Haz From Infrared vs Cultured Thug | Politically Provoked Debate 🚀 Infrared Content Catalog

hey guys welcome to politically provoked

an interactive podcast where we host

debates panels and interviews this is

your first time joining us don't forget

to hit that subscribe button as well as

the notification bell to keep up to date

with all our future debates and panels

we are primarily on youtube but you can

find us on facebook twitter twitch

discord bit shoot tick tock and

instagram all the information is in the

banner below we also have a link to you

can find the description or you can just

search politically provoked and we

should pop right up we are a neutral

ground where people from across the

political spectrum can either duke it

out in a debate or just have a casual

discussion in one of our panels either

way we try to represent both left and

right wing views on every episode so i'm

your host brittany and this is my

co-host todd how are you doing great

britt how are you i'm doing good i'm

excited for this one um all right so

yeah we've had a lot of requests

actually for this debate so we um they

haven't debated and we are gonna get it

going so what they're gonna be debating

communism versus uh fascism so first

let's bring on culture thug we'll be

representing fascism i guess if you want

to introduce yourself and tell people

where you are in the political spectrum

and where people find you

all right well i'm a third position

obviously if i'm on here representing

fascism

um been on the internet under the name

culture thug since about 2013

and i was making educational videos on

third position philosophy politics and

history

for many years constantly getting banned

around last year i stopped making videos

on the topic but if anyone's interested

from the lesser known movements such as

like the mexican synarxis or the

brazilian integris integralist or all

the way up to the more known italian

fascist and german national socialist

all that content is there plus

everything in between philosophy history

the people and even other dissident

politics like gaddafi's green book or

people like thomas sincarra all that

information is there it's all

educational mainly based off books i

stopped making videos around last year

because i come to the realization it was

time to stop focusing on the past and

focus on the future and for that reason

we started a new youtube channel called

new frontier and what this is about it

runs it's on youtube check it out uh the

link's in the description i believe and

we run two weekly podcasts on there

talking about

uh topical events that's going on but

the purpose of this is to try to garner

support financially and materially from

people

because we plan on running on a populist

platform

in a few years and taking it to the

people because we believe these uh this

populist message and this socialist

system would be acceptable to people if

the right kind of people were out there

pushing it so we figured it's time to

get off the internet and get into real

life with this ideology i would advise

anyone to go check out new frontier

usa.org our blog

where you can see our full platform

and see what we believe and what you

agree with it and whatnot there's also a

bookstore where you can find books that

aren't in print anymore like the

economic foundations of fascism by paul

nzig which goes completely into the

corporatist economic system

won't find these in print so we're

trying to keep those alive and also

garnings garnering support for the war

chest as we're trying to take this

populist message

out there to the people because no one

else is and everyone else we've trusted

has failed us

all right well thank you for that intro

um all right so next up let's bring on

haas how are you tonight

uh i'm good i'm pretty good yeah so you

want to introduce yourself tell people

where you lie in the pluto spectrum and

where people can find you

yeah i'm uh haas from the infrared show

so infrared is basically a platform we

call it marxism leninism and the age of

multi-polarity and the post-covert world

um

i suppose uh we're marxist leninists but

we have a very unique uh perspective

on

the implications of marxism leninism for

the west

um

i'm not sure what else to say

all right thank you

um all right so here's what we're gonna

do each person can give an opening

statement about the topic and your

stance after that we will open up the

floor make it one to five minutes uh for

those of you watching uh if you have any

questions make sure to tag politically

provoked who your question is addressed

to and we will

we will end up having a cut up once we

get too many questions once the cutoff

happens we will only be taking super

chats so if you want to make sure your

question gets read try to get it in

there um

on the sooner side after the q a we'll

do closing statements and final thoughts

so um i don't know how's you want to go

start do you want to start

um sure i guess i'll begin with this

um

to me the question of discussing fascism

uh is a question of history

uh currently i can't really identify a

real

significance of fascism in the 21st

century

uh

beyond certain kinds of um

movements in you know europe or eastern

europe that claim certain historical uh

continuities and then of course you have

the case of uh probably the best example

which is ukraine which claims continuity

with uh

ukrainian fascism

but ultimately um

to me historically speaking

the phenomena we call fascism was more

or less

completely absorbed by the american

unipolar

system that uh was starting to emerge

following world war ii

uh fascists were

employed as kind of uh

mercenaries and hired thugs of american

global imperialism

um and this to me is its only real

lasting significance and legacy

i think the question of communism versus

fascism was a question that was

sorted out in history itself

uh specifically in the history of the

second world war

um

today

it's my view that while

i don't necessarily

consider everyone who calls themself a

fascist to be on par with the historical

evil that i believe fascism was

i do think it is a deep confusion and

a deep source of

let me what's the word

it's a deep source of

misdirection as far as thinking about

mustering a real critique of 21st

century uh global capitalism is

concerned

okay thank you

though

all right um

yeah some of the

nazis went over to america they also

went over to soviet russia too to work

in their science as well so everyone who

could get their hands

on a lot of these people did

um i would

wonder uh since you started off about

the contradiction

what is the contradiction you see in

third position to global capitalism

it's the same contradiction i see um

anarchists have uh religious

fundamentalists may have

various other ideologies may have i see

it as a kind of purely negative

stance uh i guess you could say more or

less it's what marxists would call false

consciousness

although i don't want to be as crude and

reductive as that it seems like a

a pretty accurate simplification to me

that

while

coming from a maybe authentic uh

discontent with the global order or the

respective orders and establishments of

the respective countries it lacks the

necessary clarity

as to its own real object

um i see it as a step in the wrong

direction

basically

but what specifically like what so

when we look at the third position

economic platforms when we look at

systems like corporatism

where where does this not

address the bourgeois and international

capitalism

aren't these methods of socialism

stemming from syndicalism

that addressed the capitalist system and

put the the capitalists at the boot of

the state i mean isn't this

it's not central planning it's a mixture

of these things

but it's not adherent to capitalism

right so i i don't see where is the

misstep

and then dealing with uh global

capitalism if we're talking about the

history now and obviously the only two

third position uh governments that came

to power was italy and germany so with

them in particular

what is like what do you view

outside of theory what do you view like

specifically

that they were doing that you say uh you

know what they weren't really taking on

capitalism by doing this

well uh

i agree i do want to move beyond theory

and go to concrete examples

and i would go even farther and say it's

not even so much about capitalism

specifically as it is about the

alignment of classes and material

interests that existed at that time

and it's very clear to me that the

fascist

regimes

in italy and germany

served the interests of uh the

military-industrial complex the network

of industrialists and financiers who um

needed war uh to

prop up their existence as a class

but that's not the reality that's

just because you're building for a

wartime economy it's the same reason why

everyone wants a nuke today it's a

bargaining chip right

and in those days there were no nukes so

if you didn't have a military you really

didn't have a voice on the public stage

it's it's not really that they build

built up their military the soviet union

also built up its military but it's the

purpose for which they built up their

military and the purpose for which they

built their military is to was to embark

on foreign military adventures

um

not because they actually represented

some kind of um

authentic national interests

on the part of the peoples uh over which

these governments were claiming to

represent

but

almost in a completely shameless direct

way for the

to basically like like pirates to loot

and

pillage resources

without any right without even having

being able to establish any right to it

whatsoever like what real claim did

italy have to ethiopia what real claims

did germany have to um

eastern europe now some may make the

argument that germany may claim

continuity

um

from the habsburg empire and uh the

prussian empire but this isn't true

because uh at least in the case of the

habsburg empire this was a multi-ethnic

empire which was not a nation a nation

state

so the german nation state had no claim

over the territories of

czech slovakia poland et cetera et

cetera et cetera

um

and then also in the case of uh italy um

[Music]

i think

i don't know if it was lenin

who

recalled who stated italy was uh

what was it the poor man's imperialist

state it was the

the imperialist state that just was kind

of like the sore loser right

to me it's very clear that fascism was

the mode of transition into

the era of global imperialism that the

old liberal democratic states were just

not equipped

for formally

so with germany first i mean i do think

there was calls at least they laid calls

out to the german minorities being

persecuted in both poland and

czechoslovakia uh even some towns where

there are german majorities being

suppressed by the polish in the czechs

uh so there was a reason that was

directly intertwined with their nation

and i i think mainly

when you're talking about

and i would argue britain was more to

blame for the start of world war ii than

anyone else but

i think you're talking about too when we

talk about russia we're talking about

the living space now this was something

hitler had preached

since the early 20s that germany needed

more living space and they're going to

take that living space from the eastern

russia so

whether that was uh whether you think

it's a right move or a wrong move or

whatever it was tied in with the nation

and it was something that many germans

agreed with i mean once again he said

this very early on and he stuck with it

uh you know until his uh until he

declared war on russia

so it's like they were nationally it

just wasn't war for war's sake there was

a national reason for this and this is

why many of the germans were fanatically

supporting him because

they were a reclaiming lands they had

lost during world war one and two they

were saving german minorities are being

persecuted in these countries

well uh so about the well the

persecution of a what is a minority in a

certain doesn't give you claim over the

whole territory of that that country you

may attempt to use if what you're saying

is true that they were in fact

persecuted you may use your diplomatic

and

soft power resources to pressure them in

a certain direction but this does not

give you claim over the whole territory

of czech slovakia and poland if you are

making germany a nation state and saying

this is the land of the germans then

those german minorities uh are free to

emigrate to the land of uh the germans

the german people

uh it does not give them claim over

other nation states which are comprised

of other entirely different peoples now

there may be german minorities

in those states and it doesn't that

doesn't entitle them to uh

ownership of the entire state

my main point

about it being outside of the

authentic national interests of the

people within those countries is that

these were military adventures they had

nothing to do with any real uh genuine

historical claims or national liberation

it was a military adventure concocted by

uh

profit hungry industrialists and war

profiteers

in order to sustain a dead system

a system that would otherwise have

collapsed or was uh on its way to

collapsing

uh classical liberal capitalism

and hitler was promising uh his people

the living space because hitler didn't

want to engage in a land reform within

germany he didn't want to break up

the biggest states of uh the

yonker nobles and aristocrats so he

promised them the land of russia and so

on it's very clear that fascism was a

tool

of the ruling classes of these

respective countries to avoid

the social revolution that was otherwise

inevitable at home

so

first back to poland

um yeah you didn't need to take the

whole country except they were forced

into the war when they wouldn't break on

the dancing

they were forced into a world war

britain had declared war so it's like

there's no choice

but i don't mean to cut you off the

question though is who forced the

germans to invade czech slovakia

they also had a minority there that's

that's when they first went in there is

to protect their minority there they may

have justified it on that basis but a

minority being persecuted in another

country does again does not give you

claim

to uh annex and conquer and turn this

other country into your living space

this defies uh

the basic uh

as stalin said a person who thinks in

this way has the morals of beasts

it defies all human uh convention

that you consider yourself entitled to

the land and the resources of another

country for on what basis i mean you can

say it's to protect the minority why not

evacuate this minority to the german

state the germans already had a state so

why not invite this minority in czech

slovakia to live in germany if they were

so concerned about the status of this

minority it doesn't make any sense

well

i'm glad you said annex shows soft power

there but because

the borders of germany was drawn up by

the versailles treaty it wasn't

something

created by germans that's correct but as

stalin noted the germans did not stop

with

reclaiming the territories lost after

the uh versailles treaty they kept

pushing forward more and more for more

that is way outside of the bounds of

any territory that could you know

remotely be

uh argued to be justifiably theirs

this is why stalin said

many are claiming hitler is a

nationalist but he's not a nationalist

if hitler

and the fascists

the nazis in germany were nationalists

they would be content with reclaiming

the national historical national

territory of the german people

specifically that were lost after

versailles but they didn't do that they

kept pushing for more and more

that in no way could be argued

was rightfully theirs historically

well the outbreak of world war ii was

over the dancing so i mean it was

over

uh disputed territory because of the

borders drawn after versailles that

that's what out broke the war then after

that

it was world war after that because they

were not

the

czech slovakia as a whole was invaded it

wasn't just that the germans took back

the territory that was lost they wanted

more a territory even more than uh what

they had previously lost

yeah and the czechoslovakian government

capitulated to them willingly i mean

it's

so when that's given to you i mean

you have to be full turn it down let's

go to what this is

what do you mean they capitulated

willingly

there was no resistance there was no

resistance to it there was no resistance

at all and a lot of people welcomed them

in and there was no resistance on part

of the checks to the german invasion no

major resistance no no no

so but and then we could talk about the

eastern bloc and then a soviet power

came over there but i i want to get to

this thing about uh fascism being

capitalism and decay this is uh

something i hear often

and is usually from uh marxist or

whatever shade of marxists are around

today there's so many

um so

let's get to the bottom of this so how

are they keeping

if you have someone if you have a

capitalist elite

that is propping up these organizations

to fight off uh the bolsheviks or

communist german communists at the time

you would imagine that they would have

to be funding this party

from the beginning building it up

but when we see in reality

there was no major funding for the

germans until the 30s early 30s when

they started to gain power then the

businesses started coming in and playing

ball until then they lived off

membership dues they lived off hitler's

selling of mineconf

until then they were banned repeatedly

not allowed to speak imprisoned broken

up so it doesn't fit this narrative that

this group was propped up

by capitalism and mind you the whole

world of capitalism went to war with the

authoritarian states in world war ii

japan italy and germany so it wouldn't

make sense to like hey

capitalism is dying and so we're going

to prop this group up and then we're

going to declare world war on it and

tear it apart in every single country

so it just doesn't fit that especially

when you look at the funding of the

party uh especially of the german party

there was no big business supporting

these people it was off of membership

dues so

i i just don't see how and then when we

talk about when they gain power whether

in a corporatist state in italy or

whether the mixed economy of of national

socialist germany

it wasn't the executives that had the

last word it was the state

it was the state okay so two things

uh because i could detect two errors in

your argument there the first one was

that

the nazis only received funding and

support from big industries and business

after they got to power if anything it's

almost the opposite uh it was well

before they

got to power in 33 that they acquired

the support of the major industrialists

and so on within germany now it's later

in the 30s i believe that there were

some riffs uh something like that

but uh what you said is not true um the

second thing is and you know uh that's

not to mention the fact that both hitler

and mussolini were seen as the heroes of

wall street the heroes of industrialists

the world over who envied them and

admired them and

saw them as the saviors of liberal order

and so on and so on western civilization

now in the case of uh italy you say that

executives did not have

the last word as far as the matters of

the state were concerned

and

you're correct

um

they didn't and that's because mussolini

explicitly stated that

to paraphrase him the ethical state must

confine itself

to the strictest and sole spheres of

government the police the military and

so on and so on all other spheres must

be remain remain in the hand of private

individuals including a secondary

education this is what muslim said

for mussolini the state could not be an

economic state whatsoever maybe he

changed his mind later but

i can pull the quote if you want i think

i have that's fine it took them 10 years

to get the corporatist system

up and going in

italy because unlike

stalin's russia or hitler's germany you

had a parliament in the king there so

it's a little slower for them getting it

started but they ended up getting the

corporatist 33 officially the

corporatist state was in play uh which

put the end nail to liberalism but first

going back to germany being funded i

would suggest two books for people who

would like to believe that uh german big

big please please don't don't show this

stuff on stream i mean oh why oh hold on

i i

[ __ ] me god damn it

what's happening

what happened

all right i won't show it on on screen

because

um for whatever reason

german big business in the writing dude

dude

i'm on twitch and you just showed a

[ __ ] swastika

i got banned for that before man

okay well i don't know i've never been

on twitch so all right so i'll make sure

not to show anything controversial uh

german big business and the rise of

hitler

uh henry turner jr

i would advise people to check that out

can you not show that [ __ ] on stream

again so i can start the stream yeah

yeah i'm not gonna show it already said

i'm not gonna show it

and then this one there's no cover to it

so that's fine

hitler in the rise of wall street also

none of these are favorable books mind

you but it'll break down to when they

started getting the funding and it was

32 that these businesses funded into

them

it is not a reality

by no historical account that's dug into

this whether biographers or whatnot

that they were getting funding from

anyone outside of maybe a thule society

aristocrat here and there

can you give me a second i'm deleting

i'm deleting [ __ ] and

it's twitch that crazy really yeah

they're that bad man it's it's it's it's

in italy i agree i think ethiopia was a

wasted venture it was stupid

um

i didn't see anything good with that it

was uh mussolini trying to flex power

his military was very weak as shown in

world war ii

uh so yeah i don't disagree with uh the

whole ethiopian i'm i'm really i didn't

hear anything you said after you showed

that [ __ ] i've been i have not heard

anything you've said so i don't know why

you're

i i don't should we keep going i don't

know i i really don't know if i should

keep going or

i had to delete i i i completely deleted

my stream everything

so what do you want to do should we do

this at a different time and i'll be

aware not to

con

i need a clear idea of of what the rules

are i need a clear idea i don't know

someone's saying it's in context okay

but

yeah i i don't i need a clearance no

that's fine i wouldn't risk it if i was

you yeah

okay i i got yeah guys if you guys are

watching this now there's not going to

be a stream for the rest of the night

um

i'll stream tomorrow

yeah

so do you want to end this or

yeah i'm going to go i'm going to go i

don't you know i gotta

check out what's about to happen

okay

yeah i gotta go

um okay so

a lot of build up oh for nothing wow all

right that was interesting um

oh we're getting stuck in history too i

don't like that but it's just like

that was all right let me see if there's

any questions that i can we can ask you

um

that was wild um

um okay i'm a little thrown off but uh

these questions like from freaking okay

this is what i was saying the chat

um anytime like we have like a third

positions or um

or like communist there's all these

freaking names like i can't [ __ ] i

know

q a and it drives me crazy and i can't

[ __ ] pronounce it half of the [ __ ]

you know what neither can i and i make

videos on the [ __ ] so yeah what the hell

um let's see what does this say um

uh does twitch let you show a hammer and

sickle and make stalin memes gee what a

coincidence

interesting it's a tiny little one too i

didn't even re it's like in the corner i

mean i i could think i could show this

by getting banned here seeing the

[ __ ] i didn't even realize i just

wanted to reference it to people because

this mythology of their capitalism decay

is always there it's because i'll

continue all right i'll continue i i a

lot of people are confused and they're

thinking oh he's he must be running away

from the debate um when my whole [ __ ]

twitch like this is about the [ __ ] uh

this is about maintaining my [ __ ]

platform you dumb [ __ ]

but if you really want to [ __ ] press

me on it and piss me the [ __ ] off then i

will continue this [ __ ] debate so

where did we last leave off let's go

all right so we were talking about

how

german by the way guys it's not

streaming on twitch right now so this is

just going to be on politically provoked

uh

i'll link it on the youtube in the

discord hold on go ahead where did we

last leave off

huh where did we last leave off go ahead

okay we're talking about the uh german

finance industry did not

fund the german workers party

uh during 22 to 32. okay well that's not

true because they received a um

100 000 mark donation from

the german industrial group as early as

the 20s

so

the only thing

they have

flick from the aeg director

20 uh no 32 to 3 no it's

so once again when we look at the

sources

which sources

so

hitler

and the rise of or wall street and the

rise of hitler and

german big business in the rise of

hitler

and this also goes into many biographies

on hitler and all that as well they all

point out how

not only was big industry not supporting

them they were going against them once

again they were banned numerous times

from speaking but what does that have to

do with big industry that's the

government that specifically the the

german government was banning the nazis

and so on i don't deny that yeah with

who the big industry is working with at

the time

is that liberal democracy

give specific examples

of what

big industry working against the nazis

by the gov the people they supported in

the weimar republic

that was going on the reason is the

reasons the why the nazis were repressed

by the weimar government was an

extension of their function as uh

enforcing law and order against

hooliganism and against street violence

and all that kind of stuff

where did german industrialists

specifically

because remember the weimar republic was

still formally a democracy so it wasn't

an open dictatorship of industrialists

and capitalists in the same way the

nazis were it was still pretending to be

at least pretending to be a democracy so

my question is in what way were the

german capitalists

outside of the repression by the

government against the nazis and what

were german capitalists

working against

the nazis

by not funding them and by funding the

politicians running against them but

they did fund them

they didn't fund them that's once again

it's

there's nowhere there's nowhere in any

of these books any of these things that

any of these historians written about

where they said the industry was funding

them once again i think you just didn't

read enough books then

no i did i did believe me i did and

that's the reality of that well i i

think only this trotsky uh slander of

fascism being capitalism and decay

is something that comes from

not being well depth in it because it is

not that simple and then you you could

also say so if you want to get nuanced

so you talk about germany

and italy but then we also have spain

romania england all these third position

groups none of them propped up by

industry all of them brutally repressed

a lot of them killed in prison cells and

all this it wasn't an ideology that the

capitalist said oh wow

if you're vying to seize state power you

are going to run afoul with the state

that exists but that doesn't mean you're

not being supported whether uh openly or

secretly

by

uh ruling classes and by industrialists

you have to also remember the weimar

republic had the veneer of being a

democracy which means it had to noto to

the very an insurgent german working

class

um which it had to pretend it also

equally served as a government

so

i don't see what

how the fascists being repressed or put

in jail is an example of um

the real forces behind

the real forces of the german ruling

class being against them

the real forces being who

the real ruling classes being against

them i don't see how that's an example

of the ruling class as being against

them

you don't see how it's an example

with the real ruling class being against

them

no

that they're shut down everywhere that

they're scraping to get funds to get

town halls and all of this

that's

that should be what you mean shut down

everywhere they they are being

persecuted

in the way that communists are being

persecuted and anarchists are being

persecuted and there's not really any

much distinction because these are anti

perceived anti-state actors but behind

the scenes industrialists and

not only german industrialists but

international uh

financial capitalists and industrialists

are supporting these people

after the thirties they started putting

in two four after the thirties no not

before the 30s there was not it was

largely built on membership so this will

be an uh

unavoidable dispute as to the actual

historical facts at hand

how can we debate if we

do not agree about the actual historical

facts at hand

that's interesting how do we do that

so

i say

that history shows us

that that's not the case it's not

propped up by capitalism and then we

could see so okay if you're just not

going to accept that and then

we will let's go past that to the

governments they did have so if these

were

uh capitalist

cronies or whatever we can look at the

systems they did create and we see

in both of these systems they created

something for the working people it

wasn't a profit-driven society in fact

um um adam tooths and his book uh war of

destruction

says that

during the period of 33 to 45

the german banks made less than they

ever did in all of german history

so right but the return the return on um

the returns coming from wall street and

the international banks were really high

because of germany's restarted its uh

military industrial complex which was

actually the source of its economic

prosperity leading to the war

like it it was a bet and it was a wager

on that war hitler was telling the

german people that it was all going to

pay off because he was going to give

them living space and le benzram and the

record of history shows whether hitler

was beneficial to working people or not

and he wasn't he led them into a war

which led to the complete defeat

of germany and the division of germany

so

uh

the record shows that he was not

in the long term

the champion of the german working

classes

because he lost the war he was a

champion of the because he he swindled

them uh with this fantasy and this

delusion that he's going to

enslave and conquer and annihilate the

inferior

slavic races and all this [ __ ] and

that he would give them land to the east

and that this is they're going to have

living room and so on and so on this was

a complete delusion a complete swindle

from the very beginning even before the

war started this was a false promise he

was making he was leading

lamb to the slaughter

so when we look at the german economy

and we talk about workers

programs like joy through strength which

we have not seen to this day we're

workers we're given subsidized holidays

things like

the volkswagen being created the

people's car and very cheap radios being

vocational schools now being available

to germans nationalized healthcare right

nationalism is the fundamental source of

the economic growth that's able to fund

all of this

is it a domestic

revitalization of industry for the

german people uh in the german people's

interests to lift germany up or is it a

arms uh manufacturing and weapons

manufacturing

type of economy that is oriented toward

invading other countries and engaging in

war you can only measure the success of

such a country on the basis of

benefiting its own people

when the very source of the economic

growth lies in

um

uh

unleashing the forces of production

within

and no fascist government has ever been

able to accomplish such a thing all they

can do is turn their economies into

appendages

of the military-industrial complex for

purposes of invading other countries

uh because they're unwilling to engage

in the necessary land reform within to

actually give their people a slice of

the pie

so they promise them they'll have pie

from

ethiopia or from poland or eastern

europe

well with ethiopia it's you're talking

at the time of colonialism so they

viewed misguided or not it was that era

that they viewed as long as england and

britain look even by the standard of

colonialism at the time at the time that

italy invaded ethiopia colonialism was

largely a vestigial system the way in

which italy the brutality with which

italy the barbarism with which italy

randomly invaded ethiopia having zero

continuity zero historical claim

no business do it whatever it was a

complete

uh

it was a spectacle

uh

that was painted with blood and gore and

uh

and violence from where coming from

where and there hadn't there had never

been anything seen like that

uh

in the 1930s before of just randomly

invading a country

engaging in this brutal war i mean you

you saw things like this in the early

20th century and in the uh 19th century

but that era was on its way

out by this time

so it's almost like italy

represented an attempt to preserve

uh

colonialism

the 19th century colonialism

and the 19th century liberal capitalism

the two were inexorably entwined when it

was on its way out historically it's

almost like fascism was a reaction

uh to the forces in march of history

actually it didn't and then the

british and french powers chopped up the

middle east

they so the colonialism did not end or

italy wasn't the last thing of it

but right but

once again i i don't like i'm not

defending okay so so which country in

the 1930s engaged in a comparable uh

something comparable to italy's invasion

of ethiopia

russia and finland

no right first of all uh

even if you think russia invaded because

it fabricated

the uh

the violation of the treaty it had with

finland

it's not comparable

uh because russia at least was

at least russia was lying about it and

saying oh we're just doing it because

they um violated the treaty but moreover

here's what's even worse

even if you put this kind of formalistic

argument aside

russia was taking back territory lost

uh

lost uh after the russian civil war

for purposes of

protecting its borders because the finns

were not going to work with

the soviet union

to prevent

their country being used as a launching

pad for the germans

so they invaded finland not because they

had some kind of adventuristic claim to

finland and you know we're the roman

empire this is our conquerors no they

invaded finland to protect themselves

ultimately for the purposes of

self-defense because the finnish

government was secretly getting close

with the germans

so it's completely

and moreover finland is on the border of

of russia

i mean it's complete it's nothing like

italy invading ethiopia there's no

comparison

okay it's an invasion but okay

that's fine ethiopia wasn't a good move

once again so i it's not even i'm just

trying to say why is it that we don't

see fascist countries

that simply uplift their own people why

must they engage in

uh blanket aggression against others

well they did uplift their own people

i'm saying

they don't just

they don't just uplift their own people

they like china does now for example

china doesn't invade anyone china just

uplifts its own people and focuses on

internal development

the linchpin of china's economy does not

rest upon ultimately

uh reacquiring foreign colonies and

randomly invading countries and getting

more living space

um

china's economy is geared toward the

development of the chinese people why is

it that we and even the soviet union

during the soviet union's

industrialization the linchpin the

driving force of its economy lies in the

development of the productive forces

it's not the linchpin of the economy

doesn't is not some kind of gamble or

gambit to reclaim some former lost

colonial prestige

[Music]

or something like that

yeah well we're not in the age of

colonialism outside of western imperial

colonialism we're not the age of that so

china

has no need to do that it would only

hurt them in the end to do that today

but right and they were they were very

involved we're not in an age of

colonialism per se but we're still very

much in an age of wars

yes and

i don't see what context fascism has in

the 21st century except being the last

resort of western liberalism

ultimately

which must may ultimately gear itself

toward uh

more wars of aggression

against countries like russia and china

and others

which threatened the previous which

threatened the previous uh unipolar

order i think fascism if fascism will

emerge today it will be in the form of

resistance against the multipolar world

order

as far as what um

nationalism

no

as far as defending

the current uh imperial status of

western europe and america which are on

their way to uh

losing this status

but see you were just saying that with

world war ii that the liberals are

losing their status but the liberals are

more powerful than ever with the fall of

fascism so it's not like that was their

last the thing was is that fascism was

absorbed as the higher thug of the

liberal order after world war ii and you

can say that oh this was just the taking

scientists but it wasn't just taking

scientists the nazi propagandists were

taken the nazi etiologists were taken

and absorbed

uh they were foundational for nato the

operation gladio if the former fascists

in italy were operationalized and

mobilized by nato i mean they were the

hired thug of

uh

american imperialism during the cold war

they were used as mercenaries in

africa and in other hot cold war hot

spots as uh anti-communist uh you know

fighters so

i don't see how uh

and a lot of them are also killed uh

executed so i i don't see how that ties

in with fascism when you what do you

mean executed like i mean after

nuremberg trials or what are you talking

about nuremberg trials and in germany

yeah yeah so that's so it's not like

it's saying hey

fascist you protect liberalism

i'll ask you a question

east and west germany which country had

more sitting officials and government

officials and judges and so on and so on

who were former high-ranking members of

the nazi party

i would assume west germany of course

um well they didn't lock up yeah they

didn't lock up every single nazi but

they did

kill a lot and it wasn't so when you

talk about the philosophy

of the belief of the

ideology it's anti-liberal it's nothing

that supports uh the liberal frame once

again this is why liberalism went to war

with the authoritarian third position

countries but the the problem is that

here's the issue

it wasn't liberalism that went to war

liberalism was undergoing a profound

transformation at this time

the fascists claimed that they were

against liberalism

but you have to ask in what sense were

they against liberalism was this against

the essence of liberalism the sacred

individual of classical modernity

the individual rights private property

free trade all this kind of stuff were

they against this specific uh liberalism

or were they only against the bad

symptoms of liberalism which was the

widespread cultural uh breakdown

uh this you know

unemployment crisis economic crisis they

were only against the bad aspects of

liberalism but at its essence they were

champions of liberalism

they were liberals like the roman empire

was roman i mean it was maybe no longer

the roman republic but it's still

uh

coming from the same foundation

no it's all foundations they were

against liberalism they were collective

society they were against uh all of the

enlightenment mussolini himself i can

give you a quote maybe you will say it's

out of context but i i am open for you

to give me the the context but he go he

says

that we are against the collectivistic

state

uh

so yeah

central planning he's against

it

it wasn't simply um

central planning let me pull it up right

here yeah here it is

uh

what year is this from

i'll get the exact year in a second

secondary

okay here we are

um

this was

this was uh

1920 june 1921. mussolini says

the state must have a police a judiciary

an army and a foreign policy all other

things and i do not exclude secondary

education

must go back to the private activity of

individuals if one wants to save the

state the collectivist state must be

abolished so he's not critiquing

bolshevism he's critiquing the current

italian state

or being too collectivistic he's saying

this

state is too collectivistic we have to

privatize uh

so from 1921 1921 yeah yeah so before

he's in power or anything else

when he was in power they created the

collectivist economy they created the

corporatist economy well it's it's not

true because mussolini did in fact

privatize

these various industries the railways

were privatized insurance was privatized

um all manner of uh industries and so on

were given back to the industrialists uh

in order to create a base of support

among them

now i won't deny that in the 30s and

later on the state became a more kind of

central organ to coordinate the

interests of these various

industrialists but the state was still

the hired thug of the italian

ruling class

okay

not at all once again the state ruled

over the industries i'm just going to

since you brought up a quote i'm just

going to read a little bit from

mussolini's italy here

the corporate state was also the

quintessential quintet sentence of

totalitarianism by the end of 1933 with

the framing of the new law on

corporations to be promoted on fifth

february 1934 an observer could no

longer find any political economic or

cultural activity which the party did

not back encourage and control directing

to the farthest sectors of italian life

the hot breath of the fascist spirit

and it it go it goes on and on about the

different parts of the economy and how

they put all the corporations into the

corporations listen this is

good poetry but it doesn't reflect the

reality history

is the history

it doesn't reflect the reality

so do you deny the private the

privatizations i just mentioned that

happened after mussolini no so third

position is believe in class

collaboration much like what's going on

in china today no no

firstly uh

you can say class collaboration this or

that but my question is more specific

industries

that were

uh

public before

publicly given a degree of public

ownership before

in a state that was not a socialist

state it was a capitalist state

these were given to industrialists and

privatized

under mussolini

what does that have to do with uh i get

it they they weren't they didn't want

the soviet model where

central planning they have central

planning i understand

but it's they went it's not just that

you know and moreover in the case of

china china rejects soviet central

planning but china's

special economy

emerges from a strong foundation of uh

an already existent national industrial

system created by central planning a

unique relationship

between the state and the economy that

did not go away with central planning

and moreover most decisively here's

really the linchpin

a land reform which gave chinese people

a piece of the pie

none of those things

were the premise of fascism fascism

simply took the old economy

and created itself

the fascist party in the government as a

hired thug of one specific class

uh in this economy it it did not it

revamped the whole economy and in china

wait as probably

how did it revamp the whole economy

well [ __ ] germany let's go to land

reforms let's go to the progressive tax

they put on the rich to where they're

paying up to 39

where workers are only paying up to five

percent of taxes i mean this isn't

something that's

the rich wanted to happen there um in

china as well it wasn't it wasn't

central planning that led them to where

they are it's getting off central

planning that led them to where they are

no it's

well

it's both

without the national industrial system

created by central planning which to

this day serves as the very premise of

socialism with chinese characteristics

deng xiaoping did not revert to the

order that existed before

soviet-style central planning he took

soviet-style central planning as the

very premise of his reforms which means

the for example the wealthy chinese um

[Music]

i don't like to call them this but let's

say just call them capitalists right

they were

not the previous chinese uh ruling class

they were

com they were peasants who you know did

well and it was coming there was a

complete already a complete uh

social transformation that happened

beforehand and then deng xiaoping took

this as the premise of his reforms

uh so it's a completely different

situation

maybe a different situation but it came

out to the same result of corporate

corporatization of business and then a

mixture of private and state overseeing

government i mean that's literally what

quality

here's what you're not understanding

this the people who got rich in china

the businesses that emerged the every

single company that has emerged in china

after deng xiaoping's reforms

has emerged

owes its existence to an already

existing relationship between the state

and the economy whereas in the case of

italy all of these businesses and

industries you're talking about existed

before fascism

so this is the difference

it's the difference but the result is

the same no it's not

it's not the same because

in the case of china they weren't simply

putting a patch on a dead system and

putting a

a band-aid on it it was a completely new

system that emerged after deng

xiaoping's

reforms a completely new one

and

in contrast to um

fascism

there is no aspect of economic life in

china that is not somehow

owing its premises and its existence

to the state

uh

intervention into the economy

except everyone after mao viewed that

the community communalizing a farm of

agriculture and central planning as a

huge mistake no you're not listening

yeah no i understand the starting point

is that because china had the relation

with the state in the economy that they

were building off that foundation while

it's it's not countries it's not just

china's economy is already

premised by the state

it's not just that you know we're not

talking about the mao era soviet style

industrialism or mouse people's communes

after the great leap forward

chinese theorists don't actually really

dichotomize that from social and chinese

characters as much as they historicize

it like yes this was necessary at the

time to create the premises

of a national industrial system and then

this stage was completed and now we're

in a different stage of socialist

development

so they don't really say like one is

better than the other as much as

one is suited to a different time period

than the other

from everything i've seen they've

definitely said there was a failure in

uh central i think stalin realized this

and everyone realizes that it's too

bureaucratic you can't potentially plan

from uh everything no no there were the

third positions but let me remember

listen

that's not true there was a debate

toward the end of mao's life and after

mao's death

um about the future of china's economy

and there was a debate about whether the

current soviet-style system can be

preserved but the question of its

sweeping success and being able to lay

to like provide a base level of

industrialization

base level modernization and so on the

success of that was never disputed

the success that it came from central

planning yeah it was never disputed

yeah it seems to be disputed from what

i've been seeing um

refer to you to this chinese economist

um

i'm talking about the official chinese

communist party sources that they have

like the party's own sources it's

official well yeah you're not they're

not going to bad mouth mao just like

stalin wasn't going to bad mouth or not

deng xiaoping was very open about saying

he thought mao was a 70 30 case he was

30 bad and 70 good so they're not afraid

to critique mao they're not afraid to

critique what they consider like the

excesses of the great leap forward and

the cultural revolution they do that all

the time

um

so but back to the state being the

foundation because they had that and

they can build off of that

the third position governments had to

create that state because that state

didn't exist like you said it was a

liberal state that exists right but so

they had to manifest that state into

reality without having uh everything the

bolsheviks and the chinese went through

with the mass revolutions uh famines and

all these things so as as a matter of

fact they never they created no such

state

uh the state that you're talking about

was the cherry on top of a existing uh

existing

existing uh economy an existing system

it was a cherry on top

in the case of russia and china they

actually did build a state from scratch

and moreover lay the foundations of a

modern state

from scratch

they built all the institutions from

scratch

more or less

they

were com they were completely engaged in

a leveling of the economy in order to

establish a newfound relationship

between the state

and the economy

and this never happened in the fascist

countries now of course famines and all

these things happened in china and the

soviet union but that's because

they had to create an independent basis

for the modernizat for industrialization

and modernization and when you're not

uh

you know pillaging

countries in africa and foreign

countries for your resources to get the

necessary surpluses of production

to engage in industrialization you have

to modernize agriculture so that the

surpluses of both labor and agricultural

produce can go toward

industrialization that's why china and

the soviet union

weren't out here in you know in living

space and colonizing and invading other

people and the other alternative of

course is

yeah taking advantage of the

differentials and the concentration of

capital that are already established so

getting foreign

[Music]

foreign investments from america and

britain and other international

capitalists

which they weren't able to do so

who was labeled was unavoidable

who wasn't able to do oh you're talking

about that yeah okay yeah the famines

um

there's people that argue it's because

of essential planning that some of those

famines were induced

but as far as the cherry on top of the

state it was not a cherry on top of

state it was a revamping of state itself

so in liberalism we have a weak state

right just like we do today it's strong

i get it but it's a weak state there's

no foundation to it uh there's no

component of it that creates and keeps

naturally so but they created these

things so

i think we're getting lost in the weeds

of like oh is this a state or a cherry

on top do they do something it's so i'll

ask you a question oftentimes away a

off

state actually not often times the way a

state cements a material foundation for

its existence

is land reform it distributes parcels of

land or some other kind of thing to the

people so that a new kind of social

contract emerges the people's way of

life becomes inexorably tied to the

state this is true not even just for

capitalism for all history right going

back even to the greeks and whatever you

want

um the ottomans whatever you want this

is how states acquire material

foundation

how did

fascist italy and germany acquire a

material foundation for their state

well through land reform as well

which land reform are you referring to

agriculture agriculture and industry as

well the same thing no no

let's not brush over this topic it's

important

which land reforms were implemented in

italy and germany respectively

so they had collective farming in

germany

it wasn't communal but it was collective

it was all under an agency that would

plan essentially what needed to be

produced

they had land beautification projects

where they'd go have youth help build up

farms so they could have more people

growing in those farms working without

putting any money in through the state

or anything or the peasants money into

it because they had these programs that

would go there and beautify the land and

build them up and do that and same with

italy they a part of the function of the

corporatist system that was

that is very good i think is they're

able to take work and transport it where

transport workers thousands of workers

to towns to build those towns up to

aggregate the land and then move on to

the next one and try to build that up as

well so they were doing yeah what you're

saying is is not true the furthest

extent of germany's land reform

uh was changes in the hereditary the

laws about the

inheritance of uh farmland existing for

the existing peasants

as far as italy is concerned i'm not

aware of any major redistribution of

land or division of landed estates in

italy at all

um they didn't redistribute land yeah

they didn't that's what land reform

means land reform means you give people

land who didn't have land before

yeah no they the people already had so

that's another thing there wasn't this

uh homelessness or people without land

as there was in under the tsars in

russia and whatever was going on in

china before mao

so it's totally different landscape

you're talking even though italy was not

industrialized it had no need to make

communal farms and to

give land i mean you say they give land

to them but they're communal farms

i'm not talking about communal farms

communal farms for example

so during the russian land reform after

the bolshevik seized power

um

the stolipin reforms under the tsar were

reversed

and land was given to peasants it was

their land they owned it

as opposed to the land owners the

nobility they took it from the nobility

gave it to the peasants

then a decade later

the collectivization began of the

creation of the

not

sorry cold causes preceded that

the

widespread uh establishment of the cold

closest started a decade later so those

are two different things okay

the first thing did not happen in

italy or germany there was no

land reform and there was no equivalent

to a land reform where the people were

actually being given

some kind of

interest

in the state in the economy they were

not given any kind of piece of the pie

they weren't given any uh

should i say

uh what's the word they weren't given a

security is that the word they weren't

given anything like that

they had that because they could own

private property the citizens they could

but what property did they end up owning

whatever plot they lived on i mean but

the majority of german this is not true

for majority of german people they had

nothing

they had nothing at the time of weimar

yes but that quickly started started

changing after weimar and when they were

being promised

that they would be given land

uh

after it was stolen

from the sub inferior slavic peoples

quoting the nazis

that's what they were that's what it all

was about they said oh we'll give you

land but it's going to be to the east

it's not going to be in germany because

we don't want to upset

the land uh the yonkers and the you know

the monopolists that are here

uh so we'll promise you this land uh

elsewhere that's what happened

no what happened well it wasn't because

of the yonkers what happened was they

didn't believe

right or not they didn't believe

that there was enough land there to have

that kind of reform there was

there actually was

that's fine i'm just saying what's like

it's cynical of course of course they

understand there's enough land they just

don't want to um

they just want to serve the interests of

the existing monopolists and landed

proprietors

uh and that's that it's not that they

they you know we're just mistaken and oh

we didn't we

we did incorrect measurements or

something no they knew they just

uh wanted to serve the interests of the

german ruling classes

while at the same time keeping the

interests of the german people at bay in

the form of

whipping them into a frenzy uh for war

that's such a simplification that's such

a gross simplification of that it's not

about whipping the germans in the frame

it wasn't just

this narrative of just a war economy

also expecting this war that's all the

germans were promised was war it was

none of that they built the workers up

themselves they were liv once again when

we talk about it the reason there was a

rise in the german economy is almost

entirely entirely attributable

to re-propping up the

military-industrial complex it is almost

all of the economic gains in germany are

almost all

if not all blank p

point and period attributed to that fact

it was because

they were making and just like for

example if you build infrastructure in

your country

it's a debt right you're pouring a lot

of investment but that creates jobs it

creates capital it creates

some kind of uh life for the economy

and this is what the germans were doing

for the arms industry in the

military-industrial complex so yes it

was a war economy was all geared towards

war

it was not geared toward it was geared

towards building germany up as well uh

not not just towards but so

let's not brush past this though let's

not brush past this so we're talking

about

when we talk about nationalized care

nationalized education worker retreats

we're talking about these aren't things

where you're like we're just going to

please these big capitalists when you

talk about taxing the capitalist uh more

than anyone else a progressive tax when

we're talking about this it is not

serving the elite this is not this

narrative being wrong

look like hitler would serve so let's

let's be clear about this is it serving

the individual interests of each and

every one of these elites of course not

but is it the question is is it serving

their collective interests and i would

say yes it is

because the they were unwilling

to engage in a uh

social confrontation at home

of course they recognized the need i

mean listen it's in

they were very open about this like

listen you german capitalists if you

don't listen to us

the workers led by the bolsheviks or

whatever are gonna come and get your ass

so you better listen to us because we're

saving you that was what they were

telling them you know if you don't

listen to us you're gonna face our boot

that's that's what happened when they no

but primarily they were saying it's

either us or the asiatic bolshevism you

make it's a good sales pitch it's a good

sales pitch of course of course it is

and it was also uh arguably true

it's not that's the thing though it's

not arguably true yeah when you put

industry under the boot of the state at

the heel of the state well i'll go back

to china it's the same thing china

evolved to they eventually came to this

understanding that you have to have this

mixture but you have to have a strong

state so why doesn't china need

why isn't the linchpin of china's

economy a war economy why does it

successfully engage in the internal

development of china and the chinese

people because they joined the world

trade organization and they've been

skyrocketing since then they're building

up a military don't doubt that they

aren't they're building up a strong

military yeah but that's not the

linchpin of their economy

the world trade organization is that

no the world trade organization is not

the linchpin and neither is the military

it's china's infrastructure which is

built on the basis of debt that is later

um paid off in the long term and its

construction infrastructure those are

the things that are the real linchpin of

the chinese economy

yeah it was opening up the foreign

investment as the legislation no driving

or opening up in china okay let's be

clear opening up to foreign investment

is a lot is what allowed for the

transfers very rapid transfers in the

concentration of capital to take place

and to build up chinese industry so yes

that was an important premise but as far

as china's the linchpin of what drives

china's economy

it's not enough to have foreign

investment you can have money but what

are you going to do with that money it's

capitalism 101 right the linchpin of

china's economy

lies in a combination especially in the

xi era of infrastructure construction

uh and debt-based works

instead of

uh they

instead of just taking out debt they do

something with it it's economy is based

not in abstraction financial abstraction

but in real building real things real

intangible things which eventually pay

for themselves

so that's the actual linchpin of the

chinese economy now the reason that

china's economy is different from

[Music]

fascism

is because again

all of those businesses and industries

which emerged in china they owe their

existence to china's socialist system

the industries that exist under fascism

existed before some kind of the fascists

took over they inherited fascism merely

inherited the class antagonism of

liberalism and it merely

um

it merely displaced

the coordinates of being able to wage

this class struggle

but in the case of china what do you

mean

coordinates

uh it's for example it's displaced

the ability for the class struggle to be

waged

as it had before

yes

yeah we don't agree with having our

classes fight each other that's once

again class collaboration but no so well

but but

i will insist on something

you notice the key word is displace it

still had to displace the class struggle

it didn't just get rid of it because

they don't agree with it they had to

displace it onto foreign adventures and

foreign wars

that's the important thing

before the foreign adventures in foreign

wars right yeah before then

but from 33 to 38

they were doing that they got rid of the

class antagonism there's no nationalize

the people listen

classes were brought together once again

if your health care is paid for

if you're edu the son if you're educated

you're a worker and you can't afford to

go to the best university and now you

can you start getting rid of some of

these antagonisms between the classes

so it's not like 30 what do you say 33

to 38. i'm talking about germany oh okay

you're talking about germany okay yeah

well

here's what i'm trying to say though i

agree the general standard of living for

germans including german workers rose

during this period you're talking about

but the only reason it did is because

it was a bet it was a gambit and that

was based in the military industrial

complex you cannot say the class

struggle has been eliminated until this

bet you're making it proves itself

proves its outcome because the outcome

is not proven yet

so it's a wager we've never seen it's

not that the class struggle was

eliminated it's that it lied in waiting

we were gonna see if hitler's promises

pay off or not and

they obviously didn't

yeah well i think this is another

misnomer but this will be

i don't even know what to argue this

that if germany did not go to war it

would crumble i i think that's a total

misnomer because as they're building up

their infrastructure in their industry

as they were back in you know work yeah

had germany not gone to war

um the german state would have been

overthrown absolutely

there is no doubt about that i i said it

would have been stronger than ever but

so you started this off saying but hold

on why is there not a single example of

a fascist state that doesn't have to go

to war there's not a single example in

history

uh there's only been like technically

two and they were wrapped up in world

war ii why is that

in destroyed

because it is something that any time

there's anything authoritarian uh that

pops up in any other country they become

the enemy

of liberal democracy sure so but they're

another you call something fascist or

third position or you know collective

but national

idealistic whatever you call it when it

pops up in any other country uh it's

either going to go on the list of evil

or it's going to be subverted and taken

down into just when countries resist the

american created global system

yes they are i agree but

my wider point i basically break it down

like this let's just use common sense

right

now on paper what the fascists say

or what fascists today will say doesn't

sound so bad right oh it's just like

china

when they say for example let's have

class collaboration we're not we're for

private property we're not like the

communist one eliminated

but the kicker is

there are

there is a specific ruling class in

power now like specific faces right

uh specific companies specific

businesses and these people

have an identifiable interest

these are the people in power now is

what i'm talking about right in china

are you talking about no no in the west

okay

there there it's not an abstraction of

the capitals class these are people in

power right

what you are saying is you are uh

saying that you are not going to pose a

threat to them and their interests

you're not going to seize their assets

their property

and redistribute it you're not going to

create a land reform you're not going to

unleash the productive forces and

outmode the monopolies that exist now

you're going to work with them now

capitalists in the abstract

doesn't sound bad

but

there are capitalists

the real capitals that exist now

are not abstract and they have an

identifiable interest

the reason there's only been two fascist

countries whatever you're talking about

is because if you have enough power

to overthrow the state and to seize

power

okay

and you're doing this in a way that

implies the fundamental transformation

of society and the economy whatever

and the overthrow of the powers that be

you may as well be a communist and just

have land reform why not like why must

you serve the same ruling classes

that prop up the current order you claim

to be against and the answer to this is

i wouldn't i don't think this is the

case for you i think you genuinely do

people like you who call themselves

fascists you genuinely do have

anti-establishment sentiment however

much i disagree with it

with its form

you still have that right but real

fascists historically did not have this

they worked with the status quo with the

establishment with the capitalists that

did exist at the time

and that's why that is the whole basis

of their doctrinaire differences with

mar you know like in abstract it's not

so that okay you're not against private

property you're not against um

a capitalist it's fine but what does

that mean concretely as far as the

existing situation is concerned and

historically it meant

fascists were the hired thugs of a

decaying establishment that's why you

will notice the continuity the only real

examples of continuity with those two

fascist governments we can find where

there's like legit connections are for

example

right-wing dictatorships in south

america in africa in um

asia and elsewhere

in

in today's uh

ukraine with ukraine today you find

here you find examples of real

continuity with historical fascism and

it's all the same thing

it's always the bankrupt a ruling class

the establishment now led by american

imperialism

safeguarding and defending its interests

from certain

collapse

so

that's not the reality though of italy

or another corporate state or germany

it's not working with capitalists

capitalist or industry let's say in

industrial capitalist right let's let's

stay specific on that because the

finance capitalist wasn't even there um

because

they had to adhere to hitler they had to

adhere to the state whatever he said i

one done they had to do so there is no

speaking there is no we're working

together there is you're working for the

state and this is what we need to be

done right so the question is

before we get in q a because we got off

on all this

so you said like there's no

um

like for 21st century fascism what does

it even mean it's not around

what does communism mean in the 21st

century would you say

well that's a good question i think in

america and in the west

unfortunately because of the influence

of america and american universities

communism has come to mean something

entirely different than what it means

for the world most of the world

currently that is outside of the west

um

but today i think i could broadly say

that

communism more or less means learning

from the example of china

communism means uh today

a fundamental

a whole a gap in our history

um that needs to be uh confronted in

addition to the present state of things

and current affairs you have the whole

former soviet bloc

eastern europe they have not reconciled

with their past it remains uh unfinished

history and this is true for elsewhere

so today

communism is an open question

it's the difference with fascism i think

there is no

i communism is an opportunity

to engage in a real

social question in a real question of

our common economic reality without

having to make any commitments to any

existing

private

uh

established interest

and for that reason alone today in the

21st century

uh communism

uh must mean

a completely anti-establishment

position now granted

most commun americanized communists this

is not just true for america now because

of american influence it's spreading to

western europe

they are

they serve american imperialism the

american establishment and the

respective establishments of their

countries no doubt about that

but

so if yeah if communism is is

once again yeah it's hard to find any

real communist that's not a liberal

right that's kind of what it's been

reduced to in america but but if you

engage with chinese communism that's the

reality though if that's the reality

right but only in the west what

separates

people like you and myself if we're both

anti-establishment if we're both

collectivists

we have a differing view of history

that's it what does that mean today

though what does that mean today no

should we fight about oh i really don't

know listen listen i i don't think we

should be uh political enemies i don't

consider you a political enemy but i

have

i have ideological

uh historical disagreement with you

i think the worker cares about that

materialism or anti-materialism

no no but but i still think uh this is

about what will ultimately prove to be

most successful

in creating an authentic

anti-establishment movement so i think

you've seen yeah have you seen

uh the platform that myself and other

people are gonna be running on in a few

years

new frontier look i have look have you

seen the platform no no i haven't i'll

grant it i haven't but look i'm a

marxist leninist i have seen

dozens of good platforms

from

no but people actually like going to run

on like it's not about i understand i

understand i've seen marxist lenders who

are running on great great platforms but

ultimately politics has a material

reality and it's not voluntary it's

based in concrete material

realities

so to me for example i look at phenomena

like the people's party uh

third-party initiatives that i think

are grounded in current reality

and i think this is the site of uh the

future i think both bernie sanders a

third party yeah third party internet in

america yeah

i disagree with that i i think that's

i think third parties in this country

are impossible uh werner sumbart

uh wrote this book in the early 1900s

why there is no socialism in the united

states

and part of it and part of it was

uh how it's impossible to get a

socialist movement this is impossible to

have a third party in america just

because of how it's set up um so i say

vehicles exist

that we could still use democrat

republican it doesn't matter if you're

that or not but that vehicle is there

and one benefit to our country uh in the

hindrance as well

as a personality or a person can bring

forth a whole new idea bernie sanders

he's a parliamentary socialist fine you

know i i don't view him as like a real

fighter socialism but

you see

um the energy behind him and someone

like trump he wasn't a true populist but

you saw that early energy behind it yeah

but we see there's a crowd there

the issue the issue is that america's

two-party system has not always existed

there has been shifts historically that

change but not for a long time right not

for a long time not in any of our lives

i am seeing now with a fundamental

political realignment that's happening

in this country

now is the time that uh the two-party

system is gonna break down

and i don't know how it's gonna break

down but there's too much a

contradiction of interest within both

parties for the current uh setup to be

sustained

so

i i guess time will tell i mean so

do you wait for that to fall apart or do

you take action to try to get your voice

out well i i argue with again i'm a

marxist lender so you can imagine how

many times i have to argue with marxist

leninist volunteers who tell me why

don't you not take action and all this

kind of stuff and i'll tell them the

same thing uh

it's not simply that i'm uh waiting it's

that i'm trying to first and foremost

have a clear grasp of reality

establish a clear grasp of reality

scientific grasp

of reality is that is everything uh

historical materialism are you going to

gauge everything through those lens or

no it's not just a matter of

contemplation but you do need to have a

clear understanding of the current

situation to know precisely where to

intervene so me i talk about the

people's party i talk about third

parties

ultimately what can i do but talk to my

audience like i cannot what am i gonna

do run outside and you know i've been

critiqued but they say why don't you go

march with red flags and a mao hat or

something outside

why it's all information anyway it's all

this stuff is information it's media

it's to broadcast yourself to others in

some kind of way and i'm doing that in a

way more effective way than larping in

the street could ever possibly

accomplished

so

what would it

i guess i'm confused i understand what

you're saying but

i do view like political actions like

there has to come a time where you put

your politics out there this look this

is why we

stalinists we marxist leninists

we say fascists and the ultra leftists

are two sides of the same coin you both

have

the same volunteeristic

almost anarch and anarchistic view of uh

political action

how what do you mean by that

this idea that there is uh some kind of

voluntary political act

we do as individuals that is decisive

and the truth is is that politics

is something super individual it's

concrete and there is no

real one political action politics is a

combination of information

media

and um organization the rest

no no the the the actions that happen

like for example storming the winter

palace

these are incidental

after effects the only site at which a

political actor can intervene

is information

and organization

almost the organization thereof

but as far as

action is concerned

you have no control over that

people will act as they act

um

there's no way to control that people

act as they act uh

i mean like what is really for example

let me ask you in this day and age what

is a political action in this day and

age what would be a political action

i would say taking your policies to the

people and putting it on the public

stage

more than information because like you

said we can do information online and

and spread information like that

this is

uh when you're talking to the people

you're bringing them to you you're

bringing them to an idea you're bringing

them to support them what difference

does it make if you do that online or in

person because in person it's going to

have more effect than online online uh

look you had to shut your uh stream down

because i showed a book cover right it's

like that's where we're at online now

yeah but here's here's the thing online

is how you have to begin i agree

eventually there comes to a point where

people need to be on the ground with

communities and talking to people but

you have to begin online

because if you begin let's say in this

or that community how will the word

spread that you even exist you're just

going to be stuck in that local uh

context

so

but see it's more than just like local

organizing right because people have

done this i mean the same old methods

have been done over and over or to death

and have gotten nowhere so how do you

reach those people so hypothetically

if i run for a democratic congress spot

yeah then i can get on some radio shows

i can finally get on stage for debate

and then oh my god he's a fan oh my god

i can't believe it and it's not like

we're running as fast as but my history

all you know the videos are made all

that will come down right so you get

attention like that by putting yourself

out there putting the message out there

taking that risk you know listen that

all of that is media all of what you

just mentioned is the media and

information

it's the only reason it would why would

you have to run on the democrat party

and not a third party because you run as

a democrat you'll get more attention

yeah and it's harder to get a third

party off the ground you have to have a

certain amount of signatures and also no

i i i

i'm just trying to say political action

is a combination of information and

organization

uh there is no like uh mythical act you

do like

and as far as politics is concerned

i would

we have mom what you mean by we have

maos here on the left unfortunately

which i am a part we have maoists who

march on the streets with

flags and they have the quotations and

they're dressing up and they really

believe they're engaging in a political

action but what they're doing is

engaging in a certain

uh

broadcast of making themselves look

foolish right but they think this is the

real political action we're taking to

the streets and we're

it's no there's no such action

entailed in this

um

yes larping for the most part yeah

playing dress up and yeah but that's

what i'm saying that's not the political

action

it's that's wasted been there done that

everyone's still kind of doing that

method i think the third party goes out

that way too

that's why i think once again we're in a

country where personalities or single

people can push forth a whole idea so to

me it seems well which which personality

would you have in mind to be pushing

this i'm just saying personalities

period that's aoc ilhar oman why don't

these people become known names now

because they came with this personality

put this message out there that they

don't follow through with but still put

this message out there and got support

from that well i think the great

american can do that the great

revolutionaries and leaders in history

i agree

in a populist movement there will be

strong personalities inevitably

but

the authentic revolutionaries of history

uh

they had hidden personalities they had

pseudonyms they were just known

implicitly

and it wasn't the force of their

personality but the force of their ideas

that spread

uh

it wasn't just the force of their ideas

either it was the force of their

effectiveness in organizing their

effectiveness

in operationalizing their parties and

their movements

and so and that can't be done with

people running on

you know the democratic platform

absolutely not bernie sanders and trump

did that just you're right and and

here's my question to you what happened

to them

well bernie obviously uh cucked out for

the dnc

listen it wasn't was a rhino i agree

bernie did cuck out but he had to bernie

had two options

leave the democratic party or start a

third party

he could have raised the ruckus he could

he he didn't have to support it

it would be like a form of wrecking of

the

his part which i would have supported

mike yeah i mean if he's a soldier

but it would have ultimately led to his

ejection and his force to form a third

party

we know now i mean look

look at aoc

what happened to her

what do you mean what happened to aoc

she was there was a justice democrats i

was following them i supported them

they put aoc in power

uh and there was this whole idea oh

we're gonna take over the democratic

party what happened i mean

she sold out played ball with nancy

pelosi the party these parties

themselves have a corrupting influence

trump but you thought they were real

though you thought aoc was a real

socialist revolutionary no i didn't

think she was a revolutionary but i did

think she was going to be part of like a

populist wave that was going to take

over the democrats because she was part

of the justice democrats

and

now it was a different situation back

then in 2017 2018 it was a totally

different it's not like how it is now it

sounds absurd now but it made sense back

then

just like trump did to a lot of people

yeah

trump trump promised people he was gonna

be against the wars and he was gonna put

america first and he was gonna

you know have infrastructure and bring

all the jobs but he made all these

promises and what happened he had to

capitulate to the republican

establishment

we allow ourselves to be ruled by

politicians though so aoc was always a

politician right

that's the thing we i no one knew who

she was she was just like she was just

somebody that the justice democrats

propped up she said she was a working

class woman from the bronx

and that's how i viewed her as well at

the time i didn't i didn't see her

history in politics or anything

and then what do you know it turns out

that the democrat being in the

democratic party because look if you're

in a party in the democratic republican

party

you will have to make sacrifices

for the collective well-being of the

party as a whole and not if you reject

the parties not if you truly are

revolutionary and you're anticipating

then you're going to get kicked out or

you're going to get that

doesn't that still do so say worst case

scenario yeah you get kicked out and

shamed and all this don't you think

people are going to be attracted to that

because they saw someone who was really

anti-system like putting himself out

there

yes yeah but but the thing is is that

these parties are now rigged to make it

so that people can't even get to that

point they'll rig it against you so

you won't even have a fit you won't even

be able look because look if you want to

rise in these parties you have to use

their resources if you want to use their

resources to become more prominent than

you than you are

then you have to bow down to the the

parties

yeah you can't use their reasons once

once again if it's anti-system and

revolutionary you're not using their

resources you

a question i have for you what happens

in a few years

or whenever

when the two-party system

breaks down by itself wouldn't you think

it was short-sighted for you not to

do that hey you know what

i'm 43 [ __ ] years old i'm growing old

waiting for that to happen so i i'm

running short on patience of waiting for

that to happen i don't think it's gonna

happen it's it's gonna happen because

there is

never before in american history except

during periods of

new parties emerging into prominence

has there been such a profound political

realignment in regards to the formal

parties that exist

like we have a republican and democratic

party

but what

i mean they are so fundamentally divided

and there's so many different rivaling

interests within those parties what

meaningfully unites them now

the republicans and democrats

yeah respectively what meaningfully

unites them foreign wars

biden pulled out of afghanistan

and he was being attacked from the left

in his party for doing that because it

was like for how he did it that that's

how they're yeah he was being attacked

from the left and from the right and

although i mean

i think he's bombing in somalia and i

think he even did bombings and

yeah so i mean

it's

they always agree on the things that are

worse for us essentially that's usually

banker bailouts uh foreign wars stuff

like that so usually when i see

republicans and democrats agreeing i

know it's going to be bad for us pretty

much yeah i mean um what i'm just trying

to say is that

um so what if that doesn't happen though

what if you're getting older well here's

the issue there was a populist wave in

2016 yeah with bernie and trump

the parties had that was a virus within

both parties both parties got the

vaccine against this virus so what now

now it's time for real people outside of

bernie and trump

to step up and take revolutionary ideas

it has to come from the working class it

has to come from the working class we

can't remember we're intellectuals we

can't

keep relying on these same people that

fail us over i agree but it's not going

to come from the parties

see i think you need to use the vehicle

maybe okay we disagree on this but i

think you need to use the vehicles that

exist i i don't think a third party is

an option and if the only way it's an

option is you're waiting for this state

uh to wither away amongst itself with

each other

that um

to me that's just waiting on in a

miracle waiting on something that might

not come in our lifetimes so

and and for the record a lot of people

saying red brown whatever listen

that's a question of ideology that's a

question of our view of history

concretely speaking

there are not any communists and there

are not any fascists yet in america

that's my view

you have populous and you have

uh establishment people and the

populists have different ideas amongst

themselves some ideas i oppose and will

argue against

but let's not uh

i think it helps either of your causes

to

fall under either one of those labels

with communism or fascism

i honestly now that

i understand what like i'm doing what

the risk i'm going to take and all that

i really

wish these terms would just disappear

because they do nothing but people stuck

in their dogmatism to where it's like

i'm saying yes i'm at this i'm in this

people don't really learn what they say

yeah i wish i would have just spoke

about the beliefs

instead of like promoting a history and

all of this because yeah it really gets

in the way uh with speaking with people

because that term and it's like i can't

be associated that term i'm sure with

has two people say oh he's a communist i

can't be associated with that term so

those terms which

are in the past are still dividing us

today to where

uh you know you say red brown alliance

yeah if you have people that are

collective that are national and that

want a better future for their country

and are anti-liberal

they should be figuring out ways how do

we manifest this into reality what do we

do but instead you'll see on uh haas's

side whole bunch of little clicks

fighting each other then you'll see on

the other side same thing whole bunch of

little clicks online fighting each other

over these terms and titles and that so

yeah these terms i think

just get in the way of anything

productive so for me

um

i think there is a lasting

significance decisive significance for

marxism leninism but i think marxist

leninists in the west are cartesians and

what that means is that

they

think that marxism leninism itself

creates its own object

when in fact the object has always been

something that preceded us so in russia

russia had a populist movement a

revolutionary movement lenin came and

said we marxists will be

the best leaders and the only way this

movement that already existed will

succeed

just like how in america the object is

uh the populist anti-establishment

forces

and when i say i'm a marxist leninist

i'm not saying

i want everyone to agree with me

ideologically i'm saying that

i believe we marxist leninists have the

most to offer

to see to the ultimate victory of uh

american uh popular interests and the

interests of the american people and uh

the anti-establishment interests

generally whether you want to look at

that from the perspective of like

you know occupy or

you know you know

the populism of 2016 it's all the same

you know there there is an objective

see that the the point of marxism has

always been there's an objective class

struggle it's not a subjective

struggle it's not the struggle between

marxism and foreign ideologies it's a

class struggle and marxism is supposed

to be a tool that is

best equipped to serve

the working class and then ultimately

serve the people as a whole

so the aim and the object

to me is objective it's not ideological

or subjective

okay um so we're gonna get to some of

these questions because we have a lot um

and some of these names i'm gonna

there's no way i'm gonna be able to

pronounce it but okay

okay so um from zoltan

said so welsh sherman

eugene during does that sound can you

bring the questions up no not too far

back um well welchmers

eugene

during w-e-l-t-s-c-h-m-e-r-z

eugene during i think that's what it is

accuses marxism of being utopian because

it's based on destruction like oswald

spangler

impression socialism thoughts from ct

and then haas

yeah well i've always argued marx was

great at criticism bad at solutions so

that's been my belief yeah

um

i actually

think the destruction relevant to marx

and marxism has happened multiple times

you had the crisis in 1929 you had the

crisis in 73 of there all of these

i think we uh what to me is so advanced

about chinese marxism is it allows you

to take a more cyclical view

of this cycle of destruction and rebirth

so i don't think it's a utopian

eschatological vision of a final

destruction systemic breakdowns and

social revolutions should be used viewed

uh almost like uh k waves like the

contra country of whatever cycles

if you know what that is uh it should be

viewed as waves not uh eschatologically

okay um again consultant i know

slovakia

um specifically checked um land you had

a pretty strong group that wanted to

unify with germany led by alfred brunner

and early nazi theorist in the german

socialist party

uh i don't know if that's even though it

doesn't sound like a question i think

he's just making a comment

so from sun state uh fascism is

capitalism in decay

um don't show that fascist book on my

capitalism my capitalist platform

they'll ban me okay

and neon nora

has uh sultan already proved the ussr

was funded by western capital

the entire time no communist has been

able to debunk him

i think you're muted you're muted

oh can i briefly address both of those

things sure yeah the first thing about

this business of being on a capitalist

platform i'm sure you want me to be just

like an anonymous loser like you who

doesn't make a difference whatsoever

but that's not going to be the case

i don't know what the difference between

a capitalist or social i guess you're

saying what we're not in power yet so we

can't seek power

uh what a stupid thing to say the second

thing you just said that the soviet

union was funded by capitalists is an

abject [ __ ] lie the lie comes from

sutton's work about wall street finance

the bolshevik revolution which is a

complete fabrication

wall street in fact we know financed

at first the karensky government but

would go on to later finance the white

counter-revolution

uh during the russian civil war the

bolsheviks uh were had no foreign

support um at that time so

that's actually one of the next

questions from sun state says what does

haas think about the bolsheviks being

funded by american banks and the german

government at the time

there was no funding by the american

banks it's a complete fabrication again

the only source that they can give us is

sutton's work

which is [ __ ]

it's not it hasn't if you look at the

primary sources he has nothing it's only

rumors in here say about trotsky was in

new york and met with someone and

whatever and even even if that was true

we all know that trotsky was never

himself a bolshevik

so yeah and trotsky admitted to that

yeah he got financial aid

he well

i don't i i mean the only thing we know

historically is that germany

sent lenin on that train because yeah

germany had an interest to do that but

that wasn't german capitalist that was

the german

government which was engaged in war

against um

russia at the russian empire at the time

so it's not much of a conspiracy is

you know i i i think um sutton at least

he was speaking about um olive oshberg

who was a jp morgan agent who was the

first um

general manager

of the roscomm bank i think that's where

they tie in those

accusations but there's there's no

connection there's a there's no actual

verifiable connection where when in fact

we can verify the connection between

uh international financiers and

industrialists and capitalists to the

white count revolution

so i mean

it's really on the surface like if the

bolsheviks were being supported by wall

street

why did every major power on planet

earth

invade russia to prop up

the white counter evolution it doesn't

make any sense

from pasho zero

ct seems uneducated on all the

historical events he's evoked thus far

my only question is what he thinks about

the labor aristocracy

the what the labor aristocracy

i have no idea all right i'll move on um

from sun state morally champion

championing the two greatest historical

champions of colonialism britain and

france against germany that's

interesting lol

okay

well that's where this falls apart is

yeah the biggest capitalists

uh no one forced germany to

invade the ussr in 1941.

um the ussr

entered into an alliance with

england and america

because they had the germans as their

common enemy as soon as the war ended

you can see

they had nothing in common beyond that

um and yeti again

why did that's the question why did

germany have to invade the ussr i mean

what so the ussr should have allowed

itself to be conquered by uh

i mean had the ussr dog piled on in

maybe your argument would have merit but

that's not what happened the ussr

minded its own business and it just was

on in a way that was unprovoked was

invaded by germany so

you know what hitler thought would

happen

he thought uh the western powers

would stop the war on him

and view the bolsheviks as the bigger

power he was such an anglophile that he

thought that would come as a result to

that and obviously it didn't play out

like that at all

from zoltan he said germans should have

blitzed the anglos harder

okay

from jimbo ddd has what's your opinion

on the us len lease to the soviet union

they gave the soviets 14 000 planes and

13 000 tanks as well as 2.7 tons of

petrol yeah this this is a common uh

historical myth that has routinely been

debunked the lend lease overwhelmingly

benefited britain the soviet union got

breadcrumbs in comparison that were

nowhere near

decisive

compared to soviets

domestic industry

i think that maybe the soviets did make

use of american jeeps and uh

the most of all the jeeps that they used

those but as far as planes and tanks

were concerned nope the bulk of that was

soviet domestic made that whatever the

americans provided was not

in decisive at all so

from the sun state germany wasn't

practicing self-defense knowing all the

world's capitalist and communist powers

were set against them

well what evidence did the germans have

that the ussr was going to invade

uh germany there was no such

[Music]

evidence

hitler was very i mean look this would

be a debate

if it wasn't literally all out in the

open that hitler believed

that the germans had the right to

conquer the so-called inferior slavic

races

um

and that these were subhuman people and

that

um

yeah i mean like it's so plain

like

i i don't know what to say i mean i

guess i would just say read what hitler

himself said and spoke about in speeches

um from neon nor

has why did china change their

constitution to allow bloc to allow

black rock to take over their mutual

fund biz

um

we i will i don't know what you're

talking about specifically um

but it stands that all land in china is

owned by

the government

whether that's the central government or

local governments

all land is owned by the government so

that's china's uh real estate

policy at its foundation

um from zoltan he said just bring up

otto ernst remar a nazi being funded by

the ussr in west germany he also sold

arms to castro and was an adviser to

nassar

okay

from punish italian

we are waiting um we are waiting time on

history which will always be a stalemate

talk about the actual ideas corporatism

and nationalism as effective socialism

okay

tyler durden for both our communism

fascism democratic how is leadership

determined

um so i'll just answer for my sake

communists ultimately do believe

communists don't think democracy the

concept of democracy is sacred but

democracy does correspond to communism

if by democracy we mean

a people's state ruled by the people

of the people by the people for the

people yes now does that have to take

the form of a direct electoral democracy

of the central leader

no i mean that wasn't the case

historically but elections are a useful

tool to determine

what kind of leaders people want

especially at local levels

there's a huge electoral system within

china both for the people's government

and um

the communist party it's just there's

nothing sacred about it in and of itself

but uh it depends on what's meant by

democracy if what's meant by democracy

is um

american pluralistic multi-polar

liberalism of course not no

yeah i'd say true democracy comes with

the people supporting of a leader an

idea

and it's the truest form not

being brainwashed by television and

going to vote on red or blue

okay

from sun state how many peasants died in

mao's great leap forward

um a great deal many people died

during the great leap forward but these

are the premises of industrial modernity

as a whole and when you're in

engaging in industrial modernity from

scratch

the result is you're

pretty much [ __ ] with people with how

people have fed themselves for like

hundreds and maybe even thousands of

years

yeah that is going to lead to some kind

of crisis and whatever and i should

point out the great leap forward was not

simply um

because the west wasn't going to invest

in china at the time

it's also because the so uh china didn't

uh mao didn't want to be reliant upon

soviet industrial system he wanted to

create an uh

indigenous chinese industrialization

so

that was the price for it uh hopefully i

mean in the future i think communists

should be committed to

learning the mistakes of both the great

famines

and

i think with china

china's path now

china has freed communists globally from

ever having to do that again because

china

itself has already accumulated a great

concentration of capital which it can

use to help

the development of other countries so

that they don't have to do this

um from zoltan this is from the 1933

fascist roco corporatism laws

it the trans if the transfer of control

of capital from shareholders to the

workers of the company

[Music]

zoltan

there's like 19 books that argue china

is a corporatist state and you and you

even have keith wood's video

the rapid industrialization is actually

very similar to bismarck's state

socialism growth reforms

i actually think uh comparison to like

bismarck or even japan in the 19th

century

is way more accurate than fascism but i

still think it's a wrong comparison but

it's i guess it's more

accurate to compare it to bismarck

bismarck's reforms

well they have a regional uh corporatist

system there now

regional like not not by occupation

so it's

unique in that sense something that

could work in america with the state

identities but it's definitely a

corporatist system

well i mean

corporatism has a specific historical

connotation it's like you can i don't

know if you can call it corporatist

national syndicus then i mean if

corporatism is national syndicate i mean

i mean to say how is china corporatist

in a sense like for example a lot of

things can be called a corporate if a

corporate merely means like maybe an

hegel sense

some kind of synthesis between the state

and civil society

i mean yeah every country has that you

know

it's more like off of let's say a guild

system and they have 30 guilds set up by

regional districts that control those

districts all controlled by the state

above it but they take care of their

work and how you tell who's doing the

best is by what they produce and how

they're doing so it's a competition

amongst people would you say like a cold

close as a corporate

you'd have to explain it for me yeah

like a collective farm

no no no i wouldn't because uh the

collective farm who has to say in the

collective farm because from like

what i've heard those were messes and a

lot of people didn't even have a chance

to eat their own food they grew well

but the difference was is that they were

decentralized like there were many

different collective farms with varying

degrees of success and performance and

they even kind of competed with each

other in a sense

so

that would be i i guess like that when

you're talking about they compete with

each other and they're their own

brackets that would be a form of a

syndicalist setup uh but i i just know

everyone went away like as um as you

said as even i think the issue with

calling it syndicalist is because you

have to understand the historical

meaning of the syndicate is the unions

that had existed at that time

that were already in place

so it's a specific historical context

yeah well corporatism all evolved guild

syndicates national cynicalism

corporatism right they all kind of

matured much like the communist

countries learned hey we can't do the

community farms we can't do central

planning we need to adapt our socialism

and you know once again socialism uh you

know with the chinese spirit right they

had to add their own thing to it and

that's kind of how the corporations came

about too with guild systems then people

were fighting for syndicates then

national syndicism came around i don't

know to me that the chinese system is

too interlaced at all levels too

interlaced at all levels for there to be

a discrete corporate i can identify

uh

well it's broken up into regional

corporations so i mean i don't know i

mean it's not just the horizontal

breaking up there's vertical

it's all interconnected everything is uh

well that's corporatism is

interconnected they're not that's the

whole point of this i mean to say like

where is the specific corporate

in china like what would be an example

of a corporate

the regions the regions of china

are those the governments in the

specific regions

or

yeah the government oversees every like

you said it's it's in just like under

third position corporatism the

capitalist exists i i think it's only

it's more it's

it's more complex than that because

like

the the way in which for example the re

the economy of the regions and the

economy nationwide how all that is

coordinated with the central government

it's just more complex i don't know if

corporatism would be accurate

well that's how it's broken up into

corporations um

i'll link you this video on the private

and you can watch it on your own time

and maybe

we'll have another talk about it

where it's breaking down

how

china has adapted to regional

corporatism

is that the uh keith woods video no no

no no this is from a chinese economist

that's in china

and um he was explaining

how they went off of this no i i

wouldn't send you something

uh directly from what they're talking

about

okay so from zoltan

so what would infrared say about the

three different factions in the ccp who

you schmidt one of them specifically has

been arguing china is a fascist state

internally for a year now

i i am not aware

there is no faction within the ccp that

calls china a fascist state there are

wacky intellectuals within china that

talk about china as a fascist state it's

an imperial state it's a monarchy

all sorts of things from the imagination

regarding the newfound interest in carl

schmitto

i don't see

the german conservative revolution as

inherently fascist actually uh the

thinkers of the german conservative

revolution had a very

uh

mixed relationship to german fascism and

italian fascism

i think it's important to separate these

two phenomena because um

a german conservative revolution to me

was much more deep than that it wasn't

just

about fascism specifically it was about

a more broad reevaluation between of

the relationship between uh modernity

and tradition and so on and so on

it's almost like the timing

so fascism emerged at the same time as

the conservative revolution but they're

not the same

does does that matter that much to where

if china is learning from conservative

authoritarian germans or if they're

learning from like gentile like to you

would that like make them not communist

anymore or of course of course not of

course not i mean uh people are dogmatic

about it

one of the greatest

influences on my thinking

intellectually is heidegger

of course politically heidegger i'm

completely opposed to his political

decision

uh

to be in the nazi party but

there's way more to his thinking than

just that same is true for all the other

conservative revolution thinkers

who i'm pretty sure influenced um

a lot of different people you know it's

not just

you know no i don't like the dog but

that's what i find with

especially speaking to marxists yeah i

mean like for example when it comes to

gentile i don't just say oh he's a

fascist so he's wrong i have a specific

criticism you know it's not it's your

materialist right that's your criticism

yeah yeah yeah well i mean that's right

even when that's even a moot point

that's yeah yeah we know we're going to

disagree on that

so from western artifact

haas why do you think buzzwords like

establishment win the debate point is

point is who was the better system your

argument isn't proving quality

well the problem is that

you view political realities like a

minecrafter and you view political

realities like uh

some kind of like reddit nerd who thinks

they're like designing blueprints and

comparing abstract systems but the

reality is

we have establishments we have

established

insular

stagnant

ruling class that is all interconnected

with each other

that

mingle with one another and subsist on

the basis of established that's the key

word established institutions

um as of and then we contrast an

establishment with the people because

whereas an establishment is what's

already established

the people contain potentialities that

are not yet established or actualized

so it's you know if you just used your

common sense and didn't treat politics

like a minecrafter it would make a lot

of sense

but you insist on being a nerd and

wasting my time so

um from sermon

i'm 40 minutes behind he says that china

doesn't invade countries china has birth

tourism that is their people

as their people have children and sapien

um and then

that was like one and then he listed

number two is china takes over farms and

markets in small countries like oceania

um etc forcing the indigenous population

into wage slavery

if that's true

i have to look at the specific case case

by case if that's true

it's not because china's invading anyone

it's because the governments of those

countries are not giving proper

representation to their people and

that's not china's fault unless you want

china to

invade countries and engage in nation

building

which is not something it'll ever be

committed to doing so it sounds like

you're you're complaining that china

isn't america china doesn't want to

overthrow governments and and make

people have good governments it's almost

like china will just do business with

whatever government is in place because

it's not their business it's the

business of the people living in that

country

what about china and australia though i

mean they're they're using this taste

it's the best case because to buy out a

country and then kind of turn it into

well well that's their right

that's imperialism though that's

important

it's not imperialism because that's the

australian liberal free market system if

australia doesn't want that

system of course china will respect them

china will respect the people who stand

up and say you know we we want to

protect our people's interests china

will respect that but why should china

respect

uh australia when australia will allow

it i mean if australia's gonna allow it

they may as well and and moreover

i mean australia

and is part of the american anglo-saxon

system

and these same countries the five eyes

alliance are always lecturing and you

know being smug to china about how their

system is so much better so okay china

will say if your system is so much

better then you should have no qualms

with us buying your property

and it's you still have your superior

liberal system we're not forcing you to

do anything we're doing it in the free

market

that's that it's not china's fault it's

how is it their problem so as long as

the governments are willing to pretty

much sell out their future for immediate

bang for their buck but it's whose fault

is that is this china's fault or is this

the australian government's fault it's

this it's the business of the australian

people what kind of government they have

yeah i i view it as power politics but

it's just

i don't i do see it as economic

imperialism though i mean i'm not even

morally saying it's good

well here here's what would make it

economic imperialism it would be

economic imperialism if china for

example

um

was orchestrating coups and

political interventions to keep the

australian government propped up much

like how france

continues to do this in west africa

and how america does this and britain

and america do this for the whole world

and latin america and so on and so on

that would be economic imperialism but

if as a result of australia's existing

laws and its existing government

china finds certain opportunities

i mean it's it's like

how do you blame china for that china's

not impurity it's not insane to blame

like i'm not moralizing yeah i look at

his power politics but yeah we're just

saying it's it's a form of imperialism

but not moralizing it it's just it's not

it's not imperialist because uh that's

the superior liberal uh anglo-saxon free

system

and

that's the freedom that they want and

they have so

all right so we're gonna do uh two

minute closing statements so um ct you

wanna go first

uh yeah interesting conversation i wish

we could got more into the today's stuff

and uh where we differ but

has

didn't seem like he's interested in

politics at all outside of um

the people's party was that the party

you said the third party

whatever real uh third party can emerge

then it will have my interest but i

think that's the one i think for now

which seems to be the most promising but

maybe it won't be and maybe something

else will come around and um maybe it

might be an individual or something

i don't know all right we have to see

yeah

so i would just say check out the

platform people on

newfrontierusa.org

see what people are running on i would

put that platform up against

any other party or any other person out

there

creating a platform to run for position

if people are concerned with

collectivism and socialism and

nationalism and having a reason i would

definitely check out that platform and

see it for yourself and support it

it was a good chat i i enjoyed it

um

thanks haas for the conversation maybe

we'll have it again

sure um

yeah uh like i said it's mainly a

question of ideology and history which

is not necessarily to be confused

for uh even though it's often

interrelated with the current concrete

political realities

so this is the point upon which we

disagree primarily

um

now this something i do want to address

was that

i

was taken by surprise because you know

obviously it wasn't your fault because

you didn't know

but

because of twitch's strict policies or

whatever

and a lot of people in the chat right

now were celebrating like i ran away

from the debate and all i was too scared

to debate and i just want to say to you

people specifically

what do you have to say now [ __ ]

like you really look stupid now don't

you you look dumb as [ __ ]

um and i really continued this debate

mostly out of pettiness just because i

wanted to

despite those people you know like

everything else with the chat

yeah

oh my god you pay a lot of attention to

the chats i see yeah he gets mad at them

it's funny

um all right so thank you guys both for

coming on

we uh so our discord has been shut down

twice in one week so we are in the

process of kind of figuring out we have

a vip discord for people that we trust

that won't get us shut down

we're waiting to make a public one but i

just did drop the link tree in the chat

and we have um we did make a telegram

and

some gilded thing that we're working on

as well because there's just a lot of

people trying to get a shutdown so

that's that um follow us on twitter

though that's where you can find like

any of our stuff when we do catch a ton

of platforms um tomorrow night we are

going to be back at 9pm eastern with a

debate on whether or not the press is

the enemy of the people so yeah that is

about all for that and um

check that link that a video has in your

private chat before you get out yeah

yeah for sure yeah so todd you got

anything before we close

no thank you very much i do appreciate

you both for a gentleman thank you

okay yeah see you later

all right cheers

i'm trying to figure out how to read

somebody