DEBATING A CHALLENGER [2021-10-22]

i'm to like a start to stop my si i'm noting proudy i'm s i'm mad solo i'm mad so love i'm mad so love yeah feeling good toight finally doing me and it feels so right oh tm to do the things that going to the club everything's all righth

no one answered so no one is going argue no and since i got the hold of man i'm living life now that i'm free yt to make your buk togeth now i come uk to now i made it through the weather bd days i don't getd i'm so sorry it didn't work

i'm so sorry but it is so the pain is good o face to cover bk i'm talking in my bad i'm heading to i'm so i'm righting sow i'm d soorlow im mad so l like a star to cant stop my si i'm noting soud down my head i'm so i'm rding soorow

i mad sour loud i mad sour louve so lou now i'm feeling how i sud never nkew single coud do thisd o star player misundertood back in the game who kew oh so flax ho must bed mowings loving myself make me want a single oh yy y

told me get up togeth now i com up toe now i made it through the we the padays i dont ge i'm so sorry i'm so sorry but its so the pain is goneout

to i'm i man so im man sooro i'm ma so love stary stop my i'm sting f don i'm slove i man soorw love i man soorro love i man sow love

live in miny ving that stress nom i'm putting the mustakes to cover up ba i'm puping themd tom solo i man solo i man solo man sol love

start i cat stop my sie i'mingm down i'm sor i'm ma sor im ma sor

come on sour love sour low

pple bunga

i'm doing like a star to t stop my son i'm fing fd down my head i'm soorllow i'm mad and sollow i'm mad and soorlow i'm mad and sol love solo yeah i'm feeling good tonight finally do with me and it feels so right oh

tm to do the things that going to the club everythings oh no on so no one is go no and since i got that hold ofn i'm living life now that i'm free to make your uk now i come u now i made it through the w the days i

i'm so sorry that it didn't work out i'm so sorry but it's so now the pain is gone i' in my face to cover bk i'm tuking in my bad i'm heading down to n i'm soorlo i'm mad soorlow i'm mad soorlow i'm mad soorove so like a star to kiss up

i'm im i'm mad so i'm mad so lou nw i'm fling never new single could do this stop player miss the stod back in the game w solad i must bd wings myself make me w a single

yy yeahyyh toll me cat up together now i come up togeth now i made it through the weath the bad days i donte i'm so sorry i'm so sorry but it's so the pain is

mistake i'm tking my bd i'm heatding down to i'm soo i'm ma soor i'm man soro i'm ma so love so like story stop my s i'm pting fve down my hed i'm soorove i'm man soorove i man soor love i man sow love so

this like live in mind ving that stress noma i'm putting the mustakes to cover up bath i'm toupping them bad and pd out to n im sllow

i man so o i man soo i man so love like a star man a man i man any reason for the song yeah i was watching a bro cat watching

ropets video on the dark age of x box and you were talking about connect and they just like playing this song as the connect there was like a connect game with star wars

and i was playing this and i was like oh shit

imember the song

ih know it's a

i don't really share the same reality guys you know like the reason i have the taste of music i do the way i think about things just it's very different you would you wouldn't understand honest because the i don't i think about time you know

i'm one of those people who i'm spooked by time you know i think about the transition between different eras two thousands two thousand and eighto thousand ten and i always think about the tragic dimension behind i you know and all those changes i don't it's hard to explain

i'm so sorry but it's so un down

which sochunds very few few few that's i wasn't even going to go alive

but i was not i was going to go to iral but the final nail the caf and i was like i have you want to de baate me so i'm just not going to wirell today ill wi

this in particular was a dark era in general in my life

and in the world you know like the period of i don't know when it started two thousand and nine to two thousand and fourteen or two thousand and nine to two thousand and sixteen i don't know when it started but that was a very dark time in my life and in the world you know and i think about it a lot

i want to put it let me put it this way me put it in pers perspective this way bes e one people are really thinking about the eighties reeberone like the eighties came back and even today did all these political channels they're all paper wave and they're doing since way and it's based on the eighties fve the video

granular five were everyone's always reflecting on the eighties well i do that for the nineties the two thousand and the two thousand and ten you know and i just look back on it and just think about what those time periods really were about you know and this is the period that just became very apparent to me of when the tech monopoly really just took over

big ta silicon valley you know the very dark time but it's also a dark time because the world changed in a way absolutely no one foresaw or expected you know like the direction that we were going the direction that history was going in was not

really understood it's still not understood by anyone it's so i get a sick feeling of my stomach every time i think about it it's just people really don't fuck and understand anything that i look at what happened with the netflix

strike

and i just see people on twitter go yeah those are workers i strake and

these people everything has fucking happened below their thed the have i don't even live in the same world as these fucking marxist you know these these marxists who think of the world as i don't live in the same planet as them i don't live on the same planet it makes me sick to my stomach that marxist cop with threalities

i don't respect people who call themselves marxist i just don't you know

at least not in america i don't respect you if you're parcking monksters i don't respect them i just don't

you're fucking pping little bch if you're if you if you're calling yourself a marxist in america or even in the west i think you're a poping little it you know you're just you're really avoiding the real terror of the era you're avoiding no kis different

you know what i'm talking you're avoiding just how much you don't know you know that you really don't fucking know about anything that's happened in the past hundred years you're such a fucking dumb fuck to me you know these people just want to escape reality with this fucking fantasy cope idea

and it the more it's so disgusting

oh if you don't own the company that means you're being exploited it's fucking stupid dude's fucking stupid who came up with that where did that even come from that's the most stupid fucking thing i've ever heard tell me

if you don't own the company then you're being explained people realize mark was actually living in the real world at this time wasn't trying to create a fucking fantasy cope simulator nobody understands me

that's the truth sometimes i wish all of chat collectively collectively i wish all of chat could morph into a big mode bitch and just be my wife

desrie as

and itill be your collective consciousness and that'll be my i could just i don't have to explain theory to them i don't have to talk to them about marxism i don't have to deal with any of that i just you know i have my significant i mean

thuts on jackson's dy jackson's and chadood

that's think jackson's people who think jackson's like faking it or a dod you don't he's a real he's the real deal g so i could say thatx is the real deal you know

d g g is coping hard you know how d g g involve this community they're like o jackson

he's a fake chad he's pretending to be a chad but he's not in and he's actually solely and i dud that's just the coke so i'm sorry they dm me about austin yeah they did i don't know yet but if it's happening i'm going to book it tomorrow i'll book it tomorrow if it's happening

yeah i'll leave and i'll go like tooday i'll leave tuesday ust go there tuesday you know the thing is that there's something apparently there's something going on friday

h but i have to debate destiny friday right so i th i there's like a party friday or something apparently

in austin but i was thinking what if i debate destiny at the party like i just go to the party and live stream and just debate him there

that i dint do that it's only going to be like an hour to right but i don't know how i'm going to stream it at the same time so i might i'm probably going to get a laptop soon and what am i debating i don't even know i do know we're debating

it won't take you serious yeah but halloweens this is like the last halloween iver

but if yeah me if jackson goes to aus but i'm probably going to go

i'm probably going to go so yeah

thank you appreciate you thank you houss for appreciting appreciate you a lot has for

bad days i don't get from so sorry work from i'm so sorry but it is so the nw

said he be dodne do you ever know

uh no he's not a one

despe a at all

nw oh pasww oh live in miny ing dis stress nomre

i'm put in the mustakes to cover so i actually yeah im man so i man so star

come

pout its such a cop its goy does economics research streams

it's such a cock box if you

the fact that you can do that onstream means you're a cot

in your face

thank you deds appreciate you

i can't you think i can fuck and do that fstream st i'm i'm mad so i'm mad so feeling good finally doing me it fels so trying to do the things go

yeah dude also my tweet blew up on a sub bredit called shit liberals say

and it's all it's about the netflix met agaun and i think we're going to have to we're going to is what we're going to debate about today this is what they want to de bate be gat everyone focusing on this netflix sh and i have to basically explain that netflix workers do netflix employees don't produce they have schol they don't produce

value so i want you guys to understand something about marx marxist economics really quick or marxist pty a political economy right so marxist proty a political economy what bred is teaching you is that some people own the means of production other ones don't and if you don't own the means of production you're a worker if you own it your capitalist yeah that's not true

ok so first of all there's different kinds of ownership and not all of them mean you're a capitalist ok some forms of ownership are

ret here in nature right youre round rent and collecting ground rent doesn't make you a capitalist because you're getting a constant stream of rent which is ultimately not about prof right you didn't have to invest anything initially and if you did you eventually pay it off and at that point you just making money

nothing right it's rent you're making money to know without having to do anything you're just sitting on your ass making money right well the people who are employed in professions that are based on using your head right not your actual labor

those are people who are just being paid the proceeds of ground rent and if they're getting paid

h the proceeds of grown rent jenz the don't do too wow

you're actually not a proletariy or a worker because you're not producing surplus value you're not producing any surplus value you're just getting paid the proceeds of ground rent ok what you think the term reactionary you care your so conservative if you want to be technically correct in

twenty twenty one a progressive is a reactionary and the reason for that the reason for that is sorry i got distracted the reason for that is because it has to do with madternity right

and modernity is a moment where all it is solid melts into where traditional relations break down and whatever blah blah blah blah right

what we're witnessing

as an objective development of history and the development of the force of production and a development of evolution of modern capitalism that we are starting to see a re emergence of tradition and this kind of traditional ways of life that are not simply forms of resistance against

some objective sweeping a change in the course of production as a matter of fact

what we're now seeing is a resistance against the tradition so progressives increasingly have to have political correctness and insulated culture because they are the ones who have to react against the fact that modernity has exhausted the extent of its negation

and now we're returning to positive being again so in a technical sense the progressive is the reaction right because the progressive is reacting against this objective development in history blinging the abstract indeterminate universalism and universal equality or whatever

of majurnity and just applying it above and beyond the extent of its real essential side of being like for example madurnity was about

this kind of universalization of the partesian cognitive men and women are modern subjects they have the ability to critically withdraw from their traditional and parochial contexts and have the freedom to make incisions and shes and well in the realm of ambiguity and so on and so

but that's they're going beyond that now youo they're saying no that's bad because when we are partisan subject and we woulddraw from our particular circumstances we still have particular circumstances that we didn't create and now they're treating this stamp

larity as reactionary and they want to premise every aspect of human life on the basis of explicit conscious and moral rational individual subjectivity that's reactionary it's just reactionary

mark was not staying so when mark was talking about the progressive courses of history and the reactionary classes he wasn't talking about blue haired freaks and

and people obviously being unsettled and disturbed by that he was talking about things like modern industry modern science the dissolution of the old traditional bonds but what comes after that for marks is an open question

right

he wasn't talking about this you know

fanaticism wo was be talking about this fanaticism of negation and how oh it's revolutionary to overturn literally every fugking aspect of life and try to artificially you know synthetically overturn all traditional realities and relations most of is saying

is a challenge for humanity that it must face up to it must sober up to and overcomew countries like the soviet union and china and other communist states they were doing that right so for example give you a great example of this soviet union responded to the challenge of madernity and you had a gender equality you had education

literature and so on but after all was said and done for example women now have the choice to have careers do what they want they also have the choice and not only the choice but are able to express their truly essential or innate or natural or at least unconscious desire

or intuition to be traditional women who raise children are at family life and so on and so on they're not incompatible right

after majternity the question is what then right

that i myself makes me one a sing

yeh

yeahyeah comll me cam up to canda

now i got m now i made it through the weather

it ely fun it had a different type of modernity it was a different type of modernity where the abstractionism of the cartesian subject was not turned against tradition

realities but on the contrary was the launching board the spring board through which they could be deep in they could flourish and they could be

even developed to a higher extent than they were before it's a complete inversion of the western progressive modernity

all right let's get the guy in the show you here he is we's going to do this

alright we're goinga so to the background of this is that

i basically said netflix workers don't produce value they basically live off of the proceeds of a

rent

monopoly rents

so this guy wants to debate that point so let's see

what they have to sey

hello

yeah what is it

what's up

yeah you want to debate

yeah i wanted to chat about what you were posting earlier on twitter

sure

yes so h

basically

where did all this start out

so you had your thread that you posted a few hours ago

we're talking about how ownership

is not the basis of class

but instead it is the basis of classes on revenue

that is

is that does that summarize your position

my position is that classes are not just based on ownership you also have to take into account revenue

okay

and i guess my position is that

ownership is at the base end

revenue is a consequence of that ownership

so

with the case of the proletariat

you have

people who only own labor power and therefore the only thing they can do

is sell that labor power and they get a wage back

similarly with like capital

the whole m c m

circuit like

whatever profit they're able to scrape off of that that doesn't have to get kicked back to workers as wages

represents their revenue flow

and then for the landlords

just

being able to extract rent

from the fact that they own land

is their source of revenue

so i'd say at the base of all of this is still ownership

yet ownership is still not at the base of it

m strictly because

uh first of all

when you're talking about class

and the so called ownership of the means of production

and all this kind of stuff

what exactly and this is the question i want to ask for to you what exactly distinguishes the landlord

and mark said his time was talking about the agricultural landlord

so we're clear he's not talking about the

you know people renting properties to live in that's a difference it's an open question what that

right

mmhmm so

what what actually distinguishes them from the capitalist

because you know landlords also own

land that they convert and treat

that they can convert and treat into like selling the proceeds of their land and so on and so on in terms of the agricultural products sxion

marx writes about this in the thirdd

thir volume of capital

mmhmm

ya i guess uh my

distinction there would be like

particularly with what marx is describing in the section that you posted

i

that

class of landlordies describing they're not the

they're not engaged in the process of f

capital accumulation

they're not i mean

what that means is

using money to

create commodities to get more money to then reinvest it

like well actually landlords for example can buy more land

so we're the you raw the ourd distinction

uh i mean

the primacy of

the capital circuit

is where i would draw the landlord

also you know that marx writes directly that ground red

ground rent literally is surplus value

so rent

is involved in the process of

em se him

it's not like

something completely outside of that process of capital accumulation

it's figure yeah i mean it's

it is definitely not outside of it and landlords were like

pretty like

the way in

they are incorporated into the accumulation of capital

that's absolutely true i'm but i mean

they

big distinction that i think would have to be made there just to like

to ground this and like a real material example like

looking at

the

situation of sale like share cropping in the united states after reconstruction and

the defeat of reconstruction and sort of like

the

existence of kind of a peasantry class in that context

what the landlord

was doing was like

they were extracting

the surplus of

what people were working on the land

a portion of that was kicked back

to the landlord

what the landlord did with that surplus

it didn't have to be anything related to capital accumulation

it like

that is the distinction between like

no i don't know what you're talking about when you're dealing with surplus value you are dealing with capital accumulation otherwise there's no

surplus to speak of

i'm talking about like sir i'm talking about like

the surplus of society not surplus of value

so like

the

difference between like

what a sharecropper

would need to subsist and what they actually produce

which is

so i'm saying the surpluses of

the surpluses of what exactly

i

i mean what were the big uh

cash crop like not cash crop well yeah cash crops like caugt in stuff along those lines

a portion of the land that fearcroppers would use

would go to the cultivation of like cotton and so on

and a portion of it would go towards

the cultivation of what they needed to subsist

ok but to that extent

lok where do you draw the line between that and a capitalist

i

the line between that and a capitalist is like

a capitalist starts

with

not land with money

that's not yous

that's actually not true

i historically speaking that's not true

well sure historically speaking i guess how capitalism actually emerged was through the surpluses of feudal agricultural production

yeah it couldn't possibly be true that

a capitalist doesn't begin with land i don't i actuly don't see why that's relevant as to the constitution of the class what

that's just starting capital right

well it's important to the constitution of the class because it dictates

the logic

um

that class like it dictates

how they engage with material reality ok what are we talking ss is but what essentially makes it a form of landlordism and rent

rather than just a capitalist what is actually the decisive difference here

like what is the essential difference

between them

that's a good question that's something what do you think

marks meant at that time when describing

the

essential difference between

the uh

let me pull that quote that you had shared

but basically the difference between

like

profit and rent

what do you think marx was referring to with that

so to me

it's very clear from my reading of marx and my understanding of marx is that there's two things i'd like to explain actually with that

the first thing is that

the process of

the division of value into surplus exchange and use value which is actually anchored at the point of the surplus value

ah

which is actually a result of the form of value itself and there way in which it the

kind of trk transcribes labor

right

human labor into the form of the

uh the commodity in the form of exchange right this produces the surplus right because there's an excess

that can't be accounted for

in the form of the commodity itself or in the form of value itself

so

it's beginning really with a

kind of dialectic between form and content

right basically

between these kind of the

ah form of the state and civil society

and institutions and whatever cities that's an important part

and this more

how should i put it

material

uh formless kind of

material labor right

when in this process

labor

is productive to the extent

not only that it is employed for the purposes of accumulating profit marx makes that

really clear in his decision between productive and unproductive labor

but to the extent that it actually is producing the surplus like it is the reason it is the source of the surplus itself

so to speak labor is this kind of

vital

source of

mm

the ability for capitalist to extract

profet

and then once this gets exhausted

a once value and price more or less

start to become equivalent

that's when you see a falling rate of profit

okay

and this is the capitalis crisis and all this kind of stuff

now with rent

ok

what's mysterious

for marxis historic

and it's not for nothing this is the last part of capital

which marx was unable to finish

mark's his idea

at least i'm really dusty but it's the least to the extent that i'm familiar with it

was that

the rentier does not take to the extent that they are engaging in rent

ok this is to the extent they're engaging in rent

they can also be a capitalist

is well but this is the proceeds they're earning as freend

as a landlord

they do not take part in this process this active process

of the production of surplus value whatsoever

okay

what they do is appropriate

this surplus value i in an idle way

idly right

so the rentier

and

earns this kind of passive income

that's the result of a monopoly

and monopoly is the key word i can't let me see if i can find the passage but

marx makes it clear that landed property is

we see

landed property

landed property is based on the monopoly by certain por persons over definite portions of the globe

right

that's his idea

um

so

that's the extent of rent to the revenues that are

being derived in the form of rent

be troubled though

historically speaking is that

there was an assumption that with the capitalist crisis the whole thing comes crashing down like a domino effect

but

to me

this fear of landed property

and his sphere of rent

is actually the key

to understanding how the capitalist motive production or whatever you want to call it is able to replenish itself and reproduce itself

even after these crisis and why there are k waves so to speak like

there is a falling rate of profit and then mysteriously

a revolution of production is able to to

replenish

as capitalism and on and on the process goes

of

now

to me

there's also another interesting paradox you're dealing with

when you're talking about this distinction between the

landed property

and

capital

capital landed property

which is to say it's the form in which the capitalist moteor production capital is actually confronting its original and real

substantive economic premises

and the assumption that is like here like for example marx

talks about i forget which section this is

in part six where he talks about the transformation of surplus profits into ground rent

the way in which for example

agricultural commodities

uh acquire the

acquire the the

sorry acquire the nature of a capitalist commodity that can just be exchanged with any other commodity and so on and so on and thereby just becomes another commodity

and he's basically kind of talking about the way in which

agricultural production

it becomes transformed and radically altered as a form of the capitalist motor production

yeaes so i guess but but

yah

the paradox is that

the origin of the capitalist motor production still lies here in this decisive site of landed property and ground rent

and the relation between the small lw holding peasants and the

monopoly landowners respective

so it's kind of this issue of trying to derive

a

conclusion from a premise

st or try to derive a premise from a conclusion so to speak

so it's a strange thing going on with time

in this third volume of capital in my view

sure that marx is struggling with

now i want to

just

to respond to that

what i would say is you mentioned the fact that like

the marks describing the process in which like

i

sort of like

land like landed property and landlordism that process can produce commodities

that are then exchanged

like

any other commodity

that exists on the market

and

i do agree that is entirely like

there

countless examples of that you can look at like

the entire slave oocracy in the united states the like

kingcot in that entire process

like

however

the key distinction between

that like

the landlord is and the like

logic of capital from my perspective

is you can

see the different realities just

based off of the development

in a

the like

northern part of the united states and the southern part of the united states where

where ground nt was

downpll

ground run is a better

best let mee what i'm saying is the process of like

this landed class

mostly extracting rent

from the fact that they like

own the land

what that meant was

the logic of capital never dominated over that land no it's not necessarily true so let me let me actually give you the passage

ah that's going to explain it

so it is not the singularity of ground rent then that the agricultural products this is the i'm talking about

develop into and as values

that they confront other commodities as commodities and that non agricultural products

confront them as commodities

or that they develop a specific as specific expressions of social labor

the singularity of ground rent is rather that together with the conditions in which agricultural products

develop as value so he's talking about the ways agricultural products

enter into this fhere of exchange

with other commodities that are produced under the regular sort of conditions of the

capitalist production and they are by they are given the quality of having values the agricultural commodities

and

together with the conditions in which their values are realized

there also grows the power of landed property to appropriate increasing portion of these values

which were created this is the most important thing which were created without its assistance

and so an increasing portion of surplus value

is transformed into ground rex

so the basic idea here right

is that the agricultural products because of the way in which they're exchanged on the market and therefore compared and measured on the standard of other commodities

and other values

serve as a mechanism by which the the

owner of landed property can appropriate an increasing share

of the kind of uh

value

that

is realized in them because again of their uh

exchange with other commodities

mmhmm

but the they were not responsible for the creation of the value itself in the manner by which they were produced

the agricultural products

yeah exactly i mean that's a

that's the

that is like a key distinction between being a capitalist and being what it's not necessary but here's the issue right

is that

just

it's like

if the price of the commodity

is going to be determined

wholly or mostly by the landed proprietor's monopoly

then the question

of where the labor that that is being is

paid for for those laborers or whoever are producing it

is called into question

where is for example

these commodities

and the profit quote unquote that is being uh

accumulated

by the monopolist

is not the result of the labor

of those that they are employing or whatever you want

or you know of course there was also slavery and serfdom before there was

form of wage labor and employment

even before that

right

that's not the source of

their revenue

and their ability to make money so to speak

so you can't say for example that

the people that they're employing are traditional proletarians

let me think about so

i

to i'm trying to stay on the specific issue of like

the difference between yeah like

what the point basically is is that

just in the same way that there are different

forms of ownership you can't just say like

ownership is what de termins it because

a land

holder and the capitals both have in common that they own means of production right

and yet they are different classes according to marx

so it naturally followed and this is for the same reason that the proletariat and the peasantry

are different classes

and it also naturally follows

that there are cultural classes

who comprise in my view what marks called the ruling class's internal division of labor in which it consigns its cultural

etological mental and so on and so on to work

to a section of people outside of itself

in my view you can't say that they are they comprise the working class just because they don't own the means of production

themselves w they're being in les let's consider

that

a person that

one of those the

that person the member of the ruling class is

recruiting to do like

ideological work

on their behalf

what is the circumstance of that specific person

are they a

in a situation where they own capital

are they innocit it's not relevant it's actually not relevant

so marx is on hiss a

supply side kind of economics so it's focusing on production

right it's not focusing on

how desperate the person being hired is or what

you know for example marx talks about the lump in proletariat and he considers them an entirely parasitic

an entirely unproductive class even though they're desperate and they

have nothing and they don't own anything he just thinks yeah i do't

who within the

the realm of production don't can you know

participate in the process of the production of value

but rather

but rather

sorry i'm reading a quote but rather a

faed off of the crumbs of society and so on so on

so

it's her athentic

to read a quote so that's a description of the lump in

to use the description of the proletariat which angles provides in principles of communism the poletariat is

that class in society which

lives entirely from the sale of its reaseor sos on labor i understand so let me explain what i what i want the you know let me go ahead and explain it for you

ok no i want i want to make this point no no i'm going to go ahead only because angles this this yeah yeah this has been brought up co

yet but this has been brought up before

so the principles of communism was not a concentrated theoretical work created by marx and angels

it was a pamphlet

meant for workers at the time in order to be able to understand

a what communism was and where they were coming from all this kind of stuff so first of all it's wrong to treat it as a some kind of theoretical dogma

or in depth theoretical explanation of the essence of class

m

because it was a pamphlets met popular pamphlet met for works was simplifying a lot of things on on the second thing

is that because of that fact

you are going to have to take into account all and he engles is just assuming this in the background he is just assuming this as a given

because again it's targeted

or the workers that

lived during his time

all of the cultural historical

as social or sociological or whatever factors at the time

which made it very much the case that the

those in angles this time

who

only had their labor to sell

were indeed the proletarians

f

marks and angeles were talking about those were that's what the proletariat was

there was no professional managerial class at the time

there was no labor aristocracy at the time so to speak of there is no we is

a is still proletaria and i would argue that no no actually actually i know it's that's see this an un dialectical way of looking at it

you don't say they are the proletariat

because classes are always existing in the form of an orientation and the prolitaries

the letariy in the bozeazin

don't have any pure existence anywhere they're just orientations

there's no you're proletariat and there's no pure bourgeoisie

when lennon talks about the labor aristocracy

he's referring to a segment of the working class that has become bi fight w wi fight right so they're in a sense part of actually the boog wak class in a sense

yeah i mean like an example of that you can see today so

just a bit of like my own experience with labor i worked doing like fast food work for a few years

went to college and now i'm working as a software developer

and something i see happen

within people who are in the software developer field is

they are paid wages

above what they need to subsist

and they are able to acquire more and more money and their like

finding places to put that money so

they buy stock

by land by

various

tped by

various types of land and capital that they buy

and

after a certain point people in this field

are no longer

selling their labor

and

as their means of subsistence

they are selling their labor as the process

to accumulate more stocks more land more exc yeah but that's the point yeayeh here but in the professional managerial class yet like what you're describing as the p m c

diverts from being

soley just like a proletarian concept and also has elements of like

petpoors one it has elements of like s all time an bor on but that's

look

first of all

again marxism is a supply side economics

so i disagree that it's just a supply side it is and the wh it i feel like the a lot from the perspective of o like

there's a lot of useful hit in it from the perspective of like

owner the perspective of being a laborer therere not marks doesn't give a fuk about any of that he doesn't give a shit about any of that

there is no where in mars the fundamental purpose of you will not find a single passage or inscription within marks in which he says

that a proletarian is defined by one who has to sell his labor

for subsistence or has to do this

the markondn't care about that that's not what he's concerning himself with ok well so mark is concerned with like a

basically

what mark says actually and what mark says is that the conditions of subsistence are relative

across history and across the side

there is no objective standard of subsistence according to mar sir

so what actually defines the standard of subsistence

uh i mean

that's something thatd be useful for twenty first century marxist to investigate with yeah but

the the ok but the issue is that

nowhere does marx endow subsistence any essentiality in defining the proletarian class

i feel like i have seen that i

that entire philosophy of

like

subsistence

come through in a lot of marxist text that i read i know you

you want to be sure yh it's like just give me examples of communism

give me examples or give me leads i here something i did not

y know if you don't have prepared you me give me lead yeah give me leads and i can look for them now because i have my computer

you know

i can just search for them

i mean the

primary examp lot of it is in just like as you said organizational pamphlets like

very clearly i'm i'm sure you don't deny that angles and marks if they're using a propaganda rhetoric of saying

the that's cultural propaganda that's not a scientific analysis of what the essence of the class is there's doo i don't think itre's a very p your exc ides propaganda i think it is a useful it is you w reality marks himself said

that the method of inquiry

differs from the method of presentation

in the introduction to capital

and forget what ear eighteen seven i forget which one

he directly says that so it's it's not only my i mean obviously it's a dialectic one one view that

the input and houtput are not the same thing what you're telling workers

in the form of propaganda you're dealing with culture you're dealing with

a lot of different things

that is not the same as like the withdrawn concentrated process of inquiry and theory and so on these are completely different things

so you can't say for example that if angles and marx said in some context

the proletariat is forced to sow their labor like an animal

giving their own hide to a farmer or something is sh have presenting their hide to be sheared in a desperate

you theyir conjuring emotions and not saying they're doing it in a manipulative fake way it's

they were participating in literature and you historical re i would literary culture

but

that's not the same as a theoretical science of what

makes it that class

i would i mean

oh i'm pretty sure it through

out capital

marxs does talk about the process by which

the the

proletariat

is like

the

would it be

trying to

think of some key words so if you actually want to search for this but

the general process that i am trying to describe here is the process by which

like

throug

needing to accumulate

threug capitalists

needing to accumulate

more and more like money in order to invest in the commodities

and so on to prevent like

a like economic crisis

in that process

there is

downward pressure on

the uh

wages of workers

to the point where like if you just want to think of

like political economy as like a

just abstract theory

in that process you hit the point where

the workers are being

paid

at mark is explaining why

wages are driven down to the point of subsistence oftentes yes

because of capitalist competition

yes

but so not saying he's not saying that the worker is defined by the subsistence

no but i think like the abstract idea of the proletariat is defined by that yes a

in reality

people who are working

are generally paid above

what they need to subsist

and in the case of like what you're trying to describe sosen subsistence is a muddy concept because there's oscillation

sometimes we will get more

sometimes they will get less

and

it's also going to have to aggregate out at a national level

okay so

subsistence is not going to be a good barometer for measuring

or for trying to discern the class differentiations of different class no it's just like

the pure proletariat is someone who is

just getting wages for subsistence no obviously in reality the know the youure military you are those who own nothing at all but their own labor

theself and by labor mind you this is a very important distinction

it is the least

smallest quantum of unskilled labor

measured as like the lowest

just

if you are just

a random guy

a

bare minimum standard of a just a guy in society

you have absolutely falk and nothing all you can sell is your labor and unskilled labor at that that is what the proletara is

yeah i agree with that

yeah

so

obviously og in actual reality

here's the issue

every proletariat

in history was always caught in a process of proletarianization a process

which never completed

which means even in for example russia where they were extremely poor right in the russian empire

the proletaria still had land back home with their families

this had some agricultural land

and the same is true across europe

and for

also america and the united states

and when they lost this land they reacquired it in the form of a you know

the white picket yards of the nuclear family all this kind of stuff

so

the you have to really be careful here

because

the

this is just that when we're talking about the proletariy we're really talking about it is a tendency it's an essential tendency

not something that applies

a to a specific

bike

you can't say like oh this person has become burgeois because they have gotten more than this

this baseline prolet like

and that the closer you are to the baseline proletarian subsistence

the more revolutionary you are which is not true no i mean i ust yeah i would disagree with that entirely

like that's not your

that's not a that's not a point i'm trying to make here and ok so p i yeah you know bs of the point i'm trying to make is

class is still defined by ownership

proletarians defined by ownership over their lead it's actually it's especially not true in the twenty first century where the traditional liberal form of ownership

has more or less disappeared

h we live in a kind of regulatory welfare whatever you want to call it's you want to be scandalous you would say we live in a semi socialist

society where every form of the ownership of property

' is bounded up

with some kind of

arrangement with the state

some kind of like

corporate

and by corporate i mean like being recognized by the state incorporated

so to speak

like ownership to and then furthermore if you look at the most

the biggest most prevailing forms of ownership

they take the form of joint stock companies marx and egls were talking about that in their time too as a thing of the future they said joint stock companies point

to the fact that

yeah

socialism is the future that everything's going to be jointly publicly owned whatever

so

the process of centralization

leads like

that's

that is definitely part of like

marx and angle's argument

i would not like

i would not say that just because that centralization happens though

that is like

the essential essence of

socialism

because like we're currently in a situation well look ok signifant you're arguing with me about this but i'm just talking about what they saiy

that i

i mean i don't think like goles talked about the joint stock company

as proof of the socialism arriving from the future so

you could yeat i mean this nenturalization of production no it's not the centraalzation he didn't

talk about centralization there at all he was talking about the socialization

of production

sure you can use ncialization central like i i'm

i ca i mean the same thing as what you're saying there i get what you mean by

like

socialization

what i would say is still

the assess the essential essence

i

between

capitalism and socialism

also boils down to the issue of ownership

like at that day i wouldn't i wouldn't agree with that

the socialization of production in the united states today

because

i think the largest like

owners of property are like black rock and vanguard

and like

the whole

b

the the ideal bourgeois situation is like

being able to socialize the entirety of production

within like

these sort of companies moving forwards that' sort of like

the bourgeois utopian socialist idea of our epoch

the whole like

you will own nothing and be happy

that that whole thing

what i would say though is

that is still fundamentally capitalist

because

the logic

the the owners

of this socialized production

are still dominated by the logic

of money

commodity

money prize

that's

that is the basis of still being

in capitalist i don't aga that ooils down to ownership yeah that seems like an extreme simplification to me

so i mean we have to simp we have to like yeah but for example arer it's not necessarily true that the companies are the final linchpin of

like all of the rationality of the process of production being down to m cm

because you're not taking into account the financial aspect of it you're not taking account for example the banks and financial institutions and wall street and

you know all of that and

yeah i mean those are the places where just the money gets stored after the whole

c m process i going yeah i don't think that's really accurate

i think that does a

pretty like

to whatever degree we're going to hit

the like

be able to describe the totality if you look at what s i'm sorry but if you

after mark's capital

like volume two and three

after lenin's imperialism are you really going to just say that

banks are just where some money is stored and they don't have and you know i mean there's so many other aspects to them but that w like it's not just that there's so many aspects of that it's that

the new role taken on by banks as early as one hundred years ago according to lenin

was actually initiating the circuit of capital in the process of production and actually not being a

some place where the money is stored but being like

the fundamental site in which

at capitalist valorization is coming from

in relation to the resident society

you're fundamentally hitting on my base point though which is that the like

the capitalist characteristic of that entire system

boils down to

the ownership

by people but that's just a t that's just it though is that it's not based on ownership it's based on production

being four

a

producing more money and that being the basis of production money

it's the ownership is such like a fluid

transient thing in today's capitalism

that

there's no way you could like understand anything about how capitalism works if you're beginning from the idea that

these classes are being formed

by their ownership is something that is fluctuating and

it always in transition and always ephem always kind of amorphous

what's really going on in terms of what's defining these different classes and defining the process of the

production in general

is uh

the way in which production is being mediated by forms whether it's the forms of value in the form of money

whether it's interfaces of production in the form of mass media

and communication

and so on and so on like this is how these different classes are being formed not

me strictly by ownership ownership

ah

i would say ship is the middleman i coording to it from a dialectriical point of view ownership is actually the middleman right

the real thing that's in charge here is not someone who's owning it

it's a process that

almost these owners are being assimilated

mm

within i

like

capital no there is no force on planet earth that has done more to destroy private property

then capitals

in almost all of its manifestations even at the highest levels

private property has done more to absolutely uproot destroy

dissolve

and abolish and even in a sense abolish private property

more than any other form of production in the history of mankind

what do you mean by

private property in this context because to me that just sounds like n give me a form of property

and i will show you how capitalis capitalism has either destroyed it or is in the process of destroying it

a piece of property

i

so

just take like

some

whatever factory was built in mexico when the body ship body fishure plant got shut down in cleveland

just for any that's youtiful so that factory

is

it's sorry you can't tell me the fact you tell me about the form of its ownership

not the i mean the it was owned

by

what it was owned by gm

g m decide g m ivately owned that factory

and decided to shut it down

and build a new factory in mexico

between like one thousand nine hundred nine three and one nine hundred ninety four

to me that is what

that is the private ownership of property that factory was not socially owned by the people who worked it that's not

listen that's not

ok

the form of ownership was what

uh i mean it's probably similar the

same process of like joint stock corporation and like

owning like monopoly industry

ok is that a would you consider that a form of private property

absolutely

who's the private owner then

the owner of the stocks in the joint stock company

okay so those are the private owners what if i told you they just got sacked

two weeks ago

there will be new private owners ok so the form

there you go

yeah i mean like if you want to say that like i don'ts they don't actually own it dude they don't really own it

they it's an extremely transient active well actually so

if you're referring to the

like people who own the stocks i don't think there's a process to sack i think i're talking about the board of trustees

no the board of trustees are just like just

usually they are

uh why

part of their like

payment for what they're doing is stock ownership in the company

but

right

if they are sacked from their job the board of trustees a board of shareholders

yeah they represent the shareholders

yeah they are they are like the people that the shareholders

highre

to manage w are the shareholders

what was that who are the shareholders

i the shareholders of

like these joint stock companies yeah whore working like

the the big ones are like the rockefeller's the j p morgans those type of people

okay

yeah i mean at the base of all of this i mean like

that's the reality of our situation is like

we need the workers

we need like

the toiling masses to understand

behind all of this are literally just people

behind all of this today is

bill gates bazo s excetera

just because they are like pupy yes but but a yeah butll there sowkse i ho on

but

those people you're talking about are not just like

capitalist those are like monopolists that have generational wealth

we they're almost an aristocracy act they're not there monopoly capitalists and yeah like the their capital

you pass late

the logic of

like

ownership under capitalism

you can pass down your ownership to your kids so capital does create an aristocracy

yeah listen the the again it's not true

ok capital capitalism

m

constantly revolutionizes the forces of production

we the pursu of rof

ok

in so far as you're talking about an aristocracy you're talking about fixed red more or less fixed in assured sources of revenue

which makes it more akn to a form of monopoly landed property

then it would h

capital

i i disagree with that they're still dominated by the logic of m c m they're not dominated by the logic of they're not dominated by the logic of m c

yes they absolutely are if ok so you're telling me

we know mcm leads to capitals crisis right

how many capitalis crisis has there been in the past hundred years

i

what do you so

how many capitalist crises have there been in the past hundred years yeah

i

cat wait

w maybe maybe three or four two or two to four maybe

i mean like the current crisis that's going on with ok let's just say two to four right

i mean the current crisis the crisis of the great recession

uh the countless uh

the

they'll like

indefinite number of like crises that happen in various smaller markets that don't bubble up to being like how many joblesital right crisises of capitalism has there been in the past hundred years

a general like general crisis of capitalism

yeah

uh i would say the crisis of like the one nineteen seventy s

the crisis of thee nineteenh thirties

and

probably whatever we're like currently on the road for i think what this star of like a general crisis of capital

okay

i don't know why that took so long

but

finally i mean because you were you asking for like the

cases where like capital enters like a general crisis

or like

are you asking about like

smaller crises that happen in like various different industries i'm talking about capitalist crisis

where capitalists are supposed to fuck and go bankrupt

i yeah i mean like they're not good like

the joint stock owners are never going to go bankrupt yes they do nver have yet they do go bankrt any of them

plenty of them went bankrupt in two thousand and eight

my fucking point

is that is if the rockefeller's and the j p morgan's

were just capitalists

it doesn't make sense how they've survived literally every crisis of capitalism there is what clearly clearly they are gaining the source of their power

and their ruling class position in our society

comes from a great deal more

than the traditional m c m because

mcm has exhausted

it's compact it's

threshold to produce profit

many many times in the past hundred years the same families are in ours

they just fucking destroy shit and begin expanding again

like

we haven't entered a situation where like

this ruling class

has been disposed of

just because capital enters a crisis does not necessarily mean that the ruling class

gets replaced

m c m

the way in which m c m work

m right broke down

so theoretically speaking these people should have nothing

right

no how did it like yet when it enters a general crisis

they just begin destroying the means of production and begin building a new one top of the old world

what did how did they do that in the seventies

how do they do that in the seventies the removal of the gold standard the destruction of the ant imperialist block

in the soviet union the recruitment of china into the production chain of the

american imperialists which allowed for continued expansion

in china like

that's

that's the reality like all of that has led to the reality we're in now and now china is

beginning to decouple itself from the imperialist order

and we are re entering

a general crisis

where the only option for the bors was at this point is to destroy the productive forces in china

and that's whre they're moving ports

okay

when it comes to the entrenched power of this monopolist

you couldn't possibly say

that

it's only profit

you're telling me the rockefeller's which are an oil family

you're telling you the j p morgan's the banking families and all these people

that's just all traditional capitals profit is not rent

it's notayed on monopoly i mean like it is it is monopoly run i agree with that i'm just what i am saying is the primary characteristic of monopoly rnt

is

capital and not like landbordism

it's still dominate but you didn't you can't you still can't explain the difference so according to you a as soon as a landlord becomes

stamped with the taint

of capital they're no longer a landlord

no because these are these are abstractions that don't map on to reality perfectly as we mapped out like

fifteen minute ok but what in what way is it that it's dominated by the process of capital

a why does that

make it

no why does that make it in comparable to a landowner or a a

a land is landed property

the the way things are playing out in reality right now which i think this ok listen i have to explain it to you like this

a capitalist is an active capitalist that is

generating profit on the basis of production

just because monopolists have assimilated the process of capitalist production

into their extraction of monopoly rents

doesn't mean

that they're just capitalists

no i mean there let's say for example let's say a landed agricultural property owner

is employing the traditional method of capitalist production on his land

does that mean he's no longer a landowner

no i the fact that the circuits of capital have become assimilated into this

financialization

after the age of imperialism and through the course of the twentieth century

so as to produce this new class of rentier monopolis

who are not traditional capitalist because remember

traditional capitalists

and marx points this out in the very text i'm looking at and i think i'm going have to find it

he says traditional capitalists are those

who are competing traditional cobles are competing on the market

with one another and this is a decisive part of what makes them capitalists right there and gets was writing before the era of monopoly capital which is what we're operating with now

that wasno yeah but monopoly capital

what you're describing is monopoly capital

is the return of landed property

in this fear of

modern economies

i understand i understand the point you're trying to make with that

what i would say is

like

eve it is

the way it plays out today is yes there is monopoly rent the reason why like

the phrase rent is used there

because it alludes to

like

the historic like landlordism and renter economy

i agree with that

what i'm saying is like

the primacy is still capital and not right

sorry

the primacy is capital and not rent why the primacy is like

i just think you're really confused about what we're talking about ok

capital is m c m its based that production

yes rent is based the monopoly yes or no

yes but yes those are both true

okay

but what is monopoly capital

notmou cast the situation where

the process of m c m like these monopoly capitalists are able to extract additional rent

in that process

from having for having monopolies

so is their monopoly rent

based absolutelyt i do or is it based on

something

so marx says that the landed property owner is acquiring

uh annex

they are acquiring an increasing portion of values

sorry let me actually quote him directly

i gros the power of landed property to appropriate an increasing portion of the values

which were created without its assistance

the capital

over which

a monopoly capital has monopoly over

and the spheres of production over which they possess a monopoly

is the rent that it is deriving

because of their production

or is it because of the monopoly

i mean i would say they're both

characteristics of

the process that is unfold like of

the process like

of production some for a landowner to charterst it's also characteristics for a landowner to

but forro a iree the landowner

is appropriating values that were created without its assistance

not because by the way the landowner didn't forward any capital to help the capitalist he might have done that on a side

but because the nature of

the way in which the landowner is accumulating money

is pass

it's just because they have a monopoly

yeah and i think that like

i do agree that that is like

in a characteristic of monopoly capital i think the use of the word monopoly there

and like

the use of monopoly rent

all of that makes ok th les look look you really have to

think deeply about this

i don't think we have like

that big of a disagreement here

yeah ok fundamentally what i'm ar golk i just need you to think about it like this

ok

why is it

that there's the significance of land

because land is something fixed

mmhmm

it's a fix

a portion of the globe

that if you occupying you own you're going to be able to charge people money

and so on and collect ground rent

right

yes

okay

where there enters a certain

threshold of capitalist production specifically instantiated in the form of

uh the stak

and the state the

recognition of the economic spheares

a social sphere that therefore has

a more or less fixed

a a fixed standard of responsibility and expectation to perform

for the service of the population to not enter into

so on theconmy becomes politicized right

to the circuit of capitl

m c m

becomes assimilated to some higher ends

beyond just making money

money then

m c m

then becomes in a way

a middleman

to something high now lenin

marx and lennin both talked about

the way in which banks

took on the role of assimilating the capitalist as a middleman

in the process of production

in other words the capitalist was no longer

like

you know the true ruling class so to speak or i don't know if they were ever the ruling class if i'm going to be honest with you

but they no longer

conceived

the capitalist as like

the ultimate ends of production now you're having a parasitical financial

capitalist class

which is as similating m c m assimilating the active process of production

into a way in which it can extract rent

okay

yt

i now what ies this so different

this monopoly

right whether it's going to be financial capitalist or whether it's going to be

a corporate monopolies or something else

or

oil barons

who have a monopoly on energy and oil

what makes this so different

then the agricultural

the landowner

who has a monopoly over the fixed plots of land

they just like the agricultural

a monopolist has

monopoly over the fixed

portions of land

the corporate or monopoly capitalist

has a monopoly over fixed spheres of production in the capital economy so that are are that are demarcated

by higher financial institutions or by states

ok yet so the fundamental difference between those two situations

is

what does development

in

that a landlord ground rent situation look like

eight

there's no revolution like revolutionizing of production

the landlord

what he'll do with like his excess not t that's not true

i revolutions revolutionizing the forces of production that are happening on the landlord's land

we'll actually increase

the the

the rents

that are flowing to him it will increase the value ofe land to

but't like the

the light

logic of his class doesn't lead to that happening and that's why you have

like

that is why the landlord economy of

you're up

i before like

h capital like bursts out of

england like before that happens

you have a long period of stagnation of europe and you have

just like

very few revolutions in the forces of production

and now we are in a situation

where the forces of production

are

revolutionizing

at

ever increasing rates so that is the key difference between

that's not numble right there hold on that's not that's not necessarily true that there is uh

a revolution of the forces of production at ever increasing rates

the revolutions in the forces of production that are occurring now

are the result of

something that happened maybe decades and decades ago

we are in a period of stagnation actually

terms of the fundamental

terms of the fundamental force of production we're still in the ared of stagnation i'd agree we are in a period of stagnation right now that's why i think capitals entering a general crisis

and

the salute they're trying to find the new way to revolutionize production

in order to keep the circuit m c m going

because that is still fundamentally like

the logic in which they are operating from they're not operating i actually don't i think they have any intention to keep the circuit of m c m going

they have every intention

do these same forces are the ones who are behind the growth and this rhetoric against

you know profits or

putting b profits before the planet is killing the planet

these people are moving actually

to almost

abolish capitalism in a way i just i disagree with that what they're moving toward i don't think the'll be i don't think the they would be successful in the sense of like they

can do it

or that they caud do it without destroying themselves in the process

my disagreement with you the ruling class and the elites have a fun the monopolist have a fundamental aversion to capitalism and capitalist profit

they see it as a burden disagree with that entirely

well

look so the narrative of deep growth is what they are selling

to the working class if you actually look into what these a

like joint stock companies like

black rock and vanguard are investing into

they are investing into green energy they are investing into mineral wealth

because they recognize

the stagnation in profit

of oil as the base of energy

because the situate like

because know it's listen the shift from oil

the shift from oil to green energy is not because of stagnating profits

i disagree it's because of geopolitical changes

i will okay

but that is

the

the changing geopolitical situation

causes crasies and profit

that there is no you know the price of oil is artificial it's not based on some cap logic of capitalist production it's like

it's completely set politically

i

kind i mean like a it's a give and take of both i mean like

sure it is set politically in the sense that like

yeah when the hoothies bombed like the saudi oil field like that was a political move that caused the prices of oil to rise no like saudis and

the saudis can artificially set the price of oil to whatever they want

not to whatever they want they ca they can that's what they did with russia

like a year ago

yeah but they can't do that for the entirety of the world market they can do that in the case that's exactly what they did though

i mean that's exactly what they did they

russia and saudi arabia made moves to manipulate the price of oil

yeah they make moves to manipulate it but they

and that's because they are monopolists with a lot of power over the price

but they can't like

ey

like

bin salman cannot wake up tomorrow and set the price of oil at five hundred dollars

that's like not possible

i mean

he can actually

he would be shot

because at the end of the day wouldn't it wouldn't be a smart moind but wers eple yeah but he can do it because

no he can't

literally it is impossible for binsalman to set the price of oil to five hundred dollars

you can do it

no he cannot

but it's not impossible it's possible

it wouldn't be wise but he can't do it

no i mean like he literally cannot he would not be living the day after yeah i ged that was oils price is not determined

by the focking market

i mean it is not determined by supply and demand agree that it is determined by the market and mergins monopolis is manipulat

one economy

one lat

they are moving into crypto

green energy

saturda the elites write and talk about it

read council on foreign relations

united nations i you were the three interal sources in cklass books appreciate you so much

hold on i'm reading something from the passese

saudi can only do so much of its total labor times brety go a produ of i bings russians

subject of an objection is of surplus labor and surplus value in general have nothing to do with the particular form of their profit

either the profit or the rent the conditions apply to service as such no matter what past form they assume

however they do not explain groundwnth

ok just so i think the issue in the point of contention is that

are you

the fact that in the nineteenth century

the landed monopolist posed a threat to revolution in the forces of production

is why they

what i'm saying is that like the difference between those two modes of production

is the essence of those production

like of that of those different forms of production

the fact that we continue to see capital revolutionizing

the uh

means of production which we don't i will continue to argue that that is happening

because we consider continue to see that happening

demonstrates the primacy

of the logic of capital over the rent that they extract from being monopolies

you know one of the reasons that's not true

is because

the

revolutions in the forces of production that used to happen that you could explain strictly

where for purposes of profit saving money and as squeezing out more profits

the reason why you have so called revolutions in the forces of production today is actually consumer sided

it's based in monopolies

who don't

engage in this revolution of forceor production

in order to keep squeezing out processes profits to in making production more efficient

and so on and so on

if you look at the fourth industrial revolution for example

mmhmm

you can't say that it's based on cutting the costs of labor and production

actually it's the primary thrust of the fourth indust revolution is consumer side

it's to collect data

it's to

have smart cities where citizens can interface and interact with their environment

a specific certain kind of way and so on and so on

i mean that's just part of that's just their move towards surveillance like

i would say the revolution is happening in production because the boors was are like

panicking and trying to figure out how to maintain

their monopo theyre like the control of monopoly capital over segments of the world

ok what revolution in the force of production do you have in mind

revolutions and the forces of production that do i have in mind

yeah

i mean

the main things that are coming out of like the world economic forum right now

that's what i have in mind most of those are just

co which is again not some deliberate plan to keep capitalism going

but is a way that these people can talk about how they're going to continue to drive economic growth

in general

i do think it's a qoke because i do think we're at lke

the death knail of monopoly capital they're either going to destroy the planet going to war with china

or like

they're going to get overthrown

b

what i would say is like

that's still their objective

that's what they are trying to impose on reality even though reality disagrees

yeah but

the but the reason why they are talking about revolutions in the forces of production is ultimately political

it's not because of prophety

even if it was because of a prophet

that in turn is just political

like for example

um

it's to make sure that the political systems in each of the respective countries and their respective institutions

and be sustained

or that their economic system itself won't collapse

because of the ius is at the end

but the i would say

at the behind the politics you're not dealing with selfish capitalists

i want to revolutionize the forces of production

we're dealing withro centrally

planning capitalists trying to prevent the overthrow of their rule

so whath but why is that so different than an aristocracy or a landed nobility

because the big distinction that i want to make here is the fact that like

this like land the previously landed class of the like in the process of rents

was not subject to the same logic of development that capital is under we see

well that's not what mark says

i think mark definitely like

mark di't right about now mark diudn't write about how the landed proprietor

is going to just turn into a capitalist action

marx was investigating the ways in which

capital

itself was turning into a form of a

round wren

h it's chapter forty seven of part seven of capital volume three it's literally called the genesis

of capitalist ground rent

but ge's what he calls it

i have it's an extremely brilliant

i haven't read it in a few years i should actually read it again

but it's an extremely brilliant

explanation by marks of the way in which

the abstractionism and constant revolutions of the force proution of capital

somehow is turning almost regressing into a form of ground rent

and the in a way similar to the landed proprietor

yeah i would have to read that section if you'd be interested in having me on again to continue this i'm not saying we have to end it here but like to talk about that chapter in particular

i

would have to come back at another point

yeah

um

but i mean so really

if you want to keep

this conversation going i don't know if you have like another like anything lined up with your schedule

really the base of what i'm trying to get at

is

the i mean all of this kind of stems from the conversation of like the netflix walkout right

we should focus on that actually

yeah

yeah because i i really just want to contest the idea that

the netflix employees and especially the ones involved in thatet work the walkout

are proletarians in the marxist sense of the word

and that

netflix's profits can be explained by

their extreme the capitalist exploitation of their labor

uh

so

my perspective on this is

i agree that their profits cannot be explained by the exploitation

of their labor

to produce surplus b i and that i see i should add because that didn't really sound controversial

i don't believe any capitalist exploitation of their labor is going on whatsoever

uh

i would say that a

the exploitation of

their labor

takes the form

similar like it's it's fundamentally like

unproductive labor right

they're not in the process of producing value

except for

like

i think there's a strong argument that software developers are

involved

in a very like

their contribution to the general like

volume of value

is significantly smaller because they're significantly less software developers than like

the people who are extracting the minerals that go into like the computers

that like

the software netflixes ran on

so like

what i would say is

the

i

there is both like productive and unproductive labor

happening

at like netflix that would be my position

but

the productive labor that is happening

is a drop in the bucket compared to the volume of

productive labor that was necessary

for netflix to even exist as a company

yeah but

to me

it's just the issue is that

you know when you had before the age of capitals when you had guilds and you had

you know the all of these

esteemed professions and all this kind of stuff

they were not referred to as the working class or proletarians they were actually defined by their

just by their profession actually likef you were in a guild you know you're a guild whatever guild master you're a craftsman of

so

you don't become a general laborer

until this process of the uprooting of the traditional means of production and everything being leveled

to the point of labor in its abstraction abstract labor finally emerges a real

and concrete category of history

so

to me i just find it absurd that these various professional classes can be called working class and proletarians in a sense

because their so called labor has

become assimilated

into the institution within which they work

to such an extent

that

it bears no resemblance to the abstract form of labor

that masses of people were you

subjected under the standard of

during the period of proletanization of the nineteenth century i don't see

where there is abstract labor here

to speak of whether it's like

i know for example the idea

was is usually that skilled labor is a moult is a kind of

multiplication

of

unskilled quantum of labor right

but i don't even see

what is the

i don't even see how for example what people are doing at netflix

can be a you

multiplication of the smalllst quantum of labor whatever there is like

i don't even see it as qualitatively

the same

abstract labor whatsoever

is what i'm trying to say

like there's just nothing abstract about it anymore

right

i mean

so

this will get back to the disagreement that we had about like

the definition of class which

we didn't really like to end up with a resolution to that

but fundamentally

my perspective on class

comes from

do you like

perspective

of like

of the

reality of like the worker the reality of the capitalist the reality of the landlord and to me it's almost simple to me is that

it's about how do you make your money

and to me these people make their money

through abstraction

they make their money on the basis of the

you know being cultural workers or mental workers or are workers they make their money off of selling their labor for a salary

well that's like what is labor well go what labor do they perform

oh they perform labor

dedicated to the maintenance of like the capitalist order

but i don't consider that's not labor in any meaning it's not it's not a productive labor i would agree with that but then i mean at the same one it's not but labor in the same way that like

the person like manning the d m v down the road isn't doing productive labor

because they're not involved in

the production of value

but at the end of the day

like they are

selling their labor

like they're selling their labor to it wh why does it have to be called labor then why can't you just say

and i don't even see how they're signing their labor i would just say that the

they are it's almost like they're live it's almost in a way like that they

have joined netflix and netflix

netflix pays them a salary to stay at netflix

see the thing i'd like coming i have

friends who work in so i mean like i'm a software developer i went to school for it i know people who are like

working in google working at amazon you know some of you don't go wants wre the mt the campus the com campuses

mmhmm

yeah i mean like they

these companies are in the process of like recreating the company town

except the company town that they're creating are like

significantly nicer

then like the

historical company town

like i i get that they're being compensated

for what they're doing

but

to me that's not enough to make it a form of wage labor

in mark onal sense of the word

where i'm coming from is the perspective that they are like

they are selling their labor to a bitter

when they're when they're dealing with the relationship

of being

like an employee a worker whatever you want to call them at

and netflix

they are selling their labor

to and like to now i don't think i don't think

that they're selling their labor and the reason because that is because

when a proletarian sells his labor there's

has be a moment in which he can abstract himself

from his labor

and he's just selling that to the capitalist and then internally and in terms of his inner thoughts and his inner subjectivity

he's completely separate he's

here on'm the proletarian i'm going to sell my labor just as mark said like a sheep will sell its hide right

i don't see the part

in this equation were the netflix employees

are

selling something separate from themselves

i think that they are just joining netflix

and

you making a living

by be working at netflix like i don't see how they're

selling their labor

and like i don't see it as like a roaming

you know so it's aerionized persons

something to consider in your position

ted in t

to consider when thinking about your position

the turnover rate

within

particular like i cann't like i'm experienced in like software development but the turnover rate is super high

people like

the

like

field of software

has like incredibly incredibly low

like

i

maintenance of workers from like one year to the next

this is like a radically different situation than say like

the previous generation of the labor aristocracy

which was built onke a factory in a specific town

where that one

like worker

would sell their labor to that factory for the rest of their life if anything i think your argument

stands better in like the previous epoch than it does now

well to be fair it applies also for heavy industry workers who tend to be long term

their job

but it's not so much my point

i think

i personally am not of the view that the pure proletaria today exists in any capacity right i don't think

i don't think it ever existed

what

yeah i mean you could say with the enclosures and that kind of historical thing that that's there was a literary inspiration for it

france and europe and so on that was real

but

m

you know it it's

to me it's like a

the issue

is

on the one hand i'm trying to say that the netflix

worker is not

or a so called worker

is not a traditional proletarian in the sense of marks

on the other hand you could say that no one is today right

but i still think there is a working class

i still think there's a working class in the sense of the

kind of a

a

was

who'se

for way of earning a living actually does in some kind of way produce value

oh

from which

ah monopoly the current form of monopoly h

sorry monopoly capital is a

deriving its rants from

in the form of surpluses

so

that

the the real disagreement i have there is

i

don't believe that the fundamental characteristic

uh

like

the working class as you would define it

nowadays

i don't think

that is best described by

them being involved in

the production

oh

surplus value

i don't think that is the key defining factor of but here's the issue if you're if there's no

if there is no production of surplus value

then there's either no proletarians or there's no capitalism

we there is the production of surplus value

it does happ like

it happens

in increasingly smaller percentages within the united states

it's happening well it was happening particularly from like the eighties until like

i'm around the period we're at right now in increasing volumes outside of the united states because of the victory of the of imperialism over

the anti imperialist blocks

and the export of

productive

capital outside of the united states

right

what i would

like

i don't think that's the essential

feature of being the working class like

fundamentally like

where i am at as a person like my own orientation

as a worker

in the world like

currently i am

a software developer

i could easily pick up a job

and be at netflix and like

being part of this like

like leach on society that you're describing

however

like

i'm also

like

could very easily end up selling my labor in notther context

in

a rather short amount of time

like

just because like i have sold my labor doing so many other things throughout my well what i would say though is that

you at any time you want you can go do door dash rubriads

and

make a living doing you know doing shitty jobs right yeah

you know i think there's this weird idea among leftists

which is that

like

you know all these cultural workers and professionals

are exploited proletarians because

they have to sell their labor and they don't own the companies that they work at

which is this we it's this kind of like weird feudal great chain of being

idea in that light

a doctor is naturally a doctor and that's just part of their inherent

being and they it's impossible for a doctor to just

go work at mcdonald's like the rest of us so that you know i mean by that or

i could

kind of uh would you just

yeah it's like they're making a simplicit assumption that like some people have to be cultural workers because it's just

part of what they are

it's like their identity right

they couldn't possibly get a get a normal general job

like the rest of the population

or go to tril i like

yet there's no reason for them to do that though because they are

like

they are provided

so well above

their subsistence

so they're going to continue to sell their labor to the highest bidders

right but i don't think they're selling their labor at all that's where i think if they're selling their labor and their labor is being bought

then what you're talking about is the valorization of labor by capital

which necessarily implies the production of surplus value

and that is just something that doesn't happen

with professional managerials or cultural classes or whatever you want to call them

no i agree that they like

the thing that you are like correct about in like from my perspective the thing that you're correct about

i like disagree with

saying this just because of like

e

doesn't particularly play well with trying to unite

people who are in like a similar circumstance

but yes they are leaching off of the surplus value of

productive

labor

but also you could say that exact same thing

about teachers

you could say that it that exact same thing about the person a like

manning my d m v like to do two roads down the or two blocks down the road

like

the

the

everything all of the labor that is necessary for our current capitalist arrangement to exist

it doesn't have to be involved in the production of surplus value

we what the reason

see

that's the tricky business

and i'm not saying this issue has been resolved it hasn't and i'm still working on it

but i'm a reason why for example teachers are so relatable and it just sounds so weird to not call them working class

is because i think everyone agrees

that

these are people who share a common fate or some kind of common general fate

shared by them

and shared by other ordinary americans

um

who belong to a similar historical epoch i guess that has instantiated the form of their labor

yet yeah i would you want to say like yeah american workers

and to me

the thing that i am pursuing and what i find

interesting uh

necessary to explore is

why

is there an assumption

with the extent of the socialization of labor that has

happened today

why does there exist this assumption

that value is being produced on the shop floor

why can't value for example

be produced at a more aggregate

level like for example at the level of

geography

of the level of cities at the level of living spaces at the level of of

daily grinds and also at the level of and consumption also playing a factor in that the

as well

why can't it be conceivable that this too

is generating some kind of labor and the reason this sounds wacky and weird like how could consuming be a form of labor right

but

i recall marx's early text where he draws upon the distinction between private property and labor

itself and labor as the subjective essence of private property

and marx his basic idea

is that

the thing that the fines that differentiates human beings from animals

is

the manner by which we transformed the world around us

ok

and

we transform the world around us

uh

and thereby create

in a way that's not consciously willed by us or directly decided by us

the very conditions of our subsistence itself

in contrast to an animal whose conditions of subsistence

are naturally conditioned

but i think i have an idea the essential thing here though but but here's what's important right

now some ok then why doesn't marx consider the philosopher or the artist

or the kind of person working with their head this active imagini person

with the architect why aren't they

the you know most human possible class in our society

but marx's basic idea

is that

this

abstract and general quality of labor

which is to say this baseline way in which

literally just a random dumbfuck who's like

not

brilliant in any capacity not a philosopher not smart

is participating in the process by which the world

is being transformed by human beings in some kind of way

right

marx anddaws essential significance to the proletarian class and the working class

because for him this is the paradox right

precisely because it's such a stupid

base form of work

it is freed

from all of the heavenly

prejudices of the philosopher and the intellectual

and the artist

and

human labor is grinded down to its real mith and rather than imagine real material essence

right

the so for example the philosopher in his

engaging of philosophizing

is imagining a certain way

in which

he is i

i don't know

in a demiurgic way maybe transforming the world in his head right

but

what about humanity so mark says humanity distinguish itself from animals right

in the way in which it

creates the conditions produces the conditions of its own subsistence

right

marxs one of the question of the material essence of humanity

humanity is a material being it's something material which means

humanity isn't something fashioned by the device of thought or by our heads like we are human beings first

and then we are thinkers and artists and whatever second

right

so the reason marx thinks the proletariat is such an important and world historical and revolutionary class

it's because for him

human labor grinded down to its most base and stupid level

and simple level

represents material

the way in which humanity is materially altering the world

around its

rather than the way in which it imagines it's doing so

ok

and so it's just this pure kind of element of material contingency

within the fabric of the

the state and civil society and

you know techno scientific and rational production

here you have just this raw

natural material contingency that is human labor

that's for marx is the very vital source of the

oh

frost

right of the accumulation of money right

so to me how

we have to re evaluate what

that means in this day and age

where we can clearly see that

um

the ways of life the various different ways of life

the way in which people are

making a living and grinding every day and are being grinded down to the most stupid level of

they are reproducing themselves in the force of like

what choices they're making

consumption wisen

how they are making a living how they're driving to and from work and

how the're whatever

like

to me i think this in a sense

ah

has become a form of a

the production of value which

the whatever you want to call them the ruling class are the

profiteers of our society have

been have been extracting value from somehow

so i think i understand what you're trying to describe with this so like

i an example would be like

the

process of what

i

like real estate and finance

did

to

seattle for example

to

destroy it of its like

to basically rid its like

to there was a very rich and valuable culture

that had existed

in

like seattle

that like

it made it like a very appealing and nice place to want to exist

and so

finance and real estate

came in

and

completely

decimated the humanity of that city

and turned it into commodities

that could be sold

to the

laborers

who have like i will call them laborers i'm sticking with that point

but it is being sold to

those people

to

attract them to want to go work out like amazon for example

and

i i think

if i'm understanding that s its it's not so much what i mean

more so what i mean is that

consumption and ways of living have become the point of mater and what i mean by the ways of living

i especially don't mean the people you're talking about the professional managerials

because those are the most conscientious

class of society who fashion their way of life

according to the dictates of their

reflexivity and their imagination and their intentional will

whereas if you look at the actual working class of america

their way of life is going to be a kind of pure contingency which couldn't possibly have been planned for

foreand

it's almost like

it's almost reflected in the difference between families like

some people are hesitant to have families because they're planning it or whatever

and in the working class

they tend to just have babies and then

deal with the repercussions later right so it's it's a very analogous

in terms of what i'm talking about with that i gs yes wt agree with you it's a pure point of material contingency

mmhmm which

we have seen even in the minimals

analysis of what a data economy is

is a real point of contingency that these big tank companies need to

they they sa they need it they need to harvest it otherwise they

have no vital source

from which to augment

and i

optimize their algorithms and so on and so on around

what i would say it is

instead of thinking of that as value

because i do think value like

it fundamentally comes from labor

inviewing commodities like

commodities imbewed with labor to be exchanged a market

yeah i'm justing about thatget about forget about the data economy stuff

what ire youy just i want to make this point what if you cauy just think about it then in a kind of socialistic way in a sense of what

the national economy let's think i think that you let me finish my point i think we have a better

like you you would be intrigued to what i have to say and it would like

build on this

so

what you were describing about like the real human experiences of people who are like

not

thinking in these like liberal abstract concepts but are just like getting by day to day

living their lives and like being human

what i would call that instead of producing value

is that is more like

of raw material

that

capitalists can extract

so you see that happen in cleveland

a similar yeah but that's that's exactly what i was describing

yeat so i guess that the big distinction i want to make is i think considering that like a raw material instead of like value

is like

a way that fits into like marxist analysis better

yeah but that's what i was trying to say it's a pure material condingency just like finding oil under the ground it's something you didn't plan for

and you didn't

account for reflexively so it's a raw material yeah i agree that labor is a vital

raw materi that gets the whole thing going i mean marx is himself working with

at the analogy of the steam engine right in the way that works

and so and how it's being powered and so on and so on and he relates the way labor

engines the economy and engines the process of production in a very similar way

so you mean to say like

that

like

labor imbuing like

y

just like general human experiences that we are all a part of not like not human experiences but the human being literally like

the living human essence

m not so much experience experience as the

that's something else

but sure

the way in which humanity is really reproducing itself

m in the world

yeah and that like

through that process of being a human

you are

like

imbewing just

basically everything in your life with some form of like value is that the point you're trying to make

ah

you are you are you're

through living as a human being according to whatever national standard or whatever cultural standard that happens to be

because again i wanted to talk about the national economy is very important

you are animating and otherwise dead

world

you are the vital source of the ability for it

to you are the reason why there is an excess

of profit over

a whathich you're starting out

mmhmm so but

here's what's important about the national economy because they attention economy stuff is very muddy and it's not really

we

a clearly defined

but what i do have a better on a time understanding is the

understanding these things from the perspective of the national economy

now when we lived in the age of the gold standard

this is a very crucial distinction

gold

a gold

was a this is something marceills had forgotten entirely and completely neglected

but

gold for marx has its value and serve as the universal equivalent in the medium of the universal medium of exchange

because gold is inbued with

labor

gold itself is imbued with labor

um

well and i mean but all the moodities are imbued with labor yeah but

marx is saying that all commodities are just

comparisons to gold

yeah i mean that's that's the way that's why go has fun socially

okay

so gold is the universal equivalent

right mmhm

and you know

so much of so much quantity of gold crystallizes so much of so much quantity of labor in relation to the rest of the

commodities so the cost of the production of gold

is going to be what determines

like gold is literally the price of gold is literally

its value

in the form of its cost of production and so on and so

h

that i mean

i think we're kind of moving like

i mean thinkg the conversation about like gold vers yacht that would be a

different

that wll be here's what's important here's what's important

m

with

the removal of the gold standard and the transition to fe ot currency

the question i meing ok so

h is everything s is do we have a subjective vale of economy now where the

price of the

you know the price of the dollars

completely subjective

and i would say no

because the price of money

in the age of fiat currency is going to be based on exchange with other currencies

and it's with the exchange with other currencies that you're going to find

ah the real price of money

ah

for i think that's why like currency war like

the yeah the particular like the issue of if

like china getting like the digital r and b set up as a feasible way to do exchange along the belt and road initiative

like

that's going to have a just

devastating effect to like

of the but back to the point the question then stands as what is the what really produces the value of a pro of

of

a given currency right so because we know it's not purely subjective we know that it's subjected to to

ratios and equivalentce with other kinds of currencies which is going to be determining its price and its value so what determines the price of money

in an age of fiat currency

because rather if the theory of value was still if the law of value was still the determining

factor in our economies

and if it's still and i if we still live in capitalism so to speak

then fiat currency

must somehow crystallize

and labor value

but we know for example that the price the price of minting

the arts currency is

dirt cheap

it couldn't possibly account for the actual price

of the currency itself

so

when you ask the question what is the price of the currency you start to get the

to an interesting uh

you start to not right anyone convincing on this yet so if you have a recommendation like

or it like because i feel like this is something that's like still a real open question

yeah well it's something i'm kind of working on independently but

when it comes to national economies

um

let's take a moment and depart from the

the currency issue the

what's terms forot currency and move to this on

this point about how every single state on earth has in a sense become a worker's state

and by a worker estate

ah i kind of met it in an ironic sense just in the sense of like

that this

there has

there is a minimum

of an expectation

of a

of the working classes as the basis the material basis

of the state power

a within the united states

you have the working class

is inexorably tied

do um

the the regulatory political state in the form of for example

this through labor regulations and the relationship between the state and corporations and unions

and um

this kind of baseline expected standard of living

and employment that is expected in a given country

we saw with trump

the way in which jobs were such an important focal point of his his

campaign and his presidency of bringing back the jobs

to the american worker

um

and as a matter of fact

the reason why

trump was talking about

currency manipulation on part of china and he was so focused

on' giving the united states once again an industrial ledge

wasn't really because he was looking out for capitalists because the capitalists are the ones who are responsible for the united states

losing its industrial edge

it was actually about the workers

because if the united states has an industrial edge

then the workers

have

employment

right industries will come back and we'll get jobs workers will be able to you

mm

so my my response to that is

i

wholly disagree that the what trump was doing was

for the workers

i feel like he was a representative of

the like

national bourgeoisie within the united states the people who make their money

of a

the national economy

he was wo o you have in mind

ah

who do you have in mind

i like the the

pinnacle example is like the c e o of home depot

who was like one of the biggest supporters of donald trump

other ones were like fracking really liked him and like

b people were really focused on like

the development of like

specific

area of ne

i can understand the home depot

a but i'm not sure if that's just because it's the national

ah bourgeoisie

but

because the home depot has you know its

the wath it's customers and what it actually does and all that kind of stuff

but i mean there's other companies that

you know arts

mostly operating through the united states

that definitely were against trum

finally yeh i will in fracting industry i kind of get that but

they were just

that's

republicans right that's nothing new with trump

to me the decisive what are of that differentiated trump

from the rest of the g o p was

at trump was trying to make a deal with the american worker

wringing jobs

from overseas

an anti immigrant rhetoric

and anti nafta rhetoric

the only reason he was saying that he was appealing to the american worker

yeah i mean so what trump was like

the role that everanything else the republicans were already doing

yeah i agree with that

and what the the innovation of trump

for the republican party

is he recognized at the national bourgeoisie

needed to enter into an alliance

with

like

sections of the working class

what

the the he did he did so much like i'm also from michigan he did so much work

trying to get

american workers to buy into his national project

i don't know if it's

i don't know what's so no so then by the national busz wasi you mean the oil industry

and you mean domestic

i don't we i think i also mean like the real estate that is like not tied up in like like

the international like

financial capitalist class

so like

for i mean

today

that's another example of it i mean here like

so many like smaller real estate people just like fuckin loved trump

like he was their hero

that's like small business owners in general like so yes small business owners as well like

i mean what do you like

what trump was trying to do

like what his b those aret don't

those people like don't have any like entrenched

lass interest

in the sense of like they can foresee this political vision political project

you know to

to to

to fulfill this net it's it's

i mean know i mean like he's speaking to the way in which their class interests

like

overlay

with white

the reality of america

so he's not saying like

well he was actually saying hey you small business owners vote for me

but he was also

basically saying that in

many other ways which you would just specified like

anti nafta anti immigration all of those things like

that like

that was very much to

put

create an alliance between like

segments of the working class

uh segments of the the teapours was the

under the leadership of the national bourgeoisie

that just kind of like sounds like mamy wisdom but

to be honest

i don't think that sounds like malism

what

we're sing how do how does it

yeah i guess like how do you think because like in from my ser i just wed s talk abut like the patriotic was was he

but

i

sure

what

i don't i don't know if i agree with that because

i don't see a demonstrably different class interest between the american worker and small business owners for example

uh no i think like small business owners and the american workers

could build like a very very deep alliance with one another no i mean i don't think they need to build an alliance at all i think they are actually like the same

class more or less it's like the same talk to talk to any worker who is hired by a small business owner and you will get a much older not youll want as a older not those are not the workers of trumps rank and file

no that's why said a segment of the that's why you have to be careful about what you're talking about because that it has no explanatory value

to describe as workers just those who don't own businesses no i was very intentional to say like segments when i was talking

well

these small business owners

mhmm

and

when i say ok let me preface what the american worker means ok

does i mean the same thing here that trump meant

the american worker

is the worker

who benefited

as a result

who benefited and was entwined with

the infrastructure of american statehood

through the form of unions and through the form of a

the federal labor standards and regulations and national industrial policies

and so on and so on

that more or less set about to create a national policy of the american dream the american worker works at a factory

or works at some heavy industry

uh they got a white piget fence house and they got a car and they got a family and h

whatever this is kind of

it's like a national peasantry

right it's like an emperor

it's like napoleon's small peasantry that the

napoleon ended serfdom and he gave everyone a plot of land and that was the basis of his support political

every single state in the twentieth century that has

withstood the test of time

a before the era of so called neoliberalism

had this specific relationship with this population and there was a

there was a

all of these were workers republics to say ironically

right they were

demo democracies that had emerged on the basis of a social contract

with the working class

yeah so i'm not talking about driving them with imperialist prophets or whatever the folk like

talking about the like a constitution

the constitution of these states

not the paper constitution like the building well i mean like the rhetoric of the american dream and what that constitutes in the mind but yeah thats more of a reality than the constitution on american workers in like the fifties

yeah

ok so when marks i sorry when

trump talks about the american worker he's talking about like then the workers as a national class almost like a peasantry

he' is talking about a say like

he is

speaking to a segment of the working class that way i do agree with that

well

that is what's meant by the working class

for most america

i don't knoww york

sir

i don't think that's the case

it is it fundamentally is i mean

sometimes i think if you were involved

a bit more with like

real life organizing and like working with unions you would reach a different this is where i don't belive but the you ext one on on

those

organizations and some of those unions

i've created an insular culture that is divorced from the sentiments and colloquial views of the majority of

the american people went

when you say the when somer said the american worker

people knew what he meant

ok

and when most of the time when people say the working class

they are referring to blue collar

you know

workers they're referring to those type of people

now could they also be referring to

you know i

people struggling to get by in the urban context of people working at seven eleven and working for small businesses and grinding day in and day out

sure they could in some context it could also refer to that

but i think you're also what the images that get conjured when you speak of the working class that i think you're missing here

is like

the like

the nurses the bus drivers the like

all of those people as well

which

they tend to align themselves more

like politically like just

as the the

natural reality

that put them

that they are under

leads themselves to being aligned more with the democrats

then the republicans

yeah but

when it comes to yeah that's true but um

i guess in some contexts that that's what people have in mind when they're referring to the working class

but

you have to understand when i say the american worker were yeah again

look like

it's

i don't actually know why bus drivers i actually do know about how bus drivers are uh

mostly more left leaning in general

nurses also makes sense to me although

you know

to me

there's a kind of clear fetacization of nurses as like

proof of

authentic working class support for a left wing and i think it's a complete ofuscation

which the nurses are one of the exceptions right and there's a very clear reason for that exception

but you could also say with like teachers as well

and at this point like yeah youre but all of those have in common here's the important thing is that all those have in common is that

they are the

there are poorer segments of professional managerials

i

if you wasn't makeing argument so so i understand

where your

i think where this is going as you're saying that like

the workers that are involved in the production of surplus value

tend to align themselves more with trump

workers who were not

don't

right

i i mean yeah i'd agree with that and i think that's the reason why

i

like

the

the workers who are not involved in the production of surplus value

don't want to

get into conflict

with china nearly as much

because they aren't competing

with china

over production of surplus well i just want to be clear about two things so the first th is that

i just want to clarify when i say that they're the look for part of the press managerials

you cauln also say they're working class though because they're not just professional managerials they also represent

a kind of general state to the american people as a whole like oh you could be a nurse or you could be a teacher

it's a very common qression

but to the extent

that they seek to

to preserve their class

which i doubt the majority of them actually want to do

as individuals

then they would that's the extent it would be professional managers but again i don't think the production of value was happening at the shop floor anyway so

it's an important distinction

um yeah that's something i total a disagreement between us

but i don't

i don't think

that

the american workers

fve

striving to return

the lost sense of livelihood they used to have which is also similar to the ways in which

proletarians were dreaming about returning to the the

lost form of peasant

livelihood they used to have right

but i don't think that's actually driving the conflict with china because

trump's trade war

has actually emboldened and

strengthened

the populist forces within china

who are waging an internal class war with their own professional managerial class

that was american alline

so there was this implicit sense of solidarity

within china

between and this is the early stages of trump i mean their early years

between the chinese jijan ping

movement

and the trump

and this is this was such an extensive

sense of implicit solidarity that even by twenty twenty

if you asked a random chinese person he who you going to what you want to win in the twenty twenty election

it would say trump comrade trump right

definitely him

um

now the reason

the trade war

ah

i don't think is inherent is the actual material basis of the coming conflict of china

that has manifested itself

in the form of the kind of

and this is what trump was responsible for during the hong kong protest

and after gron a virus

into a cont the form of like

american

ideological humanitarian and political

intervention within china along the lines of democracy and ideology and

chinas was totalitarian say

there that's when you see it the geopolitical manifestation of the united states is and circling of china

yeah for example when trump was

confronted with the so called or you order situation in shinjong

trumbs like i don't give a fuck who gives a shit you know what i mean like

so to me i don't think the trump movement was inherent was

is actually responsible

or is

what has actually accelerated the united states is conflict with china

i think s didn't want to

never wanted a conflict with any country

himself so i took to respond to that in other words the american worker by nature is anti war

yeah i agree entirely with that

so i mean like just

like my my dad is a like trump supporting like

sheet metal worker from west michigan

and like

he doesn't

hold much ill will towards china

he just sees the fact that china has been built up

and

the united states has been crumbling

he reaches the conclusion that we're being robbed

and

the

national like the

the media

there has to be a very very intentional

work done

by the media

in order for that

feeling to be turned into onet in conflict with china

it's not like you know for example

taiwan

you know like who cares about taiwan right

o i mean when i when i like when i explained to my parents that like we technically invaded taiwan they were like what the fuck

yeah

no i agree with that entirely but my my criticism of the entire truck because like i agree with what you said about

like

the con upcoming conflict with china being bigger than trump

that's evident by the fact that it was started by the pivot to asia by obama

like i agree with that as well

ight

the real

issue with trump is

you like

at the end of the day

i believe that in less

the working class of the united states is the one leading the political struggle

the national bourgeoisie are going to sell us out

to the imperialists and that's what the trump presidentcy you know i i more or less agree with that

ok

but

and not thing towo

yeah i mean i'm more or less agree with that i also think that trump i mean my my narrative the official line

here

despite all the pro trump stuff we do as a mean the official line is that trump deceived american workers

and false and he that he wasn't actually able

hes our theory

what we're coming from is the we were trying to say that

he

i don't know if i would call it the national bouseoisie but let's just call it

he

the ruling the segment of the ruling class that was behind trug

is inherently embedded and wedded to

the international globalist establishment

was our basic

was our basic idea right

so i understand which what you're saying with that but

my my contribution to that perspective

is not necessarily that they are wedded

to and they're out there in the way in which they subsist as a class

yeah yeahye

they exist in their reality which means trump would was not able to be anti establishment enough

yeah i think that like

i agree with that as well like you know fundamental issues with trump's presidency

is like

he was not like

didn't have

the perspective

of the working class he had the perspective of the people who were paying him to be there

he wasn't thinking about the possibt

the necessary work that needs to be done to build an alliance between say like undocumented workers in the united states and documented workers

because

that's just not the

frame in which he was processed worl yeah and that's also why he was unable to for example like

tap into other grievances with the democrats that you're going to find aong

you know black people and other kind of things

but yeah y have son yeah but one of the things i was going to say though was that on

mark were for that

i was going to say is that the

where were we right before we were talking about that

uh shit we've talked about so much um

i

we were talking about china and the cut we're talking about the coming conflict with china

i can't remember back further than that

um oh yeah yeah what i was going to say is that

one of the one of the things though that i have to i have to point out though is that

among these professional managerials even teachers and nurses

you do find people who are

you know are willing to buy into

thed

you know narratives about beating the drums of war against

totalitarian evil china on that

we need to have an embassy for taiwan and hong kong and

like you know the oig genocide and all this kind of stuff like

though it seems to me like and especially when you spin it in a way that

like if you spin the war in afghanistan oh it's about women's rights and l g b t and black lives matter i don't know how that figures

like it seems to me that this is the modern day equivalent of a labor aristocracy which is the rank and file of a

imperialist now you could just say

that it's an arbitrary result of ideologies

but

what is it about this professional managerial class that lends itself so strongly into

adopting these kind of liberal idiologies

um

that's the basis of american international imperialism

yeah i guess we haven't really got to talk about it but like

i

by

chris so my perspective on that is like

i do not consider the p m c to be a class i don't think that's well what it whatever we ok even if you don't consider them a class se

you still recognize that the people i'm talking about are different than the american worker so to speak and i am so

what

eight

what that what you're describing with p m c in my perspective

it's just

the blake

the ruling ideas of like

our ruling class right now and but you some cific stratum of highly urbanized people and highly institutionalized classes that

perform

primarily mental work

themselves

yes

and

there is something about that glass which derives its

means of living on the basis of thin air and abstraction and doesn't se value as you acknowledge

there's something about that class that lends itself into being the rank and file of

and i was

so if we're like to specifically because i think there is a

i don't

i don't see like anarcho imperialists coming out of like

teachers unions or like o oh definitely not but it would it would rely coming like ily from fucking tech

that's where it's coming yeah yeah that's what i was going to say

onundred percent from tex but yeah teachers for example may not be anarcho imperialists because they they're probably got whatever

but when you bring up like human rights abuses and violations

you know they're going to think about it like oll you know i understand that it's a matter of human rights and

yeah

i so what i would say is that we're not they're not clt re not like the vanguard of like the imperialist culture war

globally but

they're still somehow wedded to us imperialism and lacked

the kind of skepticism of the establishment that you do find among

the productive work

uh

i think so my disagreement with that is

i think you see

you see that

go

across both productive

it like

labor that is involved in producing surplus value and labor that is not

because i mean

really

to it connects back to what i was saying about there just like

that's not like the natural

tendency of that class

even if they are like productive or unproductive

labor whether they are teachers nurses or like factory workers

it's something that has to be like really really driven into them over and over and over again

like i bok

bth my parents are trump supporters and they've talked about i don't know about that so because i even think that a lot of these people take an active role in doing this

you know it's not uncommon even to find teachers

who are just active ideology like they're the ones trying to drive

these ideas into people

you know regularly

especially especially when it came to like voting for biden and you know

supporting the democrats and kamala harris and

ve

the reason that happened is and also sorry also

we're also witnessing a really sharp

add demarcation on class lines

of the vaccines and vaccine mandate specifically and actually

it's really tragic that

so much attention was stiphled to the

netflix

because i'd to me it seems like a deliberate distraction from the actual

nationwide strikes going on by workers who are resisting

this point here is like in my opinion like

thk

dumbest thing that both you and oz were hitting on over the past i will

or i sorry you and h jackson

i bed yeah

the uh

the dumbest thing i think you guys were hitting on

was like trying to uplift the struggle against vaccine mandates as like the real demand of the working class right now

when if you like look at the actual like

conflicts that are leading to strikes

like

vaccine mandates are not

really coming up at all

the only cases where vaccine mandates are having a relevant effect is when like

the ten percent of workers who

are not going to get the vaccine no matter what

just refused to get it

and the vaccine mandate has to be lifted because there's a labor shortage right now

but that's not like the base of the real

labor struggles that are happening right now that's not one of m

i

i just i

don't think and you know i know it's true is because you just have to look at europe

look at berlin and look at italy and look at france and look at germany the same things going on here

now

you know i'm not saying that the vaccine nutes are the only cause for all these strikes going on in the united states

but these shows hew are a factor

so that yeah the way in which they are a factor is because

there's a portion of

the american working class

that will literally not get vaccinated because they don't sruggle the establishment

yeah one hundred percent like what

go

the idea that lake

that that

just the entire roll out of this entire vaccine like

a distribution and everything like

it you can see and the entire history of like the american medical industry like

yeah it makes sense that there is an entrenched ten percent of the american working class

who refuses to get vaccin yeah i don't know if it's ten percent

it's that's a

in like new york it was like sixty thousand of like four hundred sixty thousand nurses or something that's

ok yeah ok fro you're from michigan to righte so you understand w'm coming from when i say ten percent is very hard

me to understand

me to know i understand what you mean both like

both of my parents will not get vaccinated yh like it's

it's something that like if i were to base it off of my personal experiences i would not be saying

ten like i would not be saying ten percent

this is come from just like kingt in new york among nurses it's ten percent that would tell me that it's like extremely higher for the general population

because that's nots b so it's new york which is blue

and then he's also nurses

who work in the medical field and are overwhelmingly disposed

by working in the medical field to get vaccinated so the fact that on ten percent of them

aren't doing it

i would also sak nurses are some of like

the

so just

this isn't nursing but this is my own

work

experience like

i'm in an incredibly blue part of ohio right now in couyaoga county where cleveland is at

and i work for a tech company

that specializes in medical imaging

and so we have people

at her workplace

that is responsible for like

a regulation type stuff

and like

those are the people those are like

the only segment of like my coworkers

that have just like hardcore refused to get the vaccine

in a like

and that seems to be less based on class but more based on just

you know

they

they can they cay just see the

they're just spooked by what they've seen basicly

yeah i mean you you like

you

if you were working in thela

the american medical system is like fucked up

and like it makes sense that so many like

intense backwards conspiracies come from it

yeah yeah i understand that

god on

yeah well well anyway i mean

there's strike they're all i mean to say there's a lot of strikes going on

and one of the a big proxy for the strikes is the

it's as far as if they're getting a cultural expression

is this issue of vaccines which is a really big contentious issue in america right now like

in contrast to the trans thing or whatever which most americans just don't give a fuck about

vaccines are a huge huge point of

intention here in the united states

and it's also a big proxy for class as well

like the

people who

o

really big and enthusiast for vaccines are just not the working class

and

it seems like if someone's skeptical of vaccines

they're going to be they're going to have this peasant

like quality about them this rule like quality about them

mmhmm that

just very clearly you know

to me

yeah i mean it's like did you did you see the uh like andrew callahan like channel five new yeah like yeah youyeah eah

the not warning you know always in the back scene or whatever

just like

very

confused and paranoid perspectives about like what the people who own our men medical industry are doing

yeah and i do think that has a very strog like

that

is analogous to the like

peasants understanding of the world

the peasant understanding i should say

yeah and that's also that's also why like for example small business owners

and

the american worker have in common the facts

that

i don't know

if i could call small business owners

capitalists

you know a capitalist is someone who sets up shop to make a dirty profit and then it's like a carpet bagger right

a small business owner

seems like an entrenched peasantry to me today of small i owning peasant

i think people are trying to keep

the small business is going do you have that character to them like they have this like just

drive to continue its rights as it's a small

land owning peasant

who's we they're still subject to the logic of capital and a lot of those people get destroyed and turned into

workers

well that's also what happened to small landowning peasants too

yeah one hundred percent

i think i think i agree with like the it the like cultural analogy that you're making

you know

i guess the thing i want to say about the vaccine mandates

i

i

i do not believe that is where the real

i like

that represents like

a segment of the working class and like

the

just the it it's a cultural it's a cultural thing

right yeah and it's a it's a cultural thing that has been allowed to be given

a ton of

expression

because

at the end of the day

like

a struggle over maxine mandates is entirely different than a struggle over the number of hours you're going to work or what your wages

so we one to one of them wi is expounded into the terms of culture and therefore

is translatable

in mass culture

and the other one is just

not inherently cultural or ideological or anything else so oftentimes the cultural form of class struggle will take

these kinds of forms

see but i guess my perspective is that

cultural form

is

being

intentionally prioritized

over

the actual demands of like the john deere shah i don't the reason i don't know about that is because

those demands arere those that to sort of speak those demands are boring right it's harder to relate to those demands believe it or not

like google c n n vaccine mandates and then google c n n john deere strike

yeah but goog you know google and c n n are are operating on the basis of attention and clickues and so i don't

i think they're doing it on purpose i think it's just because

that's w'reing s wereing about the walkout over transitiones

hmm

but you could say the same thing about the walko out walkout over transition i think the difference is that the walk out over the transitsue

i think when comes to the resistance of the vaccine mandates

as well as these other strikes those are spontaneous phenomena have

right

we hope

that

walk out

seems to me to be a kind of artificial

creation whether it was intentionally

propped up by the mediea or not

it seems to me

objectively speaking it functions as a distraction

the same thing about the vaccine mandates as well

no and the reason why is because that is an extremely spontaneous sentiment that people have that doesn't have to be engineered into them

it's a clear but ok also this way the masses of people are not going to unite around

ah economic issues

because economic issues are too direct they're going to do it through the form of culture right and within the culture

the vaccine mandate is a proxy

whether you agree with or not is a proxy for class a lot of the time when you're telling someone you're against the vaccine mandate

it's a form of class virtue signaling it sometimes right

yeah

so what i would say to that is

i would say the same thing about like the uh

like walkout that happened at netflix

it's a similar idea where it is like

it is something that like

there's very clearly like

a strong base within the united states

that like

has a visceral reaction

to like

the shit that chapelle was saying

wait that's when i don't think look but it's just not spontaneous is the issue it is like it doesn't apito myze the like an existential crisis of the broad majority of the american people

weres the vaccine mandates very much do they embody

embody the embody the political state in the

age of covert which has been the most fundamental

revolution in the forces of production and in like

yeah decades the situation nw it's like nobody gives a shit about you know everyone and as a matter of fact people like

american people like chapelle no one

like that issue

is not an issue but the vaccine mandate thing is an issue for most people

no i

so what i would say is the chapell thing is a real issue for people

it's just

not all most people they don't give a shit

but also most people don't give a shit about the vaccine mandates no they that's the thing though is that

i think most people do

i i think most people are have an opinion on vaccines i've never s met someone who didn't have an opinion on them

whether they're for it or against it

people have a really strong opinion on vaccines and vaccine mandates

whereas i know a lot of people who just

may not have they just may not give the maye they may have some opinion but like

we don't

it' doesn't seem it's not relevant to their lives

the vaccining is relevant to everyone's life you know this go so we' to we're grounding this in sort of like anecdotes

my parents have brought up complaints about trans people to me just like i don't know i know that but

and also up like yeah yeah i guess that but that's first of all that's not the first thing would be

more people are spontaneously averse

to this l g b t

uh changes

in our culture

whatever you want to cose

more people are spontaneously averse to those if anything right

um if they do have a stance on it it's that they

they're like hi what the fuck is going on right that's how most people are looking at it

i jess i think you're just that's the that's the portion you want to give expression to know talkings io i'm speaking from a perspective devoid of bias i don't have i may disagree with that

no i don't insulate myself

in a specific culture i talk to ordinary run of the mill people

and

look i like i

i don't know if you'd need to take a surveyor i don't know if you need to do this like

it is just without contention that the overwhelming majority of american people

i a dou side with dave chapelle over the trans issue

and they're even way more reactionary than dave jappellon

that's something i know one hundred percent

to be true

not only do they side with thedave chappelle

there are like a thousand percent even more reactionary than he is

it is maybe at most twenty to thirty percent

who are against dave chappelle

at most

i would say a teical thing you it being more than

thirty percent that's on even thirty percent is so excessive to me

twenty percent

even sounds high to me you know

i what i would say is the vast majority of

like

from my my personal experience

the vast majority of people

have put

extremely little thought into

this entire situation but that's what i said initially

no i so

i

that's what i said initially and i said

the vaccine thing by contrast is something everyone's been thinking about because it directly concerns

everybody

yeah and that i i do agree with what you are saying there

bye

like the

the vaccine situation is

incredibly real because

the pandemic has been incredibly real for people

and so

there is

just frankly so it's a very clear

political mass cultural political

and class proxy in our society

i don't think it's a class proxy though why not

i just like

from if you're going to trust like polls

vast majority of polls show that like american people are in favor of

vaccine mandates it's like

i me in seventy percent from what i have seen and that io llook look

pluck

those polls i don't know where you got that poll from but

i am willing to bet like my wife's savings that it' is not true

i

i am not ok i'm not having i i mex mandates

i've met so many people who don't want vaccine or want vaccine mandates

up until

they realize that enforcing vaccine mandates

will cause less people to be showing up to work and force the there's so september twenty fourth

they said sixty three were in favorite but then on the thirtieth

they said fifty one were in favor of it

i don't i don't even think it's i don't even buy it could be fifty one that's just

unbelievable to me i think the currently the opinion on vaccine mandates is

rapidly dropping

and that is because

people are realizing that with vaccine mandates

come more intense labor shortages

um

whatever the reason whatever look whatever the reason may be i

have no idea how they were conducting those poles

five

i simply do not believe them

i really i mean that's going to be a disagreement it defies the laws of physics to me that

it defies all known natural laws and all laws of god and laws of the universe

and laws of thate you wust you have faith in that like

we have

two different faates in the reality of that situation so you really think the majority of americans are in favor of vaccine mandates

yeah because they've been told that vaccine mandates are the way to get out of the

like

yes i

i don't know what planet that's from but that

i have no way of

like that just

i

i don't know maybe

that i mean that's like ma we can't we just can't agree on that

but yeah i i was saying like you're not going to agree on that but anyway you

yeah my point is my point is that

the reason the media doesn't give attention to labor struggles all the time

it's because they're not cultural enough

and culture is what gets attention

everything has to be mediated by culture to get attention in mass

culture

right be'cause it's that's why it's mass culture right yes i

no and that's that is exactly why the vaccine mandate and the like walkouts

are the things because those are the things tied to culture

yeah

i agree with that

yeah

i think just all in all

i think here's what i was say right all in all

even though we completely disagree

about class and marxism

we can't even really explore those reasons

that thoroughly because

we would both have to agree

that

marxism today is like no one actually has a solid grasp

oh

these concepts of class

a and

his

the even how capitalism works and how it's been able to work in the twenty first century

i agree entirely i think the

the level of discourse within

marxism that is published in the english languagees

well below what it needs to be

yeah like there there's too many things that are unresolved for people to be running with the conclusion

you know that

like

you know

i just personally think it's getting out of hand like i see comic book

writer saying you know

our labor as comic book writers is being exploited and

you know or i don't know if you agree with this personally or the whole prostitution thing where they're saying

the act of having sex produces value

and produces erinous value

you know like i don't

and that a prostitute is the true

communist worker because they own their own means production ak there pussy right

i don't like i fall with like hall and tie on her perspective ok good yeah i mean you got to agree that like

they people american leftists have just taken marxism

to they've taken such a like a weird left

the taken such ad turn on it where

it's like how are they drawing these conclusions where

none of this stuff is resolved in the first place of what

any of this means

mmhmm

like no one it is from constant involvement by b

in constant involvement and maintenance

by a

what i what is like

colloquially called the deep state

that's like yes fundamentally preventing a lot of the shit from

being investigated further

yea i bru with that

yeah

so

what i would want it

i'm going have to wrap up here i just want to end with like my statement on like

the netflix walkout

because like i do

disagree

with

your position on it and you can continue to dissect this after i get off but

i

fundamentally like

what my perspective on is on it from looking at it

it is

inan issue

h

cross class like

work

by trans people and people who consider themselves allies

to change the ruling ideas

oh

society as they exist

to better represent

the like trans issues

that is what we are seeing right now

it is like

it is

characteristically different

from the labor strikes that are going on

and

the fact that like that difference can't be teased out

without people losing their minds

is incredibly frustrating

even though

i

personally

du side

like i side with trans people in their struggle to change

the existing ruling ideas

to be more inclusive to

their experiences well i guess i justt ever

yeah i kind of wish we would have talked about that a little more because

the way i look at it is that

there

their stance

in terms of their ideas to me is entirely bougeois

it's an entirely bousgeoise stance in relation to cultu

now

the relation they're trying to establish two cultures

you know of trying to like

create all these demands to

um

the thing is there are there are

both proletarian and bors why

demands of trans people that exist today in the same way like i'm gay

but there are

like yeah pletarian and bors wi gay demands in the world to we i can i can kind of see that

in the sense of like you know

a lot of ordinary trans people just want to stop being harassed and just want to be left alone and be able to live their life

but on the other hand

this radical view about the nature of gender itself

right and

how

and this kind of paranoia view of how like

we need to dismantle all of our implicit biases and implicit

you know

partialities in relation to

culure that to me is a fundamentally bourgeois like all is that is solid melts into air stance and reactionto culture

if people

people

it should be completely free to do that as individuals and within their communities

and i think what's happening

is

the bourgeoisie

which they do

ever like they do this with gay issues as well

they want to weaponize like

our demands to be respected as a community

in order to justify like

imperialist interventions around the world

and i think like

that

hasn't been teased out nearly enough but like

that phenomenon is a real phenomenon that is happening in the world today

i mean i see it like

with the image of like the dude from nato like holding up the nato uh

like

the i

like nato symbol on the pride flag

is like one of the most like thiscerally disgusting things i have ever seen in my life as a gay person

the fact that way

there

defacing our flag in that way

and then using it as justification to go genocide like

afghani like

soon to be like a a

ukrainian if we don't stop them but like

i let i

like

leven people from like libya extc like

the fact that they are using our flag to do that is

fucking disgusting and it is like

i wish

i

like

communists would take a firmer stand on

that reality of

the l g b t q struggle and actually like uplift

the real like proletarian characteristics of it

yeah i mean um

ya i understand i i'm not l g b t myself so

i don't really understand

i lack an understanding you probably do have

you know about that whole thing but um you know

all i can say is that you know i just

be respectful to different cultures is the bases of it yeah yeah that's really that's how to think it

yeah

go

well i think that's a good point for us to end on so i'll catch you later

this's goo chatting

t

m hold on

thinking about

lying the twenty eighth

bas

hhuh

ya okay

mouslim we're going to do that tomorrow or some shit

we're going to do that tomorrow like the real life one right

i the muslim goes someing hunting is not happening

right

or that sorry arab ghost hunting is not happening

but i might go to one huntred house i i'll figure some out some iral shit i'll figure out to do tomorrow

but

m

this reminded me that i need to hit the books and go back to capitoal volume three

again and reread it

because

you know one

i remember being able to be more clear about my thoughts on this matter but

like i'm sorry on the relation between landed property and capital but

i kind of had a brain for it because it it's been dusty it's been a

a long time but on

i'm going to hit the books again and you know

oh let me tell you guyslet me you something

else

you'll listen

this book i got

soh

i don't know w this walking guy is

ro this book sucks i'm sorry this book is ass

this is this literally this book

fuck and reads like it was written by a falck and five year old

who jack weatherford you saw

you know i'm so sick of holding people to such a high standard

as i was thinking this is this book is going to contain like brilliants

right

and i read it

and it's and lia reads like a children books it's like

it's like

and then gangis khan

did this

and then gangis khan did that

and then gang is con di this

and then gingis kan did that

and gengz khan

was really nice to people and that he was mean

and gang is kind of it dude shut thep ff i thought this was going to be like

this shit sucks dude honestly it sucks

i need to read a book by like non western author because

western authors just have this individualistic

prejudice

um why did i even get that book in the first i don't fucky n know but

it's literally like history channel tear garbage

why do i assume brilliance for everyone i just i just have a bias

were i just

charitably assumed

like there's so much brilliance

in these books that there's just none in

m

a you willing to have another debate yes sure i'll have another debate

let me grab a protein and then get in soho cute

it is so cu and i have anther tobate

let me go pain

get my protein in there

com so come man sol love soul love

mobo

i'm doing like a star to cat stop my son i'm fing sod don my head i'm soorllow i'm mad and sollow i'm mad and soorlow i'm mad and sol love solo yeah i'm feeling good tonight finally do with me and it feels so right oh

tn do the things that going to the club everythings right oh no on so no one is goo and since i got that hold ofn i'm living life now that i'm free to make yourk now i come up now i made it through the w the days i don

i'm so sorry that it didn't work out i i'm so sorry but it is so n the pain is gone in t place to cover bk i'm tuking the my bad im heading down to i'm soo i'm mad and soorlow i'm mad and soorlow im mad and solo like a star to cat stop

i'mm i'm mad so im mad so lo now i'm feling ho never new single could do this stop player missun the stod back in the game w so fla i must bdings myself make me on a single

yy yehyh toll me cam up together now i comt muk toe now i made it through the weth the ba days i tnk i'm so sorry i'm so sorry but its so the pain is

mstakeing bd i'm heading down to i'm so i'm ma soorw i'm ma soorrow i'm ma so love like story stop my san i'm notting fve down my hed i'm soor love i'm mad soorw love i'm mad soorrow love im mad soorw love so

walking open this man i'm putting the mustakes to cover open touping themd heding out to imllow

i man so ove i man so think man so love like a star i can't stop my s i'm ing manm i man so o a man soor i man so ma

com so come man sour love sour lou

botle

i'm doing like a star to cat stop my son i'm buting fdn my i'm soorlow i'm mad and soorlow i'm mad and soorlove i'm mad and soul love soo yeah i'm feeling good tonight finally do with me and it feels so right oh

can to do the things i like going to the club everythings right oh no one answer so no one is go no and since i got that hold of men i'm living life now that i'm free y to make your buk togeth now i come uk now i made it through some

i do get and soak you

but the's a bosspuer we have an inergaors f you n g o r i l l a and we have a ost thank you so much danny

we got a vos viewer in purgatory and we got a guy o disctan

youa would u

hello hello

can you hear me yeah it was up

philosophy if that's not

good

the

yes

you

and the larm

so i will right

ah

sorry you got up

no

mm

you guys here my can here

hello

who's this

whose why sing it's at to

hello

now let me m enter

hello

oh can you hear me

yeah i can hear you

okay hopefully i

oh i'm

are you like a believing muslim

a

this is a hard question to answer

m

n let's just say i have

regained and developed a special relation to islam

the'sch so much so that

i can't say i'm just an atheist

thank

i sine

i i do identify as a muslim yeah fundamentally i do i do but

in terms of being a good muslim who follows the precepts of the religion in an orthodox way

uh no i'll be

but

as do i do identify as a moussmia

hundred percent

but like in not any dogmatic or binding way i'm assuming

no but in a deep

spiritual literary artistic aesthetic

in cultural sense i am fundamentally a muslim

yeah

yeah because

though the contention that i was thinking about was

know if you think about it

islam and then you have the other abrahamic confession

they sort of

contradict dialectical materials

i was trying to think about it

yeah hello

i think you gout out again

hello

hello

uh for

and

me 't ben't know

and this is an interesting convo too

thele meat le alon on the bce ship

let me telly commencial request ight

i'm really sorry ma i guess you're back you're back

can you can you hear me now

mmhmm

okay hopefully now now it doesn't lag well what i' would have to say that is that

i'll tell you what

i inm bark

were you are you able to hear me this whole time in case it cuts out

what

are you able to hear me even if it cuts out

yes yes

i'll tell you why i came to appreciate islam again

personally speaking right

um obviously might

muslim backgrounds are huge factors so i can't discount that and say that it's just

completely

don't a uh

accidental but

i wanted to

re evaluate and study marxist views on religion which were so important for the development of marxism

the context of the young hagelian rejection of religion in general right

and

to me

what became very obvious to me was speaking about the whole thrust of marxis humanism

in general

and the development of dialectical materialism as such was that at the time within nineteenth century europe

because of the peculiar development of western christianity

as well as the development of european culture

there came to be dis association between

christianity and this kind of

spirit so christianity was associated with

s the um

sphere of thought philosophy statehood

and spirituality and you know higher things

and that was contrasted to the secular and material world which was associated with judaism and jewish people because

and the old testament is when god creates the world

so he goes about the muddy business

you know making the dirt in the world and

the earth's in

forming it

yah and he's a young

and then later on with christianity

marx calls it the sublime thought of judaism right it becomes a

spiritual for marks

these are different forms of the estrangement of one humanity so remarks basically saying humanity is a

isolating the material aspect of itself and

a

divorcing itself from itself

and

on the other hand it's isolating the spiritual aspect of itself in the form of religion

and also isolating itself from itself

so then we get to a paradogx when what marx writes about the jewish question

and when marx writes about the jewish question why it is that in europe there is a jewish question in europe at the ne

after we'd secularizing and we're you know we're christians

dealing with a christian as ore were secular progressives

dealing with this christian state

what about

jewish people like what is their stat like jewish people for example don't have any

religious rights recognized

and the state is inherently christian

and marsh's responding to a guy

his name is

i can't believe ever got his bruno bar

so please t sor guys take points away from your

got

if i got that wrong bral bar

he's responding to him because bruno bar is basically saying why are jews protesting against the christian state

when even we atheist progressive whatever people

even we don't

have rights in this christian state

what you know why are

like what is this peculiar thing about them that makes them so

you know different and so special or whatever right i guess that was kind of the idea

so when marx is responding to this

marx basically comes to the conclusion that

the and he basically foresees european he basically they

anticipates european anti semitism and all this kind of stuff

uceley says

that

um

in marxist view i don't think it is necessarily correct

right i've talked to jewish religious people as well who

don't agree with marks here but

he's speaking something true for his time right which is not so much about the jewish religion or jewish viele but

about the development of his own philosophy

and

for him

the christian state

on the one hand

because it has a worldly incarnation is inherently hypocritical

right

it pretends to be spiritual and religious and fundamentally

know about religion but on the other hand it has to concern itself with the material

realities of statehood thereby defaming both

desecrating both this function of statehood and christianity

yeah

as a religion

sh upset

it profanes both basically right

christian state profanes both this is marx's view

and then he says

in the case of

the jewish people i'm sorry ca i didn't

really remember the whole text in order but

is bs she saying that

judaism is targeted

or has a special condition because

it is the religion of material humanity

yes

the religion of real humanity not imagine humanity but

the real state of humanity here and now all of the anti semitic tropes associated with

jewish people like

hukstering and

you know being merchants who are greedy and

doing everything for money

saying this is what our world today is about

right where the christian state is hypocritical

this is just honest

it's marks as you obviously there's like a kind of anti semitic

a problematic whatever association but

the fundamental point

is that it morks his understanding of religion

he sees it as the contradiction

between the spiritual and the temporal

the world the heavenly

and the secudar

a the head and the body

and the spirit in the matter right

yeh

so

if marx was a materialist

does that mean he goes about by saying ok

a let's just reject all the spirituality and

reject all of the

the holy aspect

and

just go to the materials

because that's the only thing that's real

well no because for marks

that would be defaulting into what you would call vulgar french materialism

right

yes

which is precisely not the dialectical materialism it was the one sided french materialism

which rejected

a

we rejected that matter so to speak

was internally inconsistent

and was contradicted

right

yes

so dialectical materialism

it was basically mark saying

was mark basically trying to

sublight this contradiction between judaism

and christianity or between religion and

the secular world in a sense

or between hegel's idealism and

french materials what you want to call it

by basically saying that

there is something about matter itself that gives rise

to

h spirit and reflection and all thisse kind of things right

this is a these themselves attest

to some deeper truth

at the heart of material being itself

which marks identifies as humanity

as humanity and so

now and to me what was so peculiar about this is on the one hand it's not

ah

it's neither christianity nor judaism

basically right

as i continued to study

ah islam while reevaluating this h

new find understanding of marks

what if marx was just converting to islam basically right

because this is the islamic view the islamic view is

one of dialectical materials more or less

the islamic view is that matter and you can

replace matter with the word essence because they mean the same thing

the essence or what they call divinity god

is

it is neither heaven nor earth so to speak

mm

so right yeah

or not or let's say the human being cannot only focus on heaven or earth

the human being is some kind of dialectical unity

of both

from the islamic perspective right

and the essence this is what i wanted to get to

the essence of humanity is the divine creation

right it comes from the

the divine

that's the essence of humanity

well if for marks

for mark what is the essence of humanity right because marx talks about humanity as the essence

of a man

right

but what actually is that

well

this is where things can get

open ended

if you have a non dogmatic view

when mark says man is the highest essence for man

we have to ask

what is man is marx

create is marx creating a statue of man and saying let's worship that statue

no because marx himself is says

we cannot prescribe

a predefined form to man because man is something we must

discover in the form of our devotion

and our duty to

mankind

in marx's famous wor

famous maxim is work for humanity

that's what for marx it means to be a human being work for humanity

to me

if we ask the question what really is the essence

you can easily translate

and expound this into the language of religion particularly for me personally

the muslim religion

such that

a the real essence of man

uh is

sorry this is not a good way to put it

the real

metaphysical i would i suppose i would say essence of man

somehow comes

from the divine or is divine

he

yeah well that's really interesting

so in in that sense god does not refer to some kind of snapshot of the human mind

or snapshot of humanity

it's just a word we describe

to refer to this kind of

this kind of uh

fundamental metaphysical essence

yess i would say

yeah

no but i would like point of the metaphysical absolute

yeah

well actually am

that's very interesting

because

you were saying that he was trying to suplaate

these are

he was trying to subplate judaism and christianity

and you're saying that at this stite of reconciling we can discover islam

i'm very interested in this because

you can uh also

think but

think about gnosticism

lnosticism also

tixt the sum

divine essence

and you know

sort of compresses it

into this

general broad term of the human right

so

an islam if you if you don't know islam

was very influenced by gnostic gospels and gnostic deech

a lot more than that

dogmatic

christian orthodox sure

now

theres one point to be made

which i think

there's some sort of

the conflict between marks and islam

ah

i think the ultimate conflict is

marks

reduces this essence

to an entirely human level

while it is lam

oh

at least

at least to a point of

i mean it's not exactly idealism

it's not exactly idealism

but it sort of conceptualizes this divine

as in essence that term

it has ontological priority

a ponn man and and i was yaking will happen

how could you reconcile you know these two b for me the key lies in what is man

if marx is

ascribing the essence the highest essence for man is man

the question then is begged of what is man

and for marx man is the way in which man works for

you manad the way in which man lives the way in which man

reproduces himself the way in which man and reproduces himself

doesn't only mean in some one sided vulgar sense

in the entirety of the world of manda

entiretly of his way of

oh

ah

attending to his own existence and reproducing himself

to me

the onso logical implications of that have our remain open right

if man is the highest essence

or of man

and if we are not

a scribing man with pre determined and predefined qualities

all we are really saying

is that the

five

it is in some more fundamental devotion

that we acquire our

m

humanity specifically in the devotion to your fellow man

right

but yeah

to really be devoted to your fellow man

without regressing into some kind of perversion

necessarily requires

you to have an open minded open ended sense of what man is what is the essence of man himself

and where does that come from and what does that mean

and what is its real being

right what is its being

what is the ontological implication so to speak

to me i

i think divinity has a place here

like for example i

i think the islamic view

is that it is in

he

it is in our duty to our fellow men

it is in what we do in this world that we manifest our devotion for example to god

yes that our governance and our worship in our

and we do take time

set outside of

the daily business of attending to this world

to devote strictly to god in the form of prayer and in the form of

the religious prescriptions and duties with

to me what if this

these merely are ways of attending to the excess

that inevitably arises in this world of humanity

a

that demands us to

reflect upon

and recall our

and

our own

basically meaning

so to

right

bke

the way in which

ah

i guess the way in which it requires us to recall upon is kind of

infinity of our past infinity of our origins and infinity of our

being in a sense right

how do we attend to the question of waur being

our own being like what actually are we where do we come from

so on and so

y

and by the way but in religion

when you look at it

it's actually not a

an idealist answer the answer is not

we should tend to these higher platonic forces

that's actually a perversion

i agree with you actually i go so far as to say and this is actually been my thesis the whole time

marx has not attacked religion

he has at tacked philosophy

yeah we must draw the distinction between religion and philosophy

because religion is a more fundamental

feeling it's a more fundamental way of worship it's a way of

relating to the divine

whereas philosophy is the

is the expounding of this way into consciousness

right so when you reduce this to the way in which it is expounded into consciousness

you

you're

abstracting from the vital essence of religion

and you're turning out into a dead

idole a dead foreman

yeah no i mean

if you look at for example let's talk about early christian tradition

that was not at it heart an idealist motion you weret

contemplating the form of christ

in the early traditions it was all about a communal

first of all it was communter

right it was a communal relationship

between these small christian communities part

there is a more important point to be made

when

price

the incarnation of god the incarnation of god ha

dies upon the cross

i think for the early christians

it's not a matter of

this ideal

point of sacrifice has been you know released on to the world but rather

the

suffering of material subsistence

and the divine essence have sublated

in this moment of pure sacker in this moment of pure suffering in the wor

you know know me

it seems vulgar

to equate

the material with the divine which is my basic view materiality must be understood as divinity

but here's what i why i say this

i

what does material mean

the material is ulimately about the real

the essence

right

that's what the material the content the real content the real essence

the real reality basic

behind the form

the form is ephemeral its the form is temporal

the form is what is transient

it's the essence that is the real thing behind this right

yah

material is the same thing as essence now what has happened in the history of western philosophy

is that the material

has been confused with the substance

now the words substance

in western philosophy it comes from spinoza the philosopher spinoza you know whose this is

yeah of course ya

yeah more spinoza

the substance is a materiality already latent

with a form

so this is what most people mean by material when many religious scholars and religious thinkers say

the maateial world

they mean the substance substantial or

because

by material they are not referring to like the kind of

they're real right they're not referring to this kind of mystical the real and whatever

they're referring to a material always already and on dialectically

latent with form

were

a given with form they're referring to a material already

given form

but material

is really material it is really the materiality of form

right it's not a form itself it's

the material of the form when you're referring to something material

you're not referring to like some aultimate form

um ya

or ultimate substance you're referring to something that is

necessarily indescribable

on the terms of form that's why it's material

so to me that's really the same as divinity in a sense

what

i just wt even in the islamic sense especially even in the islamic sense of divinity for because

in islam very specifically is a

the monotheism according to which

he

so to me the beauty of islam

to me this is really why i am a muslim

and i think i i think it least i think this is why i'm muslim maybe it's just because my background

and i have that bias but

this is really what reminds me of why i'm a muslim

to me at the same time that islam rejects any

ascription

of

absolute

ah

a supremacy of any kind of form

in the form of an idol or a depiction of god or anything like that

you

islam still retains this view

in contrast to the extent of my knowledge i could be wrong

in contrast to judaism

according to which this world and all of the beauty of this world and all of the forms within this world

don't exist

um

are the very manifestations in a way

of the divine in the form of creation like this is where we

possess some kind of connection this is what reminds us of the divine this is where we possess

some kind of connection to the and almost like

in a sense divinity flourishes

through the form

while at the same time

being irreducible to it

you're saying that's for the phone

sorry

you're saying that's pertaining to the form

it have various forms right of the natural forms or even the human forms

like

these things remind us of the uh

sorry they remind us of the the

would be the correct word

the grace and the

sublimity of god basically

e

rcy that's it only good word

ya i mean um

you mean other religions

ah

still retraw a distinction between

like god is necessarily withdrawn from the world

and more or less after he's done creating the world he's just kind of indifferent to it

right

and he's not really like in this world with us

in any kind of way

and that's i'm not not to say he's in the world which would be like a heretical false statement but

we relate

to god

through the world

is my understanding of the islamic view

i think you kind of uh

what out

hello hello

yea yea you're back

ok

are you familiar with the ninety nine names of alave

yeah yeah of course

so okay sohot it

you just that

uh you just rai raised a very interesting point

because we'm the schollars

boke of the ninety nine nares

they came to the s

they came to the sum

you could see almost a dilectrical conflict

where

they were a description of god's nature

was directly

present

in the world

and so

the scholar said well wait a second god is not in the world

how does his nature

exist

in this word

well the response after a lot of deliberation

's that

well actually

the it's not that god's nature is in this world but the form of god's nature

exists within this world

e only to

in n a way

qualify the divine the form of god's nature exists in this world what corresponds right sisely it's forreciight and the ninety nine names are one of the biggest reasons i even brought up the example because it's one of the best

examples what i'm trying to talk about

the french thinker jacques lacone he had a word for this

that would make sense to americans basically right

it's called the non all

and it's coming from marx by the way a dialectical view

the non all basically is

it's not a part of it

but it's all of it at the same time

yesy

i like noo i love lakhan and i really like the idea of lachan

and i th me it islamic god is in a sense non all in that sense

yeah he is innocense not all

because the ninety nine names

though they do not possess the fullness

actually they somehow correspond entirely

to god

yes precisely

precisely that

we muslims do not say

there's a secret form

that

you know a secret name that's out there that we just don't know

yeah the reason we have to say there's ninety nine of them is because

when you can name

when you name god you are doing so within this world

and thereby god is acquiring

the form of god is acquiring an existence in this world

yet these forms are infinite

yeah exactly

it's demonstrating the relationship

the dialectical

even dialectical materialist relationship

between contents and form

uh you suleer

are you kinn of cut up

he cut out again

can you hear me

yh

i'm sorry man my internet connection is really bad

so

h here's theec right

what is the essential conflict

in the dialect

the essential conflict in the dialectic

is we have these

these dual opposing contradictory

object

right

and then

what

the contradiction is in a sense the thing

yeah

yeah yeah

you know this is why also in this is also another sense in which

for me my being a muslim is a

an indispensable part of being a marxist leninist without is the onm my marxism leninism

as no object

thright

it's because to me it's very clear to me

that

when i a

due the past few years have

made these connections and discovered these things

it became clear that we live in a pre muslim world

in a sense like

our world has not yet

mm

it has not yet

drawn out of the consequences islam has

or humanity

am

we are modern tries to save form modernity

she sayd

and

it has changed my perspective on modernity as a whole and islam's place within it

to me

it's a matter of a kind of lost

modernity and a lost

enlightenment

which again began with my investigation of marx's jewish question is his work the jewish question

and as i was looking for answers to understand islam from a marxist perspective

and to me uh both

the west

as well as the muslim world at large

have not awakened

to

this kind of new religious era of

us one

i think it's one of the only religions on earth

like for example it's very clear

the consequences of christianity for the world

in the form of majurnity in the form of

oh yeah modernity itself right

and the modern era as such

um

as well as judaism

to me

h what about hind and usam

with the issue of hindussm buddhism is they're not messaanic religions so those are more religions that deal with a kind of cyclical view of time and as such

can be constantly reinvented across the

different epworks in different eras

including a new kind of so to speak muslim miror right when i remember i do come from this kind of perspective whehen i say

it's a muslim aer i'm not saying exclusively muslim

but you can look at it from that perspective

to me

islam's consequences for modernity

like there's something very strange that happened in the muslim worlds encounter with modernity which is

for the rest of the world it was 'an apocalypse the modern age but for the muslim world it was seen as a kind of like

almost competition right

it never was able to fully conquer

the mosm the world

because it wasn't really seen as like a challenger like

through the french revolution

all these changes in europe

the muslim world yawned

like

the muslim response i don't know if you know this

to the french revolution for example was

oh that they're overthrowing the king

because they want to be equal and they all want to be treated like

equal men

yeah sounds like a tuesday

you know what i mean like you

that's this kind of revolution i mean this

this was not seen as like a world shaking

thing in the muslim world whereas it upset

everything in europe

are you still there

yeah yeah

so

to me it's like a

uh

how should i put it

i don't know it's it's also something i i i kind of prefer to usually keep private because uh

it's it's almost like

you lose touch with what meally makes it unique if you

if you're always talking about it

that makes sense

yeah

yeah

i think

by the way

that when we interpret

the system of

identity in the west and in islam in the islamic world

it's very very very distinct right

it is

very different

right

and so

when the muslims responded to the french revolution in the west

i think the primary issue

that is sore

was that in the west

theere are these stat

ust comu

this is axiomatic

there are these axiomatriic systems of form

and how it must

it is the neuroticism a fundamental neuroticism

oh

just this paranoia of a fortress

yea just

safeguarding itself against the metaphysical outsider constantly dividing itself into hierarchies

and absolute points of division

things that were

things that just seem like a cot

from like an eastern or muslim perspective

right

which

is more focused on this

sorry i can't is your microrope

yah yah

yeah which is more focused on this kind of um

reverence of real

kind of

minute the reason why there is a fatalism associated with the muslim world from the western

it from the western mind

from the western gays

' is because

the muslim world

the the object of islam divinity in islam and so on

is really associated with the

like

metaphysical being just

being like

what is what is real what is

almost in a kind of nietsch and although i'm not a fan of niezsche i think he's a bad guy but

this is what convers to mind in the western mind where its

in the west it seems like there is thisan eternal war between spirit and matter

that has already been sublated

in the

this long yeah

yeah no i mean

if you look at the system

of motion

in the west and the east what you will notice is

the western mine

create this

most ideal form

and then everything

rationally must conform to a precision

precisely yes

f and enges

and not only

is it an ideal form that must be imposed upon the world

but every semblance of contradiction

coming from the outside

is conceived as the intentionality of a hostile and malign

agent

yes

yeah exactly and so there's this sort of

is this loss of organic development

in western pot and so that's why revolution is so in the west

revolutions are these incredibly

impactful events which to this day you know everybody talks about the french revolution how it changed history

in that moment

that most ideal changeless timeless

object which everybody performs and everybody conforms to

at that moment

received

a strike against it

and they're everybody

goes crazy because the're like well wait a second

this is supposed to be

the most ideal timeless form

and the fact that it's being something is breaking away from it or something is struggling against it

that is like

the object of the enemy it's the com it's

if that makes any sense

yeah no i completely get it but one of the things that troubles me

right and this is why

i have such a non dogmatic view

this is really where troubles

right

what's happened

to the muslim world

in this decisive period

of

early madernity

such that

this folly this western folly so we so to speak that culminates in madernity which is you know modernity is this

elevation of

negation

right and i

abstract and

so on spirit basically more or less

over and against all indeterminate and real things

but what hadn't happened in the history of islam

what's that

it had to be awakened

to the shock

of modern industry and modern

cultural realities and so on and so on

i guess what i mean to say is the

i personally don't know this

what the muslim world have organically

developed what we call modern industry

and modern society

oh

or was there something decisive about what happened in europe

that

plas it in

a decisive part of the

history of islam

yes

and to e the question is like

why is it that

this

testing of

realizing the absolute threshold between spirit and matter

form and content head and body

had to really be

just stick quiet

did it have to be that

why couldn't the muslim world itself

muster the inerit the

power within itself worthy

potentiality within itself to really probe

the threshold between for example mankind's relationship to nature

and maybe there it's an open question youars

there are traditionalist perspectives that will say

we could have but

we knew it was

basically

bad to like

for example

a modern industry and

electricity and so on these is like a

opening to demons and

even though you will live

you know what i mean like it's it reminds me of how for example

chinese military

the development of the chinese military

was by no means tied to the technological capabilities

they were able to

develop weapons and technologies that they intentionally did not

because of tradition and morality and things like that

like honor basically

right

yeah

so that's really what

what's on my mind is

more or less this why did the muslim world

lagged behind europe

that to me is the most important question

for most all around the world

i do think

i have a proposed answer for it if you would like to hear

first of all

let me establish something

this's the days of the prophet

muslims are against modernism n i might say how is that possible modernism is a phenomenon only started

only started arm

really occurring during before the french revolution shortly before after but

ah

in

honesty there was a dislike

in the muslim world there is thekonsp

that has been there sin

are you cut out again just let you know

you might corrup

yeah it still cut out

i'll let you know when it returns

can you hear me now yeah i can hear

newo

okay now

so

basically

on

where' is this heudy

in sahim muslim sahim bukadi veryy

popular hood

in which it was written

the end times will come

when these primitive arab tribesmen would develop

simple machinery is too

set oup

pl fil simple tasks

when these tribes start competing with each other to create incredibly tall buildings

not as you know

o will that happen

yeah

the

that's appening is t

and arm

what

why why was there this

you wouldul sit this superstition again

against this you all this very recent architectural phenomena why were they railing against it at the time of the prophet thousands of years ago

but it is very simple

it's because i think

to

islam had this

fixed rate of development

aright

because the way they viewed material the way they viewed essence

h

did you dore in a sort of

aear a linear sense of development

right

it wasn't

as if

somebody's super imposed

superimposed one form upon the other and there was a great struggle wich

ended up sublating the two concepts

in islam

the development was a much more linear process one concept

meets another concept and they quickly sublate

they quickly surbld

into these constant linear processes

now

here's the argument i would make for the west

the west faced a lot more

struggle

in its development

because of the west

what

well these

all these individuals

we're so hyperum

were so opposed to each other

that the

in their struggles

the development was hyper accelerated

if that makes any sense yes i does it does that' was actually hegls argument himself

eagel said that the

almost infinite self particularization

and gradual determinate development

of the european small principalities in tiny states

was much slower and much more gradual

in the sense of like

the pidity of the development of enlightenment and sciences and so on

where's for him

the islamic dialectic so to speak

was really one of this kind of rapid as you describe linear development

which left no space for the openness of contradiction

itself exact

exactly

and so one of actually one of the issues was

because there was this

this the space of rapid linear development

when opposition would rise up from the west

and planted itself in the seeds of the eyast

there was an alien reaction to it

which completely halted organic development slter expenss

the ottoman empire

was one of them

he is glaring a palm

examples within history

the ottomans when they started developing at first they were a muslim blic they were nomadic they were turkey

yeah

well

when they westernized

they received these enlightenment ideas in the renaissance they allied with france

they developed these concepts

of on

you know the western individual and

they were the ones who were mostly reading stuff like the cartesian co go right

yeah

but the rest of the east was not exposed to this now what happened was

when the autumnan

spear of thought

which was importing itself from the west

wn itll imported itself from the west

the east did not know how to respond to this

because unlike all their other linear rapid staates of development wre

ok two opposing two opposing things meet and sublate very quickly

all of a sudden development was haulted because

they diden'ertally not respond to the ottoman eumpire and you'll notice the ottoman umpire historically

he started declining rapidly

because they didn't have

me

they didn't have any arm

development

because they had locked themselves between two strong contradictions

weere they were not developing right

it's almost as if

they reach the end of history too fast

yes yes exactly

they reached

alp the eastern

philosopheres

they hid it

they possessed the eastern philosophies

but at the same time

the western developing forces

were imposing were starting to impose themselves on this region on this continent

and the ottomans

suffered between these two contradictions and could not

it could not come to some sort of

you know some sort of seblation between the two if you know if you get what i'm saying

and the

what ended up happening was

because of that

the ottomans were the dominant eastern power when they started to decline

the middle east started to decline and then gradually you see colonialism imperialism imperiald expansion

you know to me this is what my collective has investigated the most

the key to understanding islam

islam is a future oriented religion not a past oriented religion

judaism for example is about

the past story of the people of israel the covenant and so on and so on

and it's a religion about

moses and abraham going back to the past

but islam is a future oriented religion and to me

the key

oh

islam's world historic significance lies in

it landed nomadic empires as a whole from the mongols to the turks

to the rest these are the ones who gave

i think there are even passages indicating not in the qudan but in other texts

that these nomadic step peoples were

the force of the entypes like the the

i don't know if you know what i'm talking about the ones who wear horse hair on their feet or whatever

these are the force of the apocaly islam already experienced its eschatological end times its apocalypse

in the form of the invading

no madic

turkey and mongol

forces in the middle east

yeah and that

this this was the kind of introduction of

this

cemented

his permanent state of

contradiction

and the rapid linear development i think you're talking about where

this they did not come from

they were not arabs they did not come that they were not originally muslim either this is another kind of scandal

but they later would convert but

they still represented the one exception within the body of the

the kind of muslim umma so to speak while at the same time being their guardian

this is a very common

phenomena by the way

for example in egypt

the mamlukes became the ruling dynasty right and the mamlukes were

foreigners from islam who were molded in the the

image of islam

right

and the significance of that is basically like

there they're both outside and within but they're the one exception within the whole oma that represents this

outside of outside this

right

they are foreigners but at the same time the guardians of

it's familial

so yeah

is u

to me uh

there is an extremely interesting relationship between

settled civilizations and said no madic

h this is the biggest contradiction in the whole history hum

mankind bright the settled in the nomadic

always been a recurring contradiction

islam becme

it had its origins in the bedouins and nomadic people

right

and

it took its you know the highest extent of its development was through other nomadic empires

ungles the turks

and especially the tjurks really honest

but

yeap

also the berbers in north africa and so on

but

i mean this is not

a coincidences the nature of the religion itself in relation to

manager

um

but

you know it's

what's interesting to me

what i mean to say with this is that

especially with the mongol invasions

you do see an apocalypse analogous to that of modernity

which is to say this process

that was such a trema and shock

to what everyone had expected before him these foreigners who were not even muslim came and

basically defeated and conquered everyone

um was a fundamental lasting um

historical point of drauma

i not know similar to the way modernity introduced itself

for christian viw

right

for on other people's throughout the world

and furthermore

the you also see parallels in the form of like the kind of standardization of the societies the kind of the

unprecedented level of religious tolerance

formation what appears to a types of

secular governments governance even

under the mongols

to me

islam basically

i am torn between two ideas

one is that islam was modernity it is literally the religious form of modernity that happened too early

two

and that islam was always modern so to speak in a sense and that or that too

ah

islam

corresponded to this kind of mongol modernity

grea islam experienced its modernity earlier than europe

and as a matter of fact the european modernity was just a copy of the islamic one

in a sense

yah it's very interesting i you phrase that because i was thinking about this

and the way you phraseed it there it is

it is like it is modernity

that's actually brilliant

because when you if you look at the sources of the early sources

the muslims always thought

that they're reaching an end of history soon

'll give you an example

did you know this early muslims thought that the end of history was the conquest of constantinople

in the hadith in the very early hadith it is written when we will conquer constantinople

we will basically bring about an end of history

and they were

it's also the the

the the gog and magog it's very clear to me the people who are outside of the

what is it the wall of alexander what is it called again

its in persi

it's the dukernainnain

you know beyond that wall is the nomadic step peoples who would eventually conquer

constantinople itself

under the banner of his life

yeah it' is really fascinating

that islam is actually locked between these two great forces

ro what they considered rom

and the the mon good

and so

because of this

when encountering these two forces they actually thought

they we're reaching an end of history

they rapidly develop

unlike again the west which locked itself

into the super impositions

and the

and so because of that when we reached the ottoman empire now we have a great crisis

the ottoman eumpire cannot identify

it's development

it cannot identify

is my development

that of the nomadic eastern forces or the islamic ruld

the caribbean forces or the western

retaculrizing forces

and the otomans they simply could not

ah

realize write they couldnt realize

were

they were headed

in a set

they could not

come to the term

and so

then with the fall of the ottoman empire the rest of the middle eastern world soon succumbed

two

the imperialist forces

a new ones

y

no contl get up

okay

so they succumbed to the imperialist forces and then the western peoples

descended upon islam

they did not stay

this rapid chain of development

this

assimilation of

contradictions right

which by the way if you ask hegel that's a very

ah

that's a very successful society there

they were able to

so blake

do' much

at such a at such a rapid pace compared to the wst

when did they met

this sculpture one the imperialist forces met this culpture

all the staw in it

was

this is

the

antithetical

a construction of christianity

yeah and they

imposed upon it its well this is just

eastern christianity and as we know the asiatics there are a bunch of savages

yeah

and so this asiactic christianity

is simply m

it only seeks to reflect

it only seeks to reflect

our superior

western christianity

and

ah

correct me if i'm wrong

but this does sound sort of similar to hegel's masterswlave dialects

yeah that's an interesting i mean

phan on directly talks about that in the war in algeria specifically about islam

what

you know to me i

here really is a kicker that's really tough for me to understand

yeah

how is it speaking nowright

how is it

that's the islamic civilization

which i do believe exists

muslims around the world

how can we integrate

because luck

i think islam it's already the story of the

what they call the renad cartes is in the couron

goet on

this does describe a figure who is basically grenad a cart

and this figure is iblis

so

itless

during if i'm pronouncing correct

pleas

bes sorr

sorry i'm inan a merica

but

oh he uh

he

was commanded by god completely arbitrarily defying any

human conceivable reason

bow before adam

ah yah plis is a rationalist he's just a rationalist he went wait

if i rub my if i use my reason

right

no

fire is higher than clay

i am a gin

the gin

are higher than man on the spiritual hierarchy where are more spiritual were more heavenly

why the hell would i bow before adam

right

yeah

iblise basically was a cartesian because

for him

he said i think therefore i am the whole of being the whole of divine being

so far as ablice was concerned

it was reduicible to the extent to which he could think about it

and to which he could therefore rationalize

right

it leas did not

it beast committed the error because he did not unconditionally obey the command of god

and therefore give himself to the true material

a

antescedence before him is what i like to call it the true material being already set before him

which does not obey the terms of his thinking

and his own rationality at least

made the arrogant assumption that he knows the essence

of god

he knows

no if

mm

this but holl but de cort

did the same thing

right

what

is it not that they

this cartesian gesture

was responsible for the greatness

a or the

revolution so to speak that is western modernity

that has changed the modern world

so how can muslims

to come to peace with this apocalypse of modernity

without

falling into the fundamental arrogance

of at least do we not require

this pressure

coming from the west or coming from america

that really is testing that's going to test our boundaries and force us

to to

respond to this dialectical

you know like

the cartesian demon so to speak this devil's advocate of

what if everything we know is wrong

this you know force of kind of nahlism

do we need that

to wake us up and

shock us into

the modern world

or is there a way we can

distilled the wisdom of the western modernity

and

somehow discover it

within is laong

that's really my struggle and my personal

biggest issue

that's

really

fascinateingd

right

because the question of theblice bowing to adam is one of the greatest theological arguments

of

all islamic history

now i would like to make a point

iblis is the carthesian subject

beholding the eternal material

right

and because if you read the koran for example it's written that adam

and jesus and moes and old man were already a preexisting st

did you know that there were already a preexisting asset

i heard from islamic philosophy idea that

mm

mohamed

that is a slow ver sinem

he said

i was already a prophet

when adam was between

water and clay

yes rsan

i have heard it and by the way if you want to correspond that to some christian literature

in john it's written jesus says

before abraham was i ams

thought

the idea that both of these quotations are expressing is there is this eternal material substance that's existed

since the beginning

yt

it's just pure reality it's just pure existence

just pure essence

right

you a go to sen hea

a blice is this cartesian

self is a cortesian subject

the whole thing

this eternal essential

you know what is what is essence

and so

he rejects it because

well he thinks that his own

his own comprehension

his own mind you know possesses some sort of

superiority to it now of course that's sort of a western arrogance i think you'll agree with me

of course but um

but

i think interesting point to make here

is that

ultimately a bleach directly leads to

the development of the prophet

when you're saying it do we need this westernizing force to wake up islam

yes we do i

i'll give you an example from this hodate this is a very very interesting hodth

maybe you should seitch up it' was fascinating al right

moses is man

by the angel of death

all right

the angel of death

comes to moses and says

msa mussa

he says or ya mussa

are you

you must die your time to die has come

we have decided that now it is your time tode

moses does not give him a response moses does not speak back to him

mosees punches him in the face

pushing him outside of corporal reality

whens the angel of death

he was just punched in the face

goes back to a law

says to allah

excuse me oh god your heavenly messenger

he punched me in the face he denied

he denied my

ma i demand for his death

and god says

moses is just purely living

right

so we will not kill him his time will not come because

moses his existence

still is and still will be

so the point i'm trying to make here is

before i that is absolutely fascinating i have never heard that story before

yeah that is an absolutely

something else i did not know that

well it's fascinating isn't it

yes

that

i had i did not know that

i didn't

so

islam really does ac count

for this kind of

threshold of human contingency

yes exactly of course

because we the humans are not simply these

you know uh

oh you cut out again sorry

let you know

yea it's uh cutting up

i'll let you know when i can hear you

just keep talking i'll let you know

all right can you go in know can you know

ok great now

the idea here is that

we have this pure existence

and it doesn't matter really

what

the subject begs of us ok the angel of death

beds of moses to die

but moses is

pure existence

w does not die right

he exists

he exists purely as this

are you caught out again

hello

i can hear you know

no you not

sorry so anyways

the

d

a fact of pure reality

weith down harder

on what should be

or what is demanded of

or what we ought to do or what we think to do

just the pure existence of moses lived

over triumphs over

the the

believe

sense of uh

kind of like

divine necessity or divine will

exactly exctly

and really if you read it more god's divine manifestation is never

a suggestion

wright this

is an example of

the western proversion

and i' agree with you that the vest will wake up the east in the same way

the moses was woken up by the angel of death and punched him in the face

because of the west

they will demand of us what they impose upon us

we'll demand of us

what they impose upon us for their ideal

form

and this will wake us up

to just the pure

present

material truth

if that makes any sense

no it makes sense to me

it really does make sense to

so

m

that's first

can okay so

i' have to ask you would

what background are you coming from like

intellectually

are you just kind of a

independent thinker or

is there a school what you're associated with or anything like that

or terms of islam

just in general

maybe philosophy or

o yeah

yeah

well

i generally enjoy continental philosophy

you know i don't call myself an expert or anything

but i enjoy continental philosophy and i like laca

i like zizack i like hehiddegger you know

i like m

i like hegel a lot you know

me too yeah me too

these thinkers are the ones who have helped me really rediscover

islam when i

completely

escarted

abandoned they are the ones who kind of led me right back

to having a new appreciation

n i one hundred percent agree with you when i read

ah you just you uh

cut out again

can you hear me now yeah i can hear you i can hear

okay

m

so

wen i read

a girl and hai a girl

i should have to read a lot of hitingchor by the way i should have to read a lot of whritching

oh i think um

i think the consensus that i know from the muslim world is that

iduger is like our guy

like i know he was a nazi and all that bad stuff but

in a way that he didn't know

like he himself was too stupid to understand like

t

is the key to bridging the west and the east

or less

yeah

sorry you kind of cut out again

oh

goting to fix this

i can hear you now

ok you can hear me oh man

he doesn't cut off again yeah youre goork you know you know and what's what's so sad is to me it's like

almost every

conversation i have and every debate i have

it's completely useless to me

like i just don't i'm not there i don't feel like this has any pressing significance or meaning or

it's just bulshit right

when i talk to you i really do feel like i'm actually having a conversation that matters

you know we're like

i'm actually talking about something i'm really interested in

you know

i think is like

not to resolve we really are here and we're trying to

think about this and

resolve this issue whereas like i think when i argue with other people or talk even talk to other people sometimes it's like

yeah but this issue has been resolved so we are just treading over

oh you know it doesn't matter you know

all these marxis or whatever i talk to it's like

it this is not the good stuff this is not the stuff that matters this is not the pressing stuff that's important right now you know what i'm interested

personally is

how can we revive

or

awaken this inevitable islamic enlightenment

which is needing to happen

i'm all so fascinated and by the way i think

it's inevitable

i think

eight

eventually there will eventually be a point where

their eastern forces will be like moses

and just to wake up in on thiss

they're unlimited

the prowess right you know one of the biggest issue i have is s most of the muslims i talk to are not open minded you know you can't talk to them like this because

they're very dogmatic and very dismissive and they can't you can't

you can't like

add any perspective of nuance to it you know they just speak from authority and that's it

and oh and not

i hate that beakles

if you read the coorn

the koran is not attacked

which

actually superimposes upon you moral law yeah that's what i said too i said

you're ignoring what makes islam unique

the reason islams a unique religion is

it's the only religion which is like that too it's the only religion that's truly revelatory

the know islam

ah

what is lob

dos

right

is

eight

leaves open it's wisdom for the believer it doesn't tell you

we will force upon you this form you must just simply conform to this

and everything you do must conform to a single one

form that we have created resort nicely yet you know it's

makes me so sad now because

you know when i started going alif i had this issue of this view of islam

to me for years

but after i went live and i started talking to other muslims

they almost made me convinced that oh maybe i had it confused with something else you know i was wrong

when i talk to you it makes me realize no i mean

this sensei

islam that i have had

of what makes it unique and so on wasn't

something i made up or something i like

was wrong it's like you seem to really understand it you know

where'm coming from re

but i'm coming entirely just from the koranda yeah yes that's

that's what i was doing too but it's like as soon as i started talking to other muslims

they made me think that i was like

fabricating everything and i was just

you know i was coming from a completely

you know

perspective outside of islam you know and to me that just

i don't know

and it did kind of really disillusion me a lot you know

we still im used

i'm used to that and i'm very used to that

wh i speak to usual muslim say

i mean they just rolled over

they had no penet

is it

and

and it's so sad because i came to the conclusion where it's almost like islam was really all i cared about it at a point where its like

yes marxism marxism lenism all of these things for me personally i'm not saying this is for everyone just for me personally

this is a part of what islam is right it's

it's

it's a different way of expressing the same thing

but ultimately there's so much beauty and truth and wisdom contained in

islaong that to me it became like oxygen like without this i can't even breathe

if i can't remind myself of this

like i'm so fundamentally lost

in life

it makes everything come together and everything makes sense

that makes sense you know

yeah yeah and i generally i generally favor him

i admire marts lenedl

i've thought about it a lot

i think it's brilliant and i think it completely triumphs

the idealists and it completely triumphs over s

people like carnap you know and

thato' was ridiculous

western analytic philosopher

yet you to me it um

i have always considered marxism leninism just

a part of the eastern enlightenment

right and marxism as well as

is the bridge between the west and the east that started from within the west

yeah you have to understand the context of germany as a

kind of more peripheral country in relations but it's about moderny

right to me that's what it was always about

what

you know for me

i really

ah

i've also ca i've also really considered the national significance of islam and also

understanding islam in china understanding islam and russia

may have come to the conclusion that

a real muslim

islam

does not prescribe

a

specific nations

that makes sense set apart from the nation

islam is almost the cherry on top

of nations so to me

muslims

can exist

as chinese people for example they're just chinese people they're fully chinese they're part of the chinese nation

part of the chinese civilization part of the chinese culture

but

they just

add islam on top as a way to kind of

a

no

the hole that's still there

that makes sense to make sense of it all

ight as a force of kind of light

moral autonomy of this kind of makes sense

yeah i understand what you're saying right

interesting enough like it me what something i really love about islam is like

i've always seen it as

nationally amorphous it can be many civilizations and many different nations

and that islamic unity does not take the form of

like isis

islamic states and we all

just become one big

h as you know homogeneous mass

but it really can co exist with the

unique wealth of differences between peoples in the world

yeah like do you know the you know the omah of course you know the islamic omah

right

yeah

what

well what does omma mean

ok umbay has a very very simple meaning it

it summates the entire islamic world it summates

the entire islamic civilization every nation writes

every country that is islamic however

the meaning of oma is very simple it just means community

all these nations

orm in ma they just simply form a community

they're not bound

it an islamic nation

they're bound to the uma the community

all islamic nations

right

and

that sort of thinking by the way is why i think

islam in the end will develop pas faster

then

the west

because the west

are completely like hyper cartesian like hyper separate

separated from mom

community

right

an islam the basis of islamic

tradition faith

is that all the nation

form

diar mar

the community

there's this sort of communal space

you can still be a chinese citizen you can still be a proord

chinese citizen

ah

you can still be a proud iranian citizen right

you can still be aut pakistani

what um

you still ultimately come into this form of the ma

and to me this is the kind of more

authentic

a universalism to me then

the kind of western more false universalism of kind of

yet opposing one's cultural values upon others and looking down upon others

and this from this arrogant perspective is of superiority

to me

that islamic unity is the way of of

fine heaving unity

through difference rather than at its expense

right

yeah i mean a good example would be like western universalism is

imagine at the site

at the sight of culture there's a king

and the king en forces upon everyone of his subject

his

opinion

of what

a day should look like

but islamic unity islamic ma

was it deep

whole community of believers

all come together

and they leave out

their particularizations

they still follow their particularization

but they come together for this moment of unity in faith and in tradition

it doesn't matimize them they don't become

y hyper individualized

they don't lose their tations they don't lose their culture

they only gan

right

whereas in western universalism

you either

conform to this ideal system

onor to the other

there is no

there's always a nega

yeah

precisely

okay i uh i don't mean to cut it short i have to go get dinner but um

really it was i'm really grateful for this

conversation because like i said this is a conversation i just

i actually was planning on this

cutting the stream way earlier like

few hours ago but

i genuinely enjoy this and

i thought it was yeah

i wish honestly

h i wish there was more muslims like you because i always thought like maybe i was the only muslim who thought like this you know there's

there's no one else who's like maybe you know maybe i'm just an american guy who's just

developed the wrong view or wrong ideas but i really appreciate that

you came from a perspective that i could really relate to and

understand in't

and i appreciate that you took some time to talk to me

i really like your stuff i think they're really really intelligent

and you absolutely

you've crossed every single person in debay that you have everd

confronted

thugh

i have

the a lot of good words to say about you i'm just i'm just glad that we were able to talk

yeah but thank you ma'am thank you so much i appreciate you

al right by

she later

all men guys

i'm really tired

i was not planning on streaming a late i think i'm going to go grab some food

is there anything good on netflix guyes

i might just eat and watch netflix or i'll be on the mine cry maybe we'll do both

um

comld on i'm getting some friend requests

fokman

so time

that was a really good discussion man i really wish that i could just talk to about that shit all the time

have you watched this swan the ottoman empire n

in't

i guys i actually gotta go

but let me see what i can do

m

oh is that guy christian

he wasn't christian was he

no i don't think it was crsial

um

im

should we read chapel

a fuck is rika doing

shut the fuck up beach you don't fuck and set terms and conditions of litt stupid pussy

jut your pockt mouth

then turn up

ver know what mean is you're stupid fok you know that you're a dumb fox

you came in my fucking this were like a stupid bitch

talking shit but a dumb

fuk youre fucking mediocre unintelligible unintelligent

you have no knowledge you have noy that was you miserableu you know i have no sense of aunity in this world you this was if you ever say this sh is to my face i'm not to shit at you were i would rely would you really

s the buk up bits shut the buck up it awful with me somes the t bits

that's the voice

stupid a

yt