no no no they really didn't

they didn't

they didn't dude for two reasons they

didn't won they were already primarily

the ruling class before then but if you

don't think they were the ruling class

because society was still marked by the

stamp of the ancient regime the

landowners and the nobility well those

actually persisted well into the 19th

century even into the 20th century until

world war one

so by both accounts of whatever you're

approaching this you're just [ __ ]

wrong you're just a kid who's never

picked up a [ __ ] book in their life

and decided they were confident enough

to talk about subject matters and take

audacious positions about things they

don't even [ __ ] understand

the embarrassment

okay you want to talk about books

there's one for example it's called uh

there's a book called i [ __ ] your mom

yesterday go read it

all right well in this book uh

marxist professor agustin cuevas

specifically into the uh original

accumulation or the original d

accumulation of capital in

latin america

and specifically how that uh

this model production rose up here and

it was and it was mostly just the

hot like

the

very a very um

sorry my english is failing me right now

a very um

uh very

like they have they had a lot of uh land

property

uh

rule enforced their uh

forced like a lot of people to become

proletarian

by taking them away from a lot of the

means of subsistence that they had

before but it was definitely like

already as they were already getting uh

um

for example high capital investments

from england

uh in order to

for example

produce railways

daniel are you still there are you

rambling i'm still

daniel you did you daniel daniel daniel

no you want me i let you mouth often and

embarrass yourself for that entire spiel

daniel

the bourgeoisie that benefited from the

proletariat's dispossession was not the

same so-called landowning or whatever

bourgeoisie that was responsible for the

enclosures and even if you found a

marginal clay's case in which it that

they were the same and i know for a fact

they weren't the [ __ ] same because in

the actual clay cases of the enclosures

in england the forces

that actually were responsible for that

were not the same thing as the bourgeois

capitalist class which was resulting

from the industrial revolution and which

gave

rise to the modern proletariat as we

know it as we know it the proletariat

the industrial proletariat so no they

weren't the same thing the enclosures in

the dispossession from land and the

terminal landlessness preceded the

industrial revolution and that's all we

need to know to prove the fact that no

the bourgeoisie does not by voluntary

political and subjective means create

this the proletariat class the

bourgeoisie in the proletariat class

arise for the same reasons and not

because one creates the other or that

one one's whole existence hinges upon

the existence of the other actually if

you [ __ ] understand anything about

marxism

the whole point is that

the proletariat and bourgeoisie come

from the universal form of the citizen

and the universal form of the citizens

equal rights because universal equal

rights demolish castes or special

economic privileges that are endowed

through the means of the political state

but at the same time this new economy in

which citizens exchange goods and

commodities

necessarily have to eventually exchange

labor itself the commodity that

endangers the possibility of all

commodities and this very paradox is

what gives rise to the class distinction

between the bourgeoisie and the

proletariat there doesn't need to be any

police force to create this class none

of that needs to actually just all that

needs to exist is the universal form of

uh political equality implicitly or

otherwise or without this political form

the elimination

of uh caste relations because in england

obviously the universal form of

political equality came much later uh

while the elimination of the

feudal castes came before then

that's all that's necessary the

bourgeoisie does not but you know why

we're rambling daniel because even

though you were [ __ ] wrong about all

of those things we have still we're

still not even an inch closer to your

original proposition and your original

claim which was

that the capitalist class embodies the

logic of capital you have yet to make a

single

intelligible point in favor of that

proposition

okay so first of all uh

there were some problems with what you

said for example in the final chapter of

capital

uh

marks go specifically into the cases of

the native americans in which they had

to be forced to become proletarianized

fourth through for example

begging vacancy laws or through uh

policemen

uh huh what does it have to do with

anything

well you said that every

place became polit yes that is the k

what you said was the case for europe

but but was not the case for most of the

world most of the world did not become

proletarianized uh through the

uh bonjour revolutions in which the

proletarian participated in that's not

what i did it's not i daniel i literally

just gave the example of england where

there was no clear boudoir revolution

unless you want to count the civil war

and that kind of [ __ ] i literally gave

you an example of how that's not the

case so you have [ __ ] in your ears you

clean the [ __ ] out of your ears because

that's not what i [ __ ] said

well yeah but you said that there wasn't

a need for policemen but

there wasn't like i said that is not the

primary reason why proletarians or

proletarianization happen you made the

claim that without the bourgeoisies

coercive political police force there

would be no proletariat which is

actually not true now there may be cases

in which the bourgeoisie the capitals

class is short on the supply of labor

and will uh you know try and pass

policies and laws that make it for

native americans you know that

proletarianized them that might be the

case i even conceded the possibility

that there might be a case in latin

america where it's the same bourgeois

class responsible for um

the uh separation between the peasants

and their original means of production

is the same bourgeois class that

eventually hires the things that's fine

but that is not historically how the

proletarian class emerged because

whether you want to agree

about the significance of europe or not

that is where the proletarian class

first emerged okay so that's why i'm

using this

daniel daniel basic logic

and by the way you're very close to

interrupting me there be careful daniel

basic logic shows us

that your claim doesn't hold if there is

a case in which the proletariat class

can arise

outside of the direct political and

subjective

uh means of the bourgeoisies

intervention

that means that the proletariat's

existence does not essentially rest on

the bourgeoisie engaging in subjective

political but you know what's so [ __ ]

stupid about you daniel the bousoisie

doesn't spend its time

in politics or ruling society they spend

their time

running their companies in factories and

businesses and accumulating money so

what you're saying is you literally

think cl you have a foucault

anarchistic brain

according to which classes are directly

political power instead of an indirect

relation between the political power and

the class

no it's basically a relation based on

the instrumentality of things and they

so they

uh

have like a

the bourgeoisie doesn't care about using

all those police and [ __ ] they care

about making money and they're gonna

spend their extra money

bribing politicians and making sure

politicians serve their interests yes

but they are the buchwa itself does not

directly govern society

yes so but then you're conceding that

since

china has mojo agents like uh

for example jack ma which i mean

disappeared

uh but they have a lot more a lot many

sorry they have many more billions when

did i concede that

well if you're considering that china

has a billionaire class and you're

saying oh when did i concede that under

the marxist definition of a class it

doesn't have a billionaire class i don't

concede that

they a billionaire they own what okay

daniel company daniel daniel

they don't own the companies that's the

thing they don't own it how do they own

it

how do they own anything in china daniel

the government can literally controls

everything in china you don't own [ __ ]

you think they actually own it they

don't

you actually think the billionaires like

literally own it as like in the same way

the capitalist class own [ __ ] in the

19th century

is that what you think

because you don't know anything about

china if that's what you think literally

every decision they make on behalf of

their company is directed by state

policies the state intervenes at every

[ __ ] level of production

especially when it comes to the

billionaires the billionaires are

especially exempt from having listen you

want to know what capitalists in china

quote-unquote capitalists do have leeway

and actually be being able to make

choices and [ __ ] it's literally the

people on the ground selling fruits and

vegetables and markets and [ __ ] or

people in [ __ ] selling cell phones

and [ __ ] small skill people yeah the

government is you know kind of hands off

that's not true when it comes to

billionaires daniel

then why do they allow them to exist if

they if they're supposedly useless uh

both economically and politically

daniel

i think you're making they allow them to

exist then all right you know what

daniel

your stupid [ __ ] ass

i just muted your stupid [ __ ] ass

you just interrupted me for the third

time

you raving [ __ ] clown you have zero

impulse control

you're a fanatical excited little kid

who can't even control themselves like

an adult

just screaming

impulsively and you cannot even control

yourself

you're making a leap daniel

between the capitalist class proper and

billionaires now intuitively and

collectively we will associate

billionaires with the capitalist class

but you actually have to prove that just

because there's billionaires in china

means they form the equivalent to a

capitalist class you have not

demonstrated that you haven't proved it

you're just assuming that everyone

implicitly agrees with you on that point

who just said daniel wins

once in the chat if daniel got [ __ ]

destroyed

i want daniel's people to know who's in

charge here

oh wait we have some twos

that's okay

we had one two it's from salcombe

one

all the twos are getting banned because

you're [ __ ] stupid

and i don't want you in my chat

daniel

i just warned you that if you interrupt

me one more [ __ ] time you conceded

the debate

so you conceded yes or no

you you yourself agreed that you

understood that if you interrupt me

daniel you destroyed

so what do you think daniel did you

concede

not really you're just like why did you

interrupt me then

did you did you okay did you or did you

not you don't want to if you don't want

to talk with me

conversation it's not about me daniel

did you you don't want to have this

full-on debate with me right now

did you or did you not

say that you understood that if you

interrupted me once

you can see the debate and submit to me

uh okay did you or did you not yes or no

oh sure

yes you did so if you interrupt me three

times what does that mean

uh

i guess uh you're gonna kick me now no

what does that mean as far as what you

agreed to

oh that well uh you can see that debate

yeah sure but well based on your own

word

uh that i conceded the debate i just did

it so if you didn't want to concede why

did you interrupt me daniel not once we

all make mistakes not twice we all make

mistakes three times and i warned you

each time of your prior agreement

i warned you each time you interrupted

me

now

you haven't given me a lot of um

maladies if that's what you if they if

you're complaining about mine to be

honest but uh i haven't given you a lot

of what

maladies like formalities daniel is it a

formality let me let me ask a question

daniel well it's definitely not a

formality to call me a kid and you are a

good daniel you are a [ __ ] kid daniel

let me ask you a question is it a

formality

do not respect my formality

then

could you go and debate my chat which is

as per my protocol and my formality and

my chat

my people tell me you're a waste of time

you have nothing interesting or unique

to say whatsoever and that i shouldn't

debate you because you've already

debated this a million times before and

he has nothing new to say

and then i say okay [ __ ] him then you

run on twitter and you and all of your

friends on twitter start saying oh how's

it scared of daniel how's the scare of

daniel is that a formality

as per our protocol for deciding who

gets to debate me you failed so you

failed my formality so formalities out

the window daniel

if you cared about formality you

wouldn't have run to twitter running

your mouth just because you got [ __ ]

destroyed by my discord people

if you can't beat my dustbin

by like 15 people because okay if you

can't beat them why do you get a chance

to debate me

it's actually pretty hard to um you know

talk when there's 15 people speaking

over you uh all trying to okay

you have never had an original thought

in your life

everyone should speak over you

a mouse a [ __ ] rat should speak over

you daniel if you've never if you daniel

let me tell you something honestly if

you never uttered or wrote a single word

in your whole life

humanity will have lost nothing

i think i can say the same for you house

no the difference is there's a big

difference daniel if i never said a word

or wrote anything in my life

humanity would not have infrared would

not have this community which is rising

every [ __ ] day

okay i'm sorry uh good luck with that

buddy wait wait wait why do i need luck

go ahead

uh well you know just uh good luck with

that uh why do i need luck

i don't have any bad will on you i'm

just why do i need luck

just in general i mean i can't wish you

luck

no no you're passive aggressively

wishing me luck because you think that

it's not gonna turn out well for me so

why

don't roll it back you [ __ ] [ __ ]

explain why i need luck

i just don't think you're actually gonna

get very far uh why not like

well it's just the nature of the

politician in the us for example the

nature of what definitely

uh the nature of how the proletariat in

the u.s has played out

what's the problem what's the

proletariat in the u.s how do you most

of the

well most of the

social struggles that the u.s has had

have failed spectacularly after

you if the u.s government meddling so

okay

how many socialist struggles succeeded

in china before the con how many social

struggles succeeded in russia or china

before communists became a movement how

many well there's the 1905 revolution

which was that a success

so so what so according to you um the

american history of the black panthers

the civil rights movement the labor

movement eugene debs all of that

that was nothing right

no it wasn't nothing it's actually very

admirable so was 1905 a success or a

failure

it was a failure yeah so i i'm asking

you again daniel

what track record of success did any

communists in any country

have uh before they were successful the

establishment of the people's republic

of china in 1949 i would say what

success did they have before

uh what the sex success did they had

before uh well they won multiple battles

against the coming tank and they

and they managed to kick them out to

taiwan i mean that was not ideal because

they massacred a lot of them they still

didn't want but they still didn't win

power there's there's many battles that

communists in america want too

um

well they haven't been able to overthrow

the

american government so and neither did

neither did the chinese communists

before they did it

okay yeah well good luck with that so

why no why are you not even i don't even

live in the us i live in mexico daniel

daniel you're saying good luck why

what's what's with the passive

aggressive good luck

well just good luck you know

overthrowing the us government

it's uh

wait wait is that the barometer of uh

making an impact on this world

because remember what this is but uh

successful

daniel dana this is about whether

humanity will have gained something

or not gain something

based on it's definitely a difference

between gaining something yeah having a

victory like for example yeah they are

okay okay so so according to daniel let

me ask you a question karl marx who did

he overthrow

uh he didn't overthrow anything but he

had other gains in theory in theory uh

for example in uh in experience that he

inevitably gives to the politicians

keep rambling and wasting my time daniel

so

daniel

if someone were to say

hey karl marx if you never wrote

something

or said anything

you will have

no one would have gained anything

would that be accurate

uh

are you comparing yourself to karl marx

right now only in so far as neither of

us are probably going to overthrow

states

only or it doesn't have to be karl marx

it could be anyone else it could be any

prominent communist in history it could

be any prominent communist writer in

history gromski it could be anyone it

could literally be anyone any prominent

communist who did make an impact on this

world but yet didn't overthrow a state

because you're holding me to the

standard of overthrowing the american

state well that's your goal isn't it

not necessarily

my goal is to rebuild the communist

party and before then build a powerful

media corporation that will help

communist forces and progressive

populist forces in america that's my

actual goal

so you're looking at the thesis of

reconstitution of the communist party or

are you looking to create a

communist party of a new type no i'm not

i'm looking to create a media

corporation which will direct the

transformation of the existing communist

party not a new one

so basically you want to stream until

you

do what

until i have enough capital to expand

operations and build a media corporation

so you want to

be a boss of a

firm

which a communications firm

i said media corporations you said

communications firm

okay

like a media corporation do you want to

be the boss of a media corporation

yeah me and the other infrared people

okay well

sure i mean if you want to do that let's

say that seems like uh kind of

antithetical to the communist movement

why wait that's antithetical to the

communist movement please explain and

elaborate

well why would you want to become a ceo

who cares

you don't think that

communist

politics is a business

uh

no to be honest uh oh what is it then

it's not about raising money so you have

enough [ __ ] capital and enough money

to actually have the resources to make a

difference what is it then

are you [ __ ] stupid where do you

think the [ __ ] gossip party came from

they stole from banks no they did that

once

no they did that multiple times

yeah but the prominent one they did once

the primary form of earning revenue for

almost every major communist party on

earth was running a [ __ ] newspaper

which they charged for and they were

there for capitalist business ceos

[ __ ] dumb anarchist oh the [ __ ] do

you know about anything

so how is it antithetical to the

communist movement to create a powerful

media corporation that will serve the

ends of a communist movement go ahead

well take for example there was a very

recent uh

development in which uh

some

workers at a firm i forgot the name

wanted to make it a

co-op the self-described socialist

magazine yeah i would fire them yeah i

would i would have fired them

they're not workers they're parasites

you actually think those are workers

that's an interesting definition of

worker

so according to you anyone who's

employed as a worker right

you [ __ ] dumbass ceos are yeah

yeah then ceos are workers too dumbass a

ceo does not own anything technically

just by being a ceo a chief executive

offer

is a employed managerial position over a

company it's an administrative position

that shareholders

literally employ someone to be in to

direct a company a ceo is a worker under

your definition

uh well

yeah but they embody the logic of

capital so there you go

there we go with something you were

never able to define or clarify the

meaning of they embody the logic of

capital which we've established means

nothing

they're workers

you think anyone who's just employed as

a worker

uh no i believe that for example but you

said you did no no you just said you did

so you changed your mind

no you did change your mind once you

actually if you actually to meet to

define it i would say that yeah

and worker is someone who has to pre to

sell his labor in order to survive okay

what okay then let's define labor what

is labor then

labor is a

you commodity said that earlier that's

not the only thing labor is though well

how does marx define labor for example

in his early writings

uh from the 18th century

you say that

they embodied all

all of capital because uh

is that what he said in the 1840s

uh in 1844 i don't remember the exact

what you said but you the you said they

embody all of capital because they built

most of it that's not what i said that's

not what i said although in critique of

the gotha program he goes over in how

nature also plays a role in that but no

he doesn't

you rambling

child

why are you talking about the critique

of the gotham program and what marx was

pointing out how nature is also a source

of value not just labor that my point

daniel is not every form of hired

service is labor as per the marxist

definition

that is true because uh for example

journalists and professionals are not

workers

they do not perform they don't have

labor they don't sell any labor

um

well it depends on the model of the firm

but no they don't sell any labor when

you're writing a [ __ ] article you're

not selling labor

you're not selling labor

labor is the [ __ ] that actually

transforms the relationship between

humanity

and the world and produces commodities

proper

commodities proper which and that's why

for marx

labor is defined at the level of the

least quantum of unskilled labor

everything else

is just the um

multiplication is a multiplication

or an addition or a subtraction of that

original quantum of unskilled labor

but

journalists do not produce any labor

they literally just recycle

the value that is produced by labor

they don't produce any labor

to say that a newspaper is not a

commodity then

uh if it's a commodity then the labor

that is producing that commodity is not

the journalists and not the people

that's do you have to get into attention

economy theory and consumer type of

consumer-oriented theories in marxism

then you may be able to get like this

idea that you know like matteo pascual

nellie's idea that

attention is a form of labor or whatever

you'd have to make that case but the

journalist is not performing any labor

um well

writing uh

writing and making like videos for

example would be a form of labor no it

wouldn't

it literally wouldn't you think like for

example people who are uh store clerks

are not laborers

no

they're not

they're not actually producing value

with their work

well yeah but they're selling their

value so no they're not selling that

doesn't mean anything they're not

producing any value

they're still selling their own

commodity which is their labor no

they're not

no they're not they're not producing any

[ __ ] value whatsoever labor doesn't

factor into it

okay

um

so you don't believe clerics are workers

they're workers

but in the technical sense of like a

marxist proletarian laborer no they're

not

you call them workers because that's

their cultural status

well yeah they they are still having to

sell their own labor in order to

buy commodities

uh that is uh

so you're like an npc basically right

no

well you're just repeating dogmatic

things without actually justifying why

why is it that it's a form of labor

how is the form of labor crystallized

in a commodity

it's not crystallizing a commodity

specifically uh because they don't so

how is it labor how is it labor

in any relevant sense

it's labor in that it maintains the

means of production for example you

can't run dirty machines

because just messes with them first for

example

they're what

uh dustin you know if you don't maintain

machines and you don't make how does

that justify that they are

laboring proletarians

what do you mean dusting machines are

you seeing a store clerk who's

selling stuff at a shop or are you

talking about someone who's working at a

factory performing the function of

dusting off machines what are you

[ __ ] talking about

actually

i think uh i think that's just me

being bad at english i thought a clerk

was someone who cleans

no

okay sorry that's fine well a store

clerk is someone who cleans the store

not the [ __ ] factory floor

still it still can happen for example

that a store has the internal factories

for example in mexico we have uh

we have what a [ __ ] backpedaling liar

now you're going to talk about the rare

exception of stores that actually double

as factories get the [ __ ] out of here

you [ __ ] liar and doritos

doritos walmart and stuff like that are

very recent

no it's not about walmart it's about

most stores okay

get their commodities from factories and

they just sell them

that is a very that is a very kind of

recent development

move it uh prove it i i reject that view

that it's a recent development store

shops in france and paris did not have

[ __ ] factories right behind them no

they didn't i'm rejecting that thesis

well yeah sometimes maybe for

things like uh clothes but hey shut up

shut up dorito dumbass

when they're commodity transforming the

paper to a newspaper

labor is not involved

there's no labor involved

there's no labor involved whatsoever

dumbass you don't know what [ __ ]

labor means go back and read marx

how is it transformed then

how are you how is it transformed from

paper to a newspaper they write [ __ ] on

it

so

they write [ __ ] on it and nobody's just

buying the physical writing on the paper

they are buying the content of that

writing they're buying the ideas and the

news stories and the opinions

you think the value of the newspaper

comes from the act of writing with your

wrist then why can't they just scribble

incomprehensible garbage on it you

[ __ ] idiot

no they don't dorito you're such a

[ __ ] idiot newspapers get their value

from their content not because people

are using their wrists to write [ __ ] on

it you're so [ __ ] stupid

you don't know what the [ __ ] you're

talking about

their labor is their opinions you think

an opinion is labor you literally think

an opinion expressing an opinion is a

form of labor what a [ __ ] dumbass and

these people call themselves marxist by

the way and he thinks he's a marxist he

literally thinks that having an opinion

is a form of labor they get paid for it

so yes a ceo also gets paid to do what

they do and literally most people in

america most [ __ ] jobs most [ __ ]

people get paid to do what they [ __ ]

do dumbass doesn't [ __ ] mean they're

proletarian laborers what a [ __ ]

idiot

and they perform labor no they don't

weren't you just saying ceos are workers

as per your definition not mine as per

your stupid anti-marxist americanized

foucault definition of what labor is not

mine

no i don't believe uh ceos are laborers

in the sense that uh they are

prolitarian

why not uh they they embody the um did

it embody up your

what do you mean embody explain how

they're not workers

well basically they enforce the rule of

capital so what so do listen okay do you

want me to play this game with you

daniel if you're working at a factory

and you're using your labor you're also

enforcing the rule of capital because

you're obeying the orders of capital so

technically workers are also embodying

capital because they're enforcing the

will of capital by means of their

performance and labor why don't they

resist it if they want to be true

workers according to you please explain

to me

even even if they're fulfilling your

work even a factory

they for example try to take breaks even

when they're not supposed to so the

scene so the ceo tries to go on holiday

when he has other responsibilities so

what daniel

explain to me how as for your definition

a ceo is not a worker

ceo is not a worker because they defend

the rule of capital so a worker can

still defend the rule of capital and

still be a worker

well yeah but that just make them class

traders simple okay so a ceo is a class

trader

it they

depends on the how big the company is

but yeah they can be if it's like a

small company and it's

no no if it's a big company

if it's a big company then

most of the times they have enough money

to be absolutely capitalist and it's

just there so what if they don't what if

they're just a ceo

uh

listen like

ceo where first of all how much money

they get paid is not relevant

for their job because that's their job

if they live by the if they live by mcm

prime uh and that's the

being the ceo of a company it's just a

like

basically day job hobby i guess

no that's their job their job is to be

the ceo the chief executive offer

they're being paid a salary to perform

a service a labor so they're workers and

laborers then right

oh no they why not

because they enforce the rule of capital

so what how is that essential

what does that have to do with being a

worker or not

pretty [ __ ] simple if in my opinion

so explain it you haven't explained it

in a minimally coherent way explain why

the fact that ceos remind me of my dad

is proof

that they're not workers as per your

definition

they don't really remind me of my dad

sorry uh hey is my voice too high for

you yes it is explain

uh all right well

ceos and

what they do is they literally embody an

authority figure in which capital bases

itself uh

and so for example he can break up

strikes he can

order can workers break up strikes too

not really yes they can they're

literally

literally called they're literally

called strike breakers you [ __ ] idiot

yes they do i mean like scabs yeah of

course those types of workers can't

because they need it they literally have

to sell their own

[Music]

labor daniel daniel daniel if we define

workers by people who are being employed

and sell their labor how can a ceo not

be a worker

it's as simple as that the fact that

ceos

um work in the interests of a company

which is what they're hired to do the

fact that ceos embody my daddy or

whatever what does that have to do with

their class status all of a sudden is so

according to you

someone's ideological and political um

viewpoints is actually what defines

class not their material relationship to

production and by material we know what

you mean is the foucault power relation

the power arithmetic so

how are ceos not workers go ahead

i think it'd be pretty obvious that

there's really any solidarity between a

worker

that's not the workers are not defined

by solidarity they're defined by being

hired for their labor yes or not

uh yeah sure okay so our ceos labor is

workers or not

they're not why not

they defend

capital simple so workers can also

defend capital

but it's not in their interest and

if so why is it in the interest of the

ceo

then it's the nature of his job to

maintain capital it's the main nature of

his job to make sure the company

flourishes it's also in the nature of

the workers job to make sure the company

flourishes in a different way

you see well yeah they have to produce

commodities but they're

not really doing it willingly uh most of

the time okay so then you could say the

ceo is not doing it willingly and by the

way that's not true that they're not

doing it willingly that's just a [ __ ]

lie

they are doing it willingly

okay so the proletarian is so free that

they may

not sell their labor and [ __ ] starve

no they don't have to work in that

specific company

uh well yeah but they have to work in a

company well so does the ceo then

what does that have to do with whether

they're workers or not are you an npc

who's broken what does it have to do

with their class status how is a ceo not

a worker according to your definition

wait a second i'm kidding

okay uh

you got your friends to help you out

good

no i'm not i just got a message from

someone yeah i know to help you out

no it's not yeah yeah okay so what did

they say what did they tell you

[Music]

i'm

seeing someone tomorrow

what did they tell you

go ahead

well do you want me to read it to you

it's in spanish

they sent you something in spanish why

would you read me in something in a

language i don't understand

well you asked me to read you what

they're sending me and i speak spanish

because i am mexican

okay

so what do you have a new point are you

just going to repeat the same thing you

just said without actually justifying it

or responding to my criticism

i mean if you think ceos are proletarian

then i don't i'm asking you why they're

not as for your definition

well i don't think they're not either so

why are we having this conversation you

do think they're workers or else you're

being inconsistent then you're being

inconsistent arbitrarily well no it's in

the nature of the job to maintain

workers so okay you can say

you could say that about workers too and

then when i pointed out that out to you

said well workers don't have a choice

what does choice have to do with it

that's the nature of their job why is

choice suddenly essential to the fact

i don't get why choices suddenly

essential so let me get this straight so

let me get this straight you think ceos

at least per my definition yes

uh

our workers yes i'm telling you that

they're not workers because the nature

of their job requires them to maintain

workers in line throughout through

authority

that's also in the nature of everyone

else's job too insofar as the nature of

their job is to serve and fulfill the

necessities of the company one way or

another

yeah but a lot of the time they don't

get to willingly choose what they do

inside the company or let me ask you a

question

what does that have to do with it though

tell me how that's essential to the

definition you are not arriving at a

consistent definition where you're

saying we go from a to b so for example

if you say well they serve the interest

of the company and they serve capital

and then i say well workers do the same

thing uh in a different way and they say

well they don't have a choice they don't

have a lot of say

how do you get from a to b

uh a being they fulfill the functions of

the company to be well they don't have a

choice how do you get to the

essentiality of b i don't get it can you

make the argument of why it's essential

there's actually a board to get quote uh

if you are familiar with him at although

i'm not about yeah when i was 14 years

old i was familiar with him read it

uh

well yeah the proletarian is so free

that they might

banter out so far as to

not sell their level and starb

okay

uh do you have border ghost number

he's dead

yeah yeah

can you call him and tell him to suck my

[ __ ] he's dead and i piss on his grave

because i don't care about what bordeaux

says because he's not a [ __ ] marxist

he's a fascist

all right well um you think you think i

respect bordega as a legitimate

marxist mean

it did lead a lot of uh

uh

what uh

yeah he called hitler and mussolini the

greatest revolutionaries of the 20th

century that's what he did

well he did say a lot of things on the

wants from the italian police yeah and

he said it to avoid present time

no he he said that he no one forced him

to call hitler the greatest

revolutionary of the 20th century no one

put a guard on his head and made him say

that

well yeah but he did say a lot of things

no one forced the borders after world

war ii to become holocaust deniers

either no one's faced that one i'll give

you that one actually so i'm not a i'm

not a portuguese of course you're not

of course you're going to backpedal from

that

i'm not a border guest i just had a

useful quote that into this

context i'm sure mussolini forced them

to do that too

that's not a useful quote by the way

saying

listen most proletarians probably have

to do that but where i'm asking you the

question as per your definition are ceos

workers and you have not given me a a

justification for why you're saying no

on the basis of your definition of a

worker being anyone who sells their

performance for a uh in return for money

it's yeah

because ceos on those deals sometimes

most of the time they don't actually get

a wage they get paid in uh a salary or

stocks but here's what they paid install

but that that is not by necessity the

meaning of a ceo is a chief executive

officer

does not necessarily own any part of

their company

uh

not necessarily but it's very rare

nowadays well what does that matter

technically a ceo can be a worker

if you want to say it is sure but no i

don't i'm using your definition i don't

agree with the definition that anyone

who just gets hired

you're not really saying something i

believe uh

okay why don't you believe it

go ahead why don't you believe it yes

it's in the nature of their job to make

other people

in line of the interest of capital

uh

what does that have to do with it you're

literally running in circles do you not

see there's a dialogue loop here

why

is that association yeah you're giving

me the same points what am i [ __ ]

supposed to do i will keep chat one of

the challenges

in the chat if this is alacrity level of

npc one's in the chat if this is am i

the only one witnessing this i'm not

like not i'm not looking at your chat to

be honest literally alacrity 2.0

literally alacrity 2.0

you're literally

you literally have a dialogue tree you

have a dialogue tree i'm pressing you on

the point of why it is that ceos are not

workers as per the definition of workers

being those who have to sell their

quote-unquote labor in return for money

and you're saying well they're not

because they uphold the interest of

capital but that does not fit is and so

insofar as it's a question of the

essentiality of your definition nowhere

in your definition does it mention

uh upholding the interest of capital or

not your definition just says anyone who

sells their labor is a worker your

definition does not say for example

anyone who sells their labor uh and also

has solidarity with other people who

sell their labor and other has other and

also has no choice but to sell their

labor and also um

and also uh does not serve the interests

of cat and i don't know how that i don't

know how it is that workers don't serve

the interests of capital even you left

com endnotes people literally say well

because through the process of real

subsumption the proletariat is an

instrument of capital they literally say

that now the proletariat literally

fulfills the function of capital and

dirty hipsters who don't shower like me

we're the only vanguard of the

resistance against capital because we

don't shower and we don't get a job and

we squad in abandoned places

no i'm currently unemployed because i'm

studying but i will study engineering

yeah yeah yeah and why do i care

well you say i'm a hipster who doesn't

shower yes you don't you don't you're an

unemployed student

you literally fit the demographic

definition

of what an american leftoid is

you're literally i agree dude you are

representing the interest of your class

as far as your views are concerned i can

tell why you people hate china because

she just said just released we don't

want people going to crowding the

universities anymore i want people to go

to trade school and we want to glorify

people who work with their hands and do

real jobs not this fake dumb [ __ ]

[ __ ]

and i could tell why you hate china for

that reason

i don't hate china for that reason i

hate

it

i hate china because they had full-on

capitalist restoration simple as that

yeah but you also don't know what

capitalism even is and you've just

proven that uh so none of the words

none of the words

ownership of the means of production

none of the words you use have a modicum

[Music]

uh i'm sorry i'm not familiar with the

word none of them have the minimum

[Music]

of legitimacy

okay well if you're not going to accept

any words to have legitimacy i guess i'm

done

um because you got this

i gave you so many chances daniel by

your own admission you conceded no not

really

uh okay what i will say is that um

i hope you

have good luck on your uh that's your

argument to win the debate i hope you

have good luck in your construction of

an enterprise uh

i hope you find a lot of employees

so what and uh

hold on

wait wait

do you think the communist party didn't

have employees what a [ __ ] dumbass he

left he literally left

oh you're gonna have employees you're

gonna be a capitalist business owner

[ __ ] yes i am

hell yeah i am

i mean [ __ ] yeah i am

but how is that a capitalist business

owner there's like i don't even get how

that's that's capitalism what a media

corporation those are workers who work

for you get the [ __ ] out of here

unionize the journalists if you're not a

[ __ ] journalist because that's your

passion

then [ __ ] off go work for mcdonald's or

something and be a true worker

[ __ ] idiot

don't give a [ __ ] and if my

if the future infrared corporation if my

workers try to unionize i'll fire all of

them on the spot they will all get fired

they will all get fired

on the spot