Communist Battle Hun

[Music]

is

[Music]

is

[Music]

is

[Music]

[Music]

is

[Applause]

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

[Music]

is

[Music]

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

is

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

so

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

so

[Music]

can you see

[Music]

is

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

so

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

[Music]

is

[Music]

is

[Music]

[Music]

yes

[Music]

[Music]

i

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

so

[Music]

[Music]

is

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

so

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

what is my time

[Music]

is

[Music]

[Music]

is

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

time

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

[Music]

is

[Music]

[Music]

[Applause]

height is my time

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

from the very beginning they feel

nothing but doubt upon us

and look where it's led them now

infrared is the fastest growing and

strongest political channel

between twitch and youtube combined

it is set in stone and very clear

and it will not be wrong until we

surpass

even the largest and most prominent

names on the platform

all of this is thanks

not simply to the infrared control

runners

but to you the chat

[Music]

as we continue to advance and the

nomadic

river army is continued to be mobilized

we face off against one of our weakest

opponents yet open something

he's been talking a lot of smack about

us while knowing nothing about us

so we're going to put his bluff to test

we're going to see just how much

his claims about infrared and pulled up

just how much this self-certain

dismissal

of our position can be justified

you well know we take on all

challengers no matter how big or small

they are

or not

the army of infrared

larger with each passing day and there

is nothing

we can do our chat is faster

than destiny's chat with a viewer

that is ten times smaller

or more

and thoughts lie i know you're listening

to this

you're on our radar and

[Music]

forward to victory not one step

back this is a platform

for marxism at the age of multi polarity

and a post code

the future belongs to us

cp usa is already in the process

of becoming a reality

here you'll find a viewing experience it

can't be replicated

anywhere else enjoy your stay

is the show

[Music]

uh

[Music]

[Music]

now

[Music]

down

[Applause]

[Music]

hey

[Music]

nine

[Music]

[Music]

so

[Music]

so

[Applause]

[Music]

[Music]

shout out neat feet for that sick

fucking video once again

shout out need feet for making that sick

fucking video how are the gorillas in

the chat fucking doing tonight you know

what i'm saying we're all hyped up

tonight's the night of the battle huns

you know i'm saying we're battle hunts

tonight

communist battle huns with a capital c

you know what i'm saying

you know i saw that movie elita battle

angel but enter within our inner

spirituality we're battle huns we got

the fucking katana we're facing all

enemies

from every direction at once you know

what i'm saying with the battle huns and

we're ready for battle

you know i'm saying this right here with

some energy with some battles tonight

because that one guy

logan something you know i'm saying you

know let me give you some recap some

background to the debate that's gonna

happen about 20 30 minutes

so he's he he watched our thing with

social men left

very arrogantly he decided we were

stupid and he

he offered no proof or anything so i

challenged him through a debate proof

was stupid right

after much dilly dallying you know

asking me for ten dollars and all this

kind of bullshit

he finally accepted to come on it for a

debate

finally finally finally

you know what i'm saying so i'm glad

shout out to logan for actually

you know acquiring the courage and

ceasing the dilly i'm not gonna pay

nobody ten dollars for a debate i'm

saying it's a battle to the death

you know what i'm saying it's what it is

but in fairness

logan i think you're watching this right

now

we can keep it civil you know we can

have a civil

normal human conversation you know

you don't got to be we can have it like

xander tall in the last half where we're

just

you know we're just uh expressing our

views

and if you're curious about our position

because you clearly don't know

that's completely fine we can keep it

civil

i don't gotta go beast mode as much as i

enjoy it it doesn't have to happen

so the ball is in your court my friend

what's up gorillas what's up gorillas

wasn't last night the best fucking night

so far what or what

what a sick fucking night what a sick

fucking night

you know what i'm saying ended on a bad

note but that shit is behind us

that shit is behind where is it it's

behind me

it's behind us you know it's over there

i can't see it

i can't see it's behind us you know what

i'm saying it's behind us

you know what i'm saying what up neat

feet

what's up neat feet you know uh

yeah yeah yeah yeah so you know how we

begin these streams right everybody

guess how we begin these streams every

single stream we begin at the same

fucking way

we've never deviated from this formula

we never deviated from this formula

you want to know how we begin our

streams we check

the reddit don't matter if we got haters

don't matter if we got fans we're gonna

look at that reddit and we're gonna

review the content you're not saying we

check

the reddit guys we check the reddit

we check the reddit we ain't read it

people you know we're not out here going

on reddit all the time and typing

paragraphs and shit

but we check the reddit we check

the reddit you understand let's do it

what the fuck oh wait here we go

okay we check the reddit we check

the reddit 219 members

oh my god 219 members guys

join this fucking reddit if you're based

or if you're not doesn't matter

everybody got to join the reddit am i

fallestini

nope i'm live

um we checked the reddit guys we checked

the reddit

we checked the reddit you understand

infrared is rising

come on guys come on i need your help

chad i need your help

i need your help come on help me come on

you can't do it alone

i need your help

[Applause]

[Music]

[Applause]

oh you had no idea you had no idea you

had no idea

no idea oh he's trying he's trying

come on come on sources of that left

he's trying he's trying

he had no idea no idea

exactly based video

based video based video immediate thumbs

up

immediate thumbs up power of the sun you

know i'm saying

infrared is rising infrared is rising

the power of the sun

solar energy because we're solar

guerrillas you know what i'm saying

where gorillas powered by the energy of

the sun shout out to the gorilla horde

shout out to the gorilla army

the hordes of the gorillas on the step

riding horses and shit

that's what we're about you know what

i'm saying

youtube versus mls what's this so i saw

community

youtube's overviews deleting shit it's

okay you can delete us

we're working on a website to bypass the

censorship they ain't gonna be able to

stop infrared

there's no stopping infrared there's no

stopping infrared they can't stop us

we are on the rise there's no stopping

us according to stalin

optimism is compulsory always keep it

high energy always keep it high energy

let's read this i want to read this

hence we must not base our orientation

on the strata of society which are no

longer developing

aka the downwardly pmc

the left as it exists now the bitter

sorry anger and

you know the bitter sorry and depressed

left

low energy left even though they present

it constitute the predominant force but

on the strata which are developing

and have a future before them a future

before them

that's us guys that's us

no more pessimism even though they are

present do not

constitute the predominant force just

like how now we only have 1.2 1.3 k subs

we're not yet the predominant force

but we must stick we must stick with the

hope of the sun and the energy of the

sun

and we will never we will never

surrender

to darkness and bitterness and despair

and tiny peepee energy

never in the 80s of the past century in

the period of the struggle between

marxist and neuronics

the proletariat in russia constituted an

insignificant minority of the population

whereas the individual peasants

constitute the majority

but the proletariat was developing as a

class whereas the peasant was

disintegrating

and just because the proletariat was

developing as a class the marxist based

orientation on the proletariat just like

how you guys

you don't go looking for bread tube

you're here because you're based you

know what i'm saying

you don't go looking at the

disintegrating bread tube you're here

you're here with infrared even though it

seems like we're the minority now

just wait just wait

for we knew the proletariat subsequently

grew from an insignificant force into a

first-rate

historical and political force shout out

la zoo one what's up man

shout out master cheesy how you doing

bro hence in order to not earn policy

one must look forward and not backward

forward and not backward we ain't

looking back but we're looking forward

cp usa 2036 in the chat cp usa

2036 in the chat that's what we're about

that's what we're about

that's what we're about upvoting this

we don't have time to watch this but

watch this video if you get the chance

showing disrespect joela jola

jola jola's been talking a lot of shit

he's been talking a lot of shit joel is

asking for and i'm saying joel let's ask

him it's okay joel we can keep it civil

if you're civil but you kind of asking

for it man

joel joella shout out jola

you know nothing he well we're gonna see

we're gonna see if you by the way when

you dismiss everything i say is

meaningless you lose

so you gotta work with me my friend and

just like i gotta work with you

if it's not clear to you i'm gonna try

my best to make it clear to you

but at what point does it become you

intentionally

not wanting to work with me we'll see

we'll see day of the sweep

based based

joel is some guy in my comments he's a

youtuber with 4k

subs and he challenged infrared to a

debate

you know what i'm saying because he sees

we're rising he wants a little bit of

that clout it's okay respect the hustle

but you know what i'm saying he's asking

for it but he didn't talk as much shit

as uh this guy we're about to have on so

maybe maybe uh what is this

so it really depends on the hierarchy

for instance what makes it unjust

don't give me a context i i told vash it

depends on the context and you call me a

fucking idiot

so what makes a hierarchy give me the

very relaxing very peaceful what is this

you guys are fucking weird look at this

look at this shit guys infrared

community right now

and this has the most upvotes out of

anything

you guys weird you guys weird

thank you and congrats haas it's hard

for me putting words but i want to let

everyone know for a note that the energy

you exude and empowering your fans gave

me hope again

yes we are about hope we are about the

radiance of the sun

lefty pull and join radiology views on

heidegger substantials and materialism

and anglo-positive philosophy but that

doesn't matter enough seeing how fast

you've grown and draw positivity this

community has convinced me there's room

for marxism and humanity's spirit

in ways books and words never ever could

have

exactly that's why we believe in this

you can't just read books not in this

age

infrared woke me up to overcoming that

fear

this community may be small but it's

clear that it has a fate

as big as the sun shout out poobie

shout out poobie with this beautiful

message shout out poobie

gorillas celebrate we don't have time

but

the color blue ain't so bad

pogba's wholesome election rigging

hello this was yesterday i love being

part of it okay genji

here's the drama queen no negativity no

negativity

hey hos looking forward to the stream

tonight we already saw that one

anything else infrared live now anything

else

anything else let's see new

there's gonna be a time we can't be just

checking the new we're gonna be checking

all you know i'm saying i think this is

it

yup this is it quick credit recaps let's

get right into this business

we have like 10 minutes before we have

to debate so

let's chill for a second we have 10

minutes

haas thinks outside of the box logan

already understands

look look look everyone mocking

infrared who is a rising genius i think

we can all agree

okay by the way just because you're

sarcastic doesn't mean it's not true

like you can be sarcastic but it's a

bluff so i'm just gonna

just like destiny i'm just gonna assume

it's true

he he's not constricted by mia labels

okay he's a marxist leninist maui

stalinist los

angeles

yeah we say stalinist and we say maoist

because those are trigger words in

america because we they don't want us to

be proud stalinist they don't want us to

embrace the stalin era they don't want

us to be maoist they don't want us to

embrace the maoist era

but he's thinking there's some doctrinal

significance to these words because

again

hey guys what are we talking about here

what are we talking about here guys what

are we talking about here

i know we're talking about we're talking

about this

that's what we're talking about whoops

something fell

that's what we're talking about look at

that see that's what we're talking about

talking about that box talking about

that anglo box

can't think in a human way yeah

hosierist

uh hojt

if you will wow apparently dude yeah you

can describe things from different

angles in different ways that's

dialectical thinking

it doesn't mean that you know you're

etching it in a stone tablet oh i have

to be all of these things

you look at things from different angles

in different contexts

that's how human beings think it's like

it's like you know i'm saying

he's making it seem like i have to add

all of these adjectives i just think i'm

a marxist i'm a communist right

and when i see these phenomena i'm with

them

i recognize that they reproduce in a

vital and new way

the simplicity of marx's original

discovery

so i don't have it's not like these are

all innovations i have to oh i got to

integrate this innovation

i got to integrate okay we'll save for

the debate we'll save it for the debate

out of the box out of the box

out of the box out of the box

out of the box out of the box

out of the box out of the box come on

sing with me check

out of the box out of the box

out of the box out of the box

out of the box out of the box let's go

out of the box

out of the box out of the box

out of the box where we're going out of

the box not

in out of the box we're going out out of

the box let's go

out of the box let's go out of the box

not

in out of the box we're leaving out of

the box

outside out of the box

we're going out of the box chat not in

out of the box

let's sing a song let's sing a song

ready off the top of my head

they wanna put us in the box but we're

not gonna do or huh

they wanna put us in the box but we're

saying no

we're going outside the box you know

they wanna put us in the box but we're

not gonna do it

we're getting out of the box cause we

gotta construe

it we're leaving the box and not looking

behind

looking forward to the sun as it shines

it's hard to do it up to my head guys

logan diss track

we have to be civil so let's chill right

we're gonna see who's gonna throw the

first stone

you know what i'm saying because i'm not

gonna throw the first stone i'm a

peaceful man

i'm a peaceful man they wanna put us in

the box but we're not gonna do

it we recognize things are more

complicated they want to put us

in the box but i'm saying no i'm gonna

put you back in your box you know i said

you stay

in your box i'm not going inside

you stay in your box

i'm not going inside hey hey you stay

in your box i'm gonna dump you

in hey hey you stay in your box

i'm not going in i said you stay

in your box i'm not going

in no more hey you stay in your box

i'm not going in no more hey

i'm leaving a box we're pushing out with

the gorilla

strength said you're not in the cage

breaking out with gorilla rage

i'm not in the box we're gonna dump you

in yourself cause it's only your box

it does not belong to me it's only

it's only your box i'm not going inside

that

box say it's only your box hey

i'm not going inside that box hey you go

in your box hey i'm not going inside

that

box hey you go in your box hey

i'm gonna force you back in that box say

hey

someone clipped it okay guys i gotta

preserve my stamina you know

gotta preserve my energy but

we are the battle huns you understand

let's do some warn up warm up because

we're battle hunts and shit

and i'm saying we're battle huns you

understand you know what it means to be

a battlefield

what it means to be a battle one got to

be a battle hunt you know i'm saying

you got to be a battle hunter you got to

be a battle hunt you know what i'm

saying

you got to be a battle hunt like fire

you know what i'm saying you got to be a

better

little bad you know what i'm saying

cause we're battle hunts in this shit

where's my sword let me get my sword

just like the thumbnail just like my

thumbnail i'ma grab a sword

the biggest weapon the biggest weapon if

you're a middle easterner you understand

nobody can fight this weapon this one

you understand

this weapon

defeated absolutely obliterated

absolutely obliterated

absolutely obliterated

absolutely obliterated

not even stood a chance

didn't even stand a chance absolutely

obliterated

trick weapon that ain't even fair guys

that weapon ain't even fair you know

what i'm saying

you can't just be out here using the

nuclear the nuclear weapons you know

what i'm saying

got to be a little bit more nuanced

that's why i support

even though he got bullied by wash dude

i don't know the i don't know this

fucking lord guys i don't know this

fucking lord

should i stand for this debate i kind of

feel like standing you know what i'm

saying

i kind of feel like standing i gotta

find my sword

you know what i'm saying but you know

what they say you know what they say

right

you know what they say they say don't

bring a sword to a gun

fight you know what i'm saying hi you

didn't see that you didn't see that my

friend

you don't know what's going on here now

do you don't be bringing swords to a

gunfight my friend

that's why i say you don't bring swords

to a gunfight you don't bring

you don't bring swords to a gunfight you

understand

you don't bring them to a gunfight and

i'm saying because

with a battle hunt i got a sword in one

hand i got you know what i'm saying

that's how we okay we got three minutes

left

for the debate

don't bring drills to a shoe fight

don't bring shoes to a drill fight you

understand liberals have

so much contempt for the work you hit

that will be their downfall

it will be their downfall is this tos it

will be your downfall

it will be their downfall it will be the

downfall

out of the box out of the box

out of the box out of the box

hey out of the box we got two minutes we

got three minutes you know what i'm

saying

we got two minutes to this debate i

don't even know we're debating about

what are we even debating about

he said um what he said he said

what did he say again he said uh

the thing about definitions right that's

what you're talking about

out of the box out of the box

coach me and what coach me and what

we're gonna coach me in football

out of the box out of the box

damn what am i looking for yeah i don't

have a sword i don't have like anything

you know unfortunately

unfortunately my i left my lightsaber at

tatooine

i don't have it with me

you guys talk about bread tube right

but bread too don't have this kind of

bread you know what i'm saying

they don't have this kind of bread you

know what i'm saying bread too don't

have this kind of bread

only we have this kind of bread bread

too doesn't have this kind of bread

you understand

all right we gotta do this it's one

minute

let's do this debate serious time

okay we're gonna be civil we're gonna be

serious okay

all right

y'all ready engage battle mode okay let

me

let me message him

are you ready out of the box

out of the box

i messaged him

out of the box oh wait i move this the

wrong place all right

all right let's wait guys we're waiting

yes i'm ready

okay use video so i can

out capture the box out of the box

out of the box are you gonna use video

hello hello yeah use video so i can

capture

uh i'm already using my video on my end

so are you streaming right now

yep okay hold on

kf logan

yeah yeah that's me on youtube kfl

logan now on on youtube i'm kevin logan

kevin logan yeah yeah okay

fl now okay i got you

up let me turn on the browsing the web

we've got to capture this properties

oh what is this

hold on let me try twitch

kf logan yeah

okay see if we'll capture this

okay um

what the fuck is wrong with this

properties microsoft

oh my god dude hold on

this is what i'm gonna have to do this

sucks

i can't even do this one

what what's the issue wait did wait no

no that's the right one

hey i got it i got it okay i got it i

got it

okay so all right i got it all set up

so okay before we start we we're taught

we've been exchanging

hostility but i'll be civil if you'd be

civil what do you think

dude cool man okay okay good good i'm

glad we can agree about that

okay so

i saw some of your reactions to

socialism done

to my debate we saw some done left and

to watch

and in my view you weren't being quite

that fair

to me oh okay um

and what why do you think i was being

unfair

let me think well for example this whole

thing about definitions right

wrong you pointed out that just because

definitions are malleable

and are subject to change doesn't mean

they're not useful at all

but the issue with bread tube and wash

is that it's not simply that they use

definitions for the purpose of

simplifying concepts i'm fine with that

i like simplifying

concepts obviously you don't want to

have to always use

multiple paragraphs to sum up a concept

you know maybe it's useful to have a

string of words but the issue is that

they go about

confusing the manner of expression we

give

to um to concepts

and to ideas and to phenomena in reality

with being the actual material premise

of those phenomena in the first place

for example

the thing about dictionaries when i was

saying about who was writing the words

in the first place

i know that people writing the

dictionaries are just doing their best

the best they can to try and sum up what

they think the meaning of a word is

but that doesn't mean the meaning of a

word is premised

by that best attempt and vosh and red

tube seem to be under the impression

that the meaning of words is actually

premised by the definitions people give

to them instead of the definitions just

being

the best attempt people give to sum up

that meaning i think meaning is deeper

than

superficial definition okay go ahead

okay yeah

the problem i had with your what i saw

as

obfuscation let's say of um

of this was that you were saying he he

didn't say what is

the definition of fascism he said how do

you define fascism

so he was asking you for your uh version

of

fascism and so you could argue from that

point and you you then went off on a

rant about

all of this other stuff but he wasn't

asking you about

um the etymology of words or anything

like that he was asking you what you

felt fascism was and you couldn't answer

and i thought that was

a tad uh dishonest okay okay well um to

be fair though

i did clarify why i don't want i didn't

want to give wash

even whether it's my definition or it's

the definition i think is besides the

point

i don't want to construct something that

i consider will premise

in every context in every situation what

fascism is

and i that's why i wanted to get that

clear to wash first and then i said well

if you want me to simplify what i think

fascism is

i'd be more than happy to give my best

attempt to try and do that

but i don't have um uh like

i don't have some handy book doctrine

doctrine

you know that i that i apply to

superimpose upon reality like i don't

first

have a definition of fascism and then

superimpose that definition

upon reality i like to engage in

concrete analysis

in the historical phenomena of fascism

and then maybe

through such a materialistic and

concrete analysis

you can maybe discover how the essence

of something like that might be

reproduced in a contemporary context

but my issue with bread tube and again i

like to think of things in concrete

terms like what are they actually doing

with this

whole definition of fascism stuff i

think they're engaging in a type of

opportunism

where they're applying this word fascism

to things that aren't in my view

essentially

uh fascist okay but in order to make the

the

uh call that these things aren't fascist

you must have at least some broad

definition of what you believe fascism

to be

which isn't what vosh was basically

asking you to do

no real no serious person would look at

that situation and think that you were

giving a definitive

absolute this is what fascism always is

and always is not

that's not what anyone was asking you

for and the fact that you couldn't give

that i thought was very very funny

but you know um that's how they treat it

they do treat it as a definitive

absolute

type of thing now a definition if you

want to think about

that word a definition of course i have

a definition

of what fascism is of course fascism

makes an impression upon me

in a way that makes it intelligible so

it is definite definitely

but that type of definition cannot be

reduced

to let's say the 14 points of alberto

echo

or some other kind of axiom or some kind

of other

premise that's what i wanted to say when

we talk about fascism we must engage in

a concrete analysis

um exhaustively and analyzing and

understanding

not only the historical context but the

situation

uh in the countries within which fascism

gained prominence

and that's something i'd love to go over

you know in a way that won't take an

hour or two hours or something in a

simplistic way

i just take issue with this idea that

first we have a

let me put it this way right the meaning

we

attribute to fascism isn't

it comes first the definition is just

our best attempt to summarize what that

meaning is

yeah okay but the the thing is

you are happy to ascribe the term bread

tube to a quite

wide array of different people online

even though that's a far

less well understood and well studied

phenomena than fascism

i disagree uh well i think

that bread tube is a phenomenon and they

are they do share

similar characteristics in terms of the

philosophical

premises if you will uh that they have

i'm not i'm not i'm not denying that my

point is

that you're far easier adding that

label to somebody whether they describe

it themselves or not

whereas you're far more tentative about

fascism

it seems odd to me considering that you

claim to be

anti-fascism well there's a reason for

that the first one is that fascism is a

historical phenomena which tends to be

attributed to phenomena

that are not in the by no means in the

contemporary sense

identified with fascism without

controversy

but i think everyone can agree that

there is right now a phenomena called

bread tube

and which the bread two people

themselves don't really have a problem

acknowledging it's a new it's it's like

um fascism is something from the 20s and

30s that is being superimposed upon

new phenomena which i don't really think

it's useful to call

fascist the the idea of bread tube

just corresponds to a new youtube

phenomena

um yeah that's basically the response to

it's not like we're just dragging

something from the past and

superimposing it upon something new

oh i i find that interesting considering

you called yourself a maoist

and peasants aren't really a thing

anymore so that

doesn't really make sense no it's

actually interesting um

no no it's interesting first regarding

the thing about maoism

when we call ourselves maois and

stalinis

we are acknowledging and owning up to

this history

first and foremost now it doesn't mean

that

in 2021 the same conditions that

corresponded to stalinism maoism

or even lenin's time and marx's time

are the same it's just saying that we

seek to reproduce

in essence despite the differing

conditions

uh the achievement and discovery of

stalin for his time and mao

for his time it doesn't mean we're

dogmatically you know

applying the conditions that

corresponded to the meaning of those

words to our times

the second thing is that it's

interesting to bring that up because i

disagree

conceptually if i don't fault you for

not doing research on us or anything

like that but

we at infrared um we don't actually

agree that

the peasantry has disappeared we view

actually

it's one of our conceptual innovations

to marxism

that given the lessons of 20th century

communism

um given the achievement of lenin the

unity of the workers and peasants we

don't consider the peasantry to be

a vestigial or transient formations

there's something about the peasantry

um that endures something about this

which endures and we

we uh use thinkers like heidegger to

give better expression and understanding

of this

now i'm like it sounds like everyone

dismisses what i say is word salad

please let me simplify what i'm saying

okay

no no i'm not yet i wouldn't say that

that through your audience

oh yeah absolutely and there's there's

there are points during the debates i've

seen where you

definitely veer into that kind of

territory but on this occasion i don't

think you are

but what i will say is i think you're

trying to redefine

the current concrete circumstances to

get around the fact that

even if you're a communist you can't

realistically be a maoist in the 21st

century because the conditions are so

different

i just want to clarify where i'm coming

from with this peasantry thing because i

know it sounds a little bit outlandish

so to me um a peasantry

uh there has always been some kind of

are you still there

yeah sorry i was just closing the door

okay okay there has always been

a con even in marx's time uh

let me try to sum this up in the best

and easiest ways i can because it's a

lot i'm gonna really sum it up okay

the english industrial revolution

corresponded

to almost purely urbanized

modern classes the proletariat and the

bourgeoisie

marx looked at what was happening in

england and obviously understood that

this was the future

this was the future for the world but

during marx's time

there is a delay right what was

happening in england

still hadn't this is why marxists use

this language of lesser developed and

more developed and so on and so on

um to me this delay

isn't accidental the reason is because

um the pro the urbanized classes the

proletariat and the bourgeoisie

always necessarily correspond to some

kind of

uh sub-altern uh maybe that's a buzzword

hinterland some kind of periphery maybe

that's a more familiar word some type of

periphery which is necessarily always

uh lesser developed put in temporal

terms to me

things like the peasantry and then marx

was getting to this in capital volume

three with the landed

uh with this new significance of landed

property in relation to capital

um to me the peasantry

represents uh this the material

foundation of a polity

uh in popular terms the popular

material foundation of a policy which

means how in what

way do people reproduce their existence

economically

as the very foundation of the polity

within which

they are apart and this sounds crazy but

put in simple terms

you can think of how the rule of

napoleon corresponds to small holding

french peasants

you know what marxists call bonapartism

then you can think in terms of the

we'll just think of the word middle

class actually this is a really

simplistic way to put it

we are it's very well known in the

political science and all this kind of

stuff that a stable middle class

is necessary for liberal democracy and

so on and so on

and in the 20th century this middle

class

in the united states had a small uh

head of family white picket fences a car

in a house

and then you can see this expressed in

other countries some type of class

right which is not lesser developed

in time than the english 19th century

proletariat but which is nonetheless

reach is reproducing characteristics

that were

um previously associated only with the

peasantry

some type of independent what we like to

call independent

ground of living being now this isn't

necessarily independent

uh property in the liberal sense of

sovereign

ownership of property but it is this

independent ground of living being

that is not necessarily the same as the

proletariat but at the same time

is not lesser developed than the

politics so for us

proletarianization which separates

people from their

living being and forces them to sell

their only property which is their own

labor

this is something uh this is something

which is

always happening uh across history

in addition to the fact of uh some type

of uh

what's what's a good word to call this

re-parcelization of landed property

whether in abstract terms some type of

return to living being

and some type of proletarianization is a

kind of cyclical

process this is how we've understood

history in general it also explains

why is it that in the united states and

europe

something like a middle class re-emerged

why is it that uh you know

why is it that the the populism that

we're experiencing today have nothing to

do

that marxist simply aren't able to

explain them although mao is kind of can

you know

speaking of maoism i kind of wrote it

but like

but we you have the same phenomena

political phenomena of a contradiction

between the hinterlands

and urban cores

none of this has anything to do with the

fact that these people are still not

peasants

what's the point okay clarify what you

mean by that

well right okay um certainly in the

western world let's say

and actually throughout much of the

world um

what what it means to be proletarian

hasn't fundamentally changed in the

sense that yeah you still have to sell

your life

of course but what we typically think of

as the difference between peasants and

uh proletariat the when you've gone

about the land holdings

there are there aren't really a layer of

of peasants around for which you could

have

the peasant vanguard of a revolution

which is the maoist concept right

i certainly agree that agrarian small

property uh ownership more or less is no

longer the

defined significant portion of the

population so in that sense you're

completely correct

but i just don't consider what the

essence of the peasantry was

especially as as it was relevant to

maoism

uh to be reducible to those

circumstances i think the peasantry

foreign of course they are

i i think there's something about the

peasantry

that has uh that has endured and maoism

allows us to distill what the essence of

that is away from its

uh specific instantiation in agrarian

bonds

okay um i i don't think we're gonna

agree on that point um but it's sort of

besides the

beginning uh we may not agree with it

that's completely fine but does it make

a little

at least a little bit of sense is there

a little bit of a concealer well it

makes

it makes sense but it just seems like

you're kind of um

trying to redefine the concrete

realities of the world to suit

a pre-existing answer which doesn't seem

like the kind of scientific

socialism that marxism but to me

uh for us at the infrared collective we

view it in the opposite sense

we saw that the way marxists were

looking at the world was precisely

trying to

superimpose old definitions upon the

world in order to realize

some ideological consistency in some

position

for example this idea that everyone is

simply the working class everyone is

simply

the proletariat actually i didn't begin

as a maoist

believe it or not i began as some kind

of you know

smug intellectual if you will right i

thought maoism was so stupid

we only became interested in maoism

because it was so useful

in actually understanding what was going

on in the west

with this so-called new populism things

like the yellow vest why is it that

marxists were failing to understand and

i'm not trying to say i want to larp

some maoist revolution in america and

have a protracted people's war

i'm not i'm not coming from that

perspective i'm speaking in a very

uh well you live in the united kingdom

right

i am a terrible anglo-saxon yes to me

maoism a little bit of maoism not only

there's maybe limitations to maoism

uh as there are all things but a little

bit of maoism maybe can help understand

to me from

my understanding of the of how things

went down why

what what was corbyn's weakness why did

corbyn

fail to acquire the support of those

british working classes who i consider

more like a peasantry living in the

hinterlands

outside of the metropolitan centers

who actually for the first time if you

can correct me if i'm wrong a lot of

them for the first time in history

voted conservative so yeah this types of

paradoxes to me

maoism is of great use in being able to

clarify okay so what

what what would be the maoist answer to

that and what's the maoist analysis of

that

well uh to me that

i think the maoist view the contribution

to the dialectic materials dialectic is

this notion of primary and secondary

contradictions

um you can recognize a primary

contradiction

as the traditional marxist one between

the proletariat and the bourgeoisie

but as mao said there's also secondary

contradictions there's contradictions

for example between um

a nation and some imperial

like japan some imperialistic uh force

right

um in japan there's a proletariat in the

bourgeoisie too

and in china there's also some type of

proletariat in bourgeoisie maybe

but these two contradictions

are uh they're both addressed by the

maoist dialectic

the primary contradiction is between the

problem i might be getting the primary

and secondary order of things wrong

the primary contradiction is between the

proletariat and the bourgeoisie

and there's also this secondary

contradiction going on so

you can only speak of the proletarian

position doesn't just mean

being on the side of the factory

proletariat but

being on the side of the factory

proletariat

as it is being reproduced as it is being

given expression

from the uh the forces engaging in some

type of national

liberation and actually this is

imperfect i don't know if you watched

the destiny debate but i

tried to illustrate this in the case of

lenin lenin didn't look at the cities

and say here's the proletariat and

here's the bourgeoisie

he looked at the russian countryside and

he said these fundamental class

divisions are being reproduced

in a new way but despite that almost

all of the peasants in a sense can be

united by the fact of their antagonism

toward

the cities almost as a whole so you have

two you have this kind of

multi-dimensional

contradiction secondary and primary

and in the case of the united kingdom i

think when you're dealing with this type

of phenomena

you have to not only look at the

contradiction between the proletariat

the most marginal whatever and uh the

liberal bourgeoisie which i think

the corbyn momentum and stuff they were

focusing too much on

uh the city same thing with bernie they

were focusing too much on this

you also have to bear in mind the

contradiction between hinterland

and hinterland the national hinterland

and the urban center the metropolitan

urban center

so this is what i mean by primary and

secondary contradictions

oh okay but i mean you mentioned there

the factory proletariat

um that doesn't apply because we don't

really have that very much

post post-industrial now yeah i don't

mean to interrupt you but i just want to

clarify

by factory proliterate i just mean like

the most

urban urbanized possible proletariat in

a given time the military that

corresponds to the

most recent innovation of modern

industries so i suppose in today's day

and age

this would be more like people in the

gig economy or some something like that

along those lines i don't

necessarily mean that yeah um but also

the people you're referring to in the um

what's called the red wall area the uh

working class who'd voted for the

conservative party they are largely

yeah those they largely are urban i know

yeah yeah it's the same in the united

states actually uh

here in michigan uh they are also robert

you said

you said that they focused too much on

the well

that's that's the interesting thing is

that they are urban from the 20th

century's

urbanization the 20th century's

urbanization today

from a sociological perspective despite

being urbanized

you know being post-modern you know you

know what i just i don't want to do word

salad so i want to clarify all these

buzzwords i'm throwing in

by post-modern i mean modernization and

urbanization are kind of

synonymous right that they're kind of

like the same thing

from the perspective of uh modernity

of course yes the modernization happened

the no people are no longer just farming

but even after post-modernity the

peasant repre and this is why they're

urban but

their urban infrastructure for example

is

uh is archaic is our cake much in

similar way as the form of relations in

the countryside we're also

archaic i hope this is making sense i

just want this to be

as simple i'm not i i'm not sure any of

this is making sense and i don't mean to

be rude there but i think you're

out of your depth on this one please

elaborate i want to do the best i can to

make

well i the reason i even asked you about

this because i don't think a maoist

perspective on modern britain is

applicable in any real in any sense

i don't think yeah but that's not to say

that marxism doesn't have some role to

play and that obviously maoism is a type

of marxism

but i think maui's is an adaption of

marxism that's

essentially obsolete certainly in the

western world i can't speak to modern

uh southeast asia for instance but

certainly the western world

it doesn't work in any way okay uh

please uh

elaborate um why do you think well well

i

because again we've still been through i

suppose but the peasantry doesn't exist

but don't you think marxism marxism

needs to be updated in some respects

just on the basis that

the uh urban proletariat

are not um a factory-based people

anymore that isn't a thing

um but you're just kind of repeating the

thing you said before yeah but i also

said something so

what do you think is so inadequate about

how i've qualified why i think

the contrary is the case well you've

given quite broad contradictions between

geographic areas which don't suit the

britain which is fine because

you're looking up from here so i'm not

expecting you to necessarily know all of

that

but also it's it seems to me a much more

concrete analysis would have to do with

things like

um the media's portrayal of people like

jeremy corbyn versus

conservatism rather than anything else

also de-industrialization

um and the fact that some on the left

haven't necessarily

grasped that and found a way of

adapting not even marxian but

social democratic even because he's i

mean the basic point is

uh corbin was a social democrat um

they've not gained a way of being able

to um connect with that group of people

and i don't think that any uh

secondary contradiction necessarily

comes into it in any way okay okay

uh three things uh i just wanted to

clarify uh the first thing was about

um the first i forgot the first thing

the second thing was about the media

it was about uh yeah the portrayal of

the uh jeremy corbyn by the media

i don't necessarily i think that's a

given though he's a he's an outsider

he's an anti-establishment candidate so

that's not from the very outset that's

not going to be fair

i mean so i don't necessarily think

that's a sufficient excuse

um it's interesting that you mentioned

what is the do you remember the first

thing you said i just forgot

what was the first thing you said uh the

geographic this difference

yes

we have a similar sociological

distinction that

and i can't name them off the top of my

head but uh writers within the uk were

also describing

you have and this is you're going to be

going into your third point

de-industrialized

hinterland areas that are outside of the

periphery of these urban centers

people who used to work in factories in

heavy industry of some kind

losing their jobs

their jobs or their jobs were already

shipped overseas

i'm just trying to draw a comparison

from a sociological perspective and i

don't necessarily think this is

outrageous the french yellow vest was

the same thing and you had media

headlines saying that

the yellow vest were macrons vendi now

if you're not familiar with the vendi

i'm sure you are because you're very

well read

if the audience isn't familiar with what

the vendee was it was

the stage in the french revolution where

basically

uh the republican army was suppressing a

peasant revolt

in the region the vendee so the media

was understanding how the yellow vests

were a type of

similar to a peasantry they're

peripheral they're on the margins

they're away from the urban centers

which are the power sources of the

polity that exercises dominion over them

i think the comparison is uh is more

than uh

more than justified i think that in the

in the uk

a similar uh a similar type of

contradiction is is there

as it is in the united states and is in

france you have urban

uh centers and you have some type of

periphery with

of which the establishment in the elite

is out of touch with and this is a

source of uh populism

so to me this is uh i'm i'm just

struggling to understand

why this uh distinction is contradiction

is

well first firstly i would point out

that the

uh much like in america the populism

isn't really populism

because it is being run by the

establishment in the same way that

donald trump

was a in theory billionaire who gave

massive tax cuts to rich people and

continued

doing the same basic uh imperialist

bullshit around the world

um look at the many ways you tried to

overthrow venezuela and ecuador and

various other places

um uh boris johnson is precisely that as

well he's um

uh a rich guy uh also born in new york i

run a client

right yeah exactly yeah this is the

thing yeah

yeah so it's not that it's not the the

establishment are out of touch with the

public the establishment have perfectly

honed the public for bullshit

you know um in a sense i agree with you

you do have this phenomena of elites

which seems like they're pretending to

be

among the people but they're actually

not they're part of the

the big club as george carlin put it in

the case of trump

it's a little bit more complicated he

might be a billionaire he might be an

elite

but as far as the political

establishment is concerned which is here

what's relevant

um he he was an outsider and even among

the establishment in general from what i

know

trump was considered a clown he was uh

so the theory goes that people like

trump and maybe boris johnson and tucker

carlson

were were people who were bitter about

being kicked out of the establishment

and once they were kicked out of this

big club

they for accidental happenstance reasons

gave expression to a more fundamental

popular discontent

with the establishment it doesn't

surprise me that

i can't speak for boris johnson so i'm

going to put that on the back burner for

now

but it doesn't really surprise me that

wealthy people like tucker carlson

and donald trump are the first ones that

are able to give

expression to anti-establishment

sentiment just because of their own

particular

having been slighted by the

establishment and the reason is because

having money

um having money being a popular

celebrity or whatever it is

that comes with two advantages uh one is

that people attribute you with some kind

of power

some kind of power i mean even if

outside of the establishment some kind

of minimum of power you're not just

building it from scratch and two we're

very pragmatic simple uh

common sense reason you you have the

resources

to be independent not have to rely on

the establishment to support yourself

institutions

and be able to finance some kind of

some kind of uh campaign or position

so that doesn't necessarily surprise me

too much but i think

even if they were just pretending and

they still were in the big club with all

the elites and it was all a con

i don't think that makes the

anti-establishment sentiment they were

giving

expression to however dishonestly or

disingenuously

any less real i think there is an

objective anti-establishment sentiment

which is expressed in the fact that in

both

in 2015 corbyn and bernie were united by

one fact

they were vaguely associated with the

right-wing populism there was a

phenomena of populism in general and so

both of them were by the media and by

the common sense in general by voters

themselves may be swinging at least in

bernie's case maybe not the uk

you had people inter interchanging

between bernie and trump so there was a

vague association between them both

despite their policies and all that

being completely different different

from a materialist perspective

structural perspective whatever you want

both of them were being identified as

outsiders who are outside of the

establishment basically shaking up the

game

and i think that this popular narrative

isn't simply a deception

i think there's truth to it i think

there's truth to popular narratives

uh like this okay um

should we move on to some more concrete

matters arising um i just want to say so

do you

do you if you disagree with me um do you

think at the very least that

even if you're disagreeing with it what

i'm saying isn't just nonsense maybe

there's some pattern to what i'm saying

i think you've got a kernel of truth

about the

rise of populism but i don't see that as

particularly maoist if that was the

original point we were talking about but

i mean i've tried

to explain to the best of my ability why

yeah that is but

i don't maybe we we would need a longer

conversation or something or can you at

least recognize in good faith that i'm

i'm trying my best to

uh make it unacceptable to you

okay yeah that's fine okay yeah um

so uh you've described yourself as a

tanker right

right yeah so i'm not that's not a tag

i'm applying to anyone here

um but i've got issues with tankies in a

number of respects

and someone actually asks um on my end

to

ask you about trans issues

where do you stand on that

um where do i stand on it i think that

well my view is that uh transgender

people

um the minute this becomes some kind of

political controversy

to me the reactionary position is always

bankrupt if transgender people

are demanding uh not to be abused

uh to be correctly uh

identified with with their

with their gender and they don't want

you know

i don't see i think to me the way i'm

looking at the transgender issue is that

uh i don't think transgender people are

the transgressors

if that makes sense i think they just

want to live normal

human lives uh with dignity

and much of the issue is coming from a

very perverse

uh reactionary perspective according to

which

which to me actually epitomizes all of

the things

uh alien and grotesque things that

they're

throwing upon the transgender people to

me the reactionary position

has the fundamental pathologies they

attribute to transgender people who in

my experience

simply want to live normal human

dignified

life so in a sense i'm almost a kind of

a

conservative approach transgender a guy

i'm not coming

at it from a progressive perspective

where i'm saying

well this is the march of progress and

we all must change i don't think we must

change i think that phenomena of

transgenderism for example

says something about humanity as it

actually is

here and now um

so it's not some kind of transgression

and another thing too

uh regarding this tanky thing i don't

see transgenderism

as a strictly uh western phenomena

because to me this strict

uh strict and discreet

gender roles like as something airtight

comes after modernity in every all of my

studies of

gender in uh the pre-modern era for

example

um it's much more ambiguous you know of

course there's a vague

two uh types of genders but

things are able to be more uh ambiguous

it's not put in the box

you know yeah okay um i think there's

some interesting

points to pick on there when you say we

don't have to change

what do you mean by that because surely

the way in which transgender people are

treated is

pretty disgusting from many perspectives

are you suggesting those other people

don't have to change or does that

reference to something else

those are the people who are

transgressing from

a basic human common sense according to

which people should be treated with

dignity and decency and their respect

so to me they're the ones trying to

force a change

is kind of the paradoxical position i'm

coming from the people who are

abusive against the transgender people

those are the ones trying to initiate

a new change the transgender people just

want to be normal

live normal dignified human life yeah

so would you disagree therefore with the

um communist party of great britain

marxist leninist in their suggestion

that transgenderism is a bourgeois

disease

yes uh yes yes you know

i've actually talked about this on

stream before

i don't i well when i um many positions

i expressed maybe

you were against philosophically when i

mentioned

anglo-saxon metaphysics from the 17th

century

i actually said that the way in which

they understand gender

is bogged down by this specific

prejudice to me

this idea of gender being reducible or

being the same to some kind of well the

argument they always use that by sex

is biological it's a scientific

objective reality

and transgenderism is some kind of

subjectivism

to me this is a complete

misunderstanding

of of objectivity it's a

faulty notion of objectivity

uh i don't think uh i don't think it's

the case

i rejected on these grounds but i'm not

going to be an anglophobe

here but would you not agree that among

uk leftists and maybe i'm wrong i'm

completely wrong

on this so you can correct me if i'm

wrong in your own experience but it

seems to me that in the uk

many leftists many many leftists it

seems

this transgender issue seems to be

so so much of a big issue in the uk like

uh

i think well i think it's a big issue in

america too but yeah it's it's an issue

here that that's certainly the case um

a point i've um that's been an issue

uh for me is that you uh you've uh stand

for um

[Music]

caleb mopping yes and some of the

debates i've seen for you

but he does seem to think that trans

people are um

are an issue let's say oh uh i disagree

i think that he's been accused of that

but he's clarified that

that wasn't his position caleb caleb

maupin is not

against transgender people

from my understanding is that he spoke

with someone

some type of leftist who happens to have

anti-transgender views and

they by but he himself clarified that

and didn't

yeah he didn't push back against them he

just

sat there making silly faces very like

just

just allowing this person to say

horrific things which

i can only think like if they were

saying those things about

about tanki's frankly i think he might

have pushed back on that in a way

like it it seems to me he's either

an exceptionally stupid person which

doesn't seem what does she

say analysis because i didn't watch the

whole video so do you know which

oh well jody um

[Music]

oh i forgot her surname she's from the

cpgbml

um uh and she was basically saying that

like i say

uh it was a bourgeois decadent thing

that this wasn't like a real problem

um and uh he was basically just sat

there kind of nodding his head

not really pushing back and that seems

to me like if you actually

give a shit you would say something and

he didn't

well her opinion i disagree with but

maybe caleb and i didn't watch the video

in context you know caleb maupin marched

for transgender rights a decade ago

before many leftists

now who are expressing support for it so

but but anyway um if he didn't say

anything when she said she thinks it's a

buddhism

maybe he just wanted to get the

conversation along and didn't want to go

down

the rabbit hole and he didn't want to

deal with it you can say he's wrong for

this or he's he's right for this

whatever

but i don't think it's fair to make the

leap from that

that this means caleb maupin is against

transgender people

when you have a human conversation

sometimes to focus on

more important topics you have to let

people say what they want to say

and just move on it doesn't mean you

agree with it you know i think that's

kind of a given from for

most conversations you have whether

publicly or not you don't necessarily

have to you know immediately

yell at them or something because maybe

he disagrees with her about the

transgender issue

but maybe he agrees with her about many

other topics that he

would prefer to have explored

okay well on on the issue that i mean is

of contention in the

mainstream in politics in america right

now how do you feel about trans kids

participating in uh sport with the the

agenda

that they are

i i don't really feel anything about it

you know uh what am i supposed to feel

about it

well no well some people think that it's

wrong to allow

people born with a penis to compete in

sporting events with

um people born with a vagina here's what

i would say

i think this matter must be left to

those people who want to

participate to the sports associations

and to the people who know more about

you know

who are i i simply don't think i'm in a

position to

to have a position on that matter i

don't but i don't find it

outrageous on an intuitive level if

that's what you're asking

okay no that's that's fine okay uh to

move to a sort of a lied

topic you've described yourself as a

hundred percent stalinist

yes uh so gay people deserve to be in

gulags

no but uh you have to understand that in

context

in the soviet union uh not saying

that this wasn't a mistake or it's

something that should be replicated or

something that has any place

in the modern world but in context

um there was not a clear distinction

at this time between homosexuality which

was

associated with an aristocratic pastime

and pedestrian these were kind of

they weren't really well distinguished

phenomena it was associated with the

former aristocracy

now of course we know now that

homosexuality is not

aristocratic but at the time in the

soviet union that was the extent to

which it was being given

a significance it was being given

significance with that association

uh but that was that would have been

yeah but that still would have been

enormous hypocrisy on stalin's part

though because he was both bisexual and

a pederast

uh i disagree with both of those uh

things but before we get into

that whole well you can disagree but

they're historically we'll get into

another way we'll get into it we'll get

into what we'll do with the the evidence

that stands in in relation to that

but um regarding this um

this stuff i don't think that the soviet

union's police

policies on homosexuality in the 30s

are ascent what essentially defines this

word stalinism because it's not really

uh it's not really a given

i mean it's not really uh out of the

ordinary for states at the time

uh so much so to me we say we're 100

stalinism we're saying insofar as the

phenomena of stalinism

uh can be intelligible for us and can be

significant

for us as something new for its time we

are 100 percent

stalinist now regarding this business

about stalin being bisexual and being a

pedestrian i'm going to completely uh

deny that

it's completely false

uh on what basis do you know about uh

it has no basis is is the point i don't

think that has any basis whatsoever

not bisexual nor was he a pedestrian

he was uh he was not both of those both

of those things

what evidence do you have he was

bisexual that's a new one to me i've

never heard

i will you've never heard that stalin

had uh relations with

with men after his wife had died i've

never heard that you're unaware of it

i've never

heard that i've never heard that even if

it was it wouldn't make a difference but

i have never heard that before

well it would the thing is it would make

a difference because you're suggesting

that

this was somehow a misunderstanding on

stalin's part where stalin himself was

no well no i i don't because uh

the phenomena even if he was personally

the phenomena

was associated with the aristocracy it

wasn't he wasn't saying that

it means you're an aristocrat it's just

that insofar as this was a prevalent

phenomenon in soviet society it was

associated

with that former aristocracy now that

doesn't mean that stalin

had his own association but i think it's

a complete

falsehood where have you gotten this

idea that stalin was bisexual

i just want to know where you got it

from uh well i

read it in several historical um sources

i will go through on a stream a

different time

i'll be honest i've put zero uh sources

together for this

but uh yeah love to know you know where

you got that from because that's

completely okay well

i'll i'll i'll put that together um at

some point in the future

um can you explain to me yeah the phrase

marxism leninism in a multi in the age

of most

before we get into that one the whole

thing about that i think that's complete

slander and that's a lie too

well that's still there

um i i can't remember the woman's name i

knocked i could probably look this one

up

tonight darling uh i didn't eat i think

he had sex with like a 14 year old girl

or something

yeah when he was in exile in siberia

this had nothing from a cultural

perspective at the time to do with

pedestrian though

at the time there was no comparison to

pedestry

uh he was 36 years old and began a

sexual relationship with the 13 year old

lydia

pepe which is grotesque from a modern

perspective culturally

horrible cortes but at the time it

wasn't the case and

these things changed historically okay

no that's not

they said even in the crippling russian

empire the idea of consent was 14.

so even by that standard he was still

having us

no she was 13. okay well

at the time it was not something uh so

out of the ordinary

so i don't see what your point is

well no whether it's out of the ordinary

or not um

uh i think it's it shines a light on the

idea that he was doing this because of

some misunderstanding on the basis of

allegedly it being connected to

pederasty when he was a pederast

no but it had there was a phenomena of

pedestrian in the russian empire it was

a pastime yeah

of the russia it had no it

but pedestrian had nothing to do with

stalin's relationship with that

that person nothing to do with it it was

like there's

no association yeah

he was 36 and she was 13. i don't know

how else but this is not how pedestrians

was defined at that time it was 14 was

the age i just told you

it's not no uh it just it was no no no

listen pedestrian what i'm trying to say

pedestrian was

uh probably centuries old tradition in

the russian empire among the aristotle

actually it was a specific cultural

phenomena in practice

stalin was not replicating and

reproducing that cultural phenomena in

practice

because she was allegedly a year younger

than the age of consent that doesn't

suffice to qualify stalin as a

pedestrian pedestrians

replicating a um

a culture or not he's still engaging in

the press you would not have been

associated with pedestrian

whatsoever at that time is what i'm

asserting he would not have been

associated with pedestrian

whatsoever either in that village or

throughout the russian empire as a whole

for engaging

uh in what you're saying none whatsoever

that he would not

associate with pedestrian at that time

whatsoever can you not see

how you've painted yourself into a weird

corner here

because because you're doing a kind of

weird hero worship on stalin you're

defending a 36 year old man fucking a

third

i'm doing no such thing really mad man i

don't need

to defend that i'm defending against the

slander that at that time he would have

been considered

a pedestrian and now he would he would

be a pedophile of course he would be a

pedophile for something so grotesque and

disgusting

now but at that time he would not have

been considered

anything related to industry whatsoever

okay

okay but i mean that still calls into

question why you would be one hundred

percent stalinist

yeah no i actually claimed his sexual

proclivities aren't necessarily

to do with his philosophy but you can

understand my

concern when you would associate

yourself with someone um

several accounts i think such a concern

would be unfounded the first one is that

i've already qualified what we mean by

100 stalinist and maoists and as i said

it has nothing to do

with replicating the exact historical

conditions that gave rise to those

phenomena but on the second account you

yourself mentioned it

stalin's personal relations when he was

36 years old in exile

in siberia that is not what defines

the phenomena of stalinism you know the

revisionist school of soviet history and

this sounds like a bad term revisionist

but they're very well accepted in the

academies

people like um what's her name applebaum

fitzpat uh sheila fitzpatrick have you

heard of her

the name rinse a bell button historian

of

soviet history they teach her in the

university so when i say revisionist i

don't mean like

what it sounds like are those

recognizers

yeah yeah they recognize yeah they

recognize a phenomenon in the 30s

called the stalin revolution this is

what brought meaning to

stalinism it wasn't just one guy or even

one guy's philosophy it was a historical

event

uh in the 30s a new historical event the

same thing is true for maoism

yeah okay that's that's um

that's fine um you also

uh well bringing it up to date

you also uh deny that there's a uyghur

genocide taking place

yes i completely deny that on what basis

do you deny that

i denied on the basis that the

the proposition that there's a weaker

genocide the only thing that has

breathed existence into this meme

has insufficiently supported itself it

has not supported

uh the conclusion that that was arrived

at

there is no evidence there is a weaker

genocide therefore i have no reason to

think

there's a weaker gender there's quite a

lot of evidence what's some of the ad

evidence

um photographic evidence okay that's

evidence you have the

i'm not going to hold you to it for

having them now because you didn't

prepare it i completely understand

but yeah but you must know that yeah

there are photographs but what are what

are what are those four

photographs showing they're not showing

a genocide

rows and rows of male shaven

prisoners lined up there there are

prisons in

xinjiang and there's also prisons in uh

eastern uh china for han people now

obviously in

if i'm pronouncing that right the

prisoners will be majority uighur

now i won't deny the fact that there are

special what the chinese government

calls them special vocational centers

specifically for uyghur people in

xinjiang

whether those exist in eastern china i'm

not familiar enough

to know that so i won't uh say well

xi jinping is a pretty substantial hand

supremacist

i would suggest that the hand prisons

are mainly for hand prisoners

actually whereas these are probably

re-education camps to try and drive a

native

uh culture from the country which would

be at least cultural genocide

it's interesting you mentioned that

because we actually have

a chinese a chinese member within our

collective infrared and he knows the

trends that are going on on chinese

social media and within china

right han supremacy and han nationalism

was precisely the phenomena that

predated xi jinping

and xi jinping the era of xi jinping has

is precisely what has outmoded han

supremacy you have to understand that

chinese so-called chinese nationalism

and patriotism

encompasses all of china's specific

ethnicities

so han supremacy was

and actually it's similar in russia too

russian ethnic nationalism is navalny

putin stands for russia as a supra

ethnic state

so xi jinping is the same people

obviously not a honda supremacist

because i would

i would point you in the direction of um

chechnya

and the treatment of the muslims there

by the putin regime

as a precise example of that not

necessarily being the case

i'm not going to stick up for navalny

but putin's garbage now that we're on

the subject of russia

it was an ugly war that chechen wore in

the 90s in the 2000s

but after that war what is going what

has been happening mosques are being

built

all over chechnya the chechen people

have an incredible level of autonomy

they're almost liv it's almost like uh a

certain state

just to an extent so once you've yeah so

it's okay to have slaughtered them

as long as you're now allowing them to

build mosques it was a

horrible and ugly war right but

it wasn't a genocide you know it wasn't

a genocide but i didn't say that was a

genocide okay

i'm saying that the thing happening in

china is a genocide i'm just saying

ethnic

i can say more about russia but i can

also go back to china it's up to you

whichever you prefer okay okay sure

going back to russia

just because the chechen war was a

brutal war doesn't mean that the

linchpin of this brutality was that

putin was a

russian ethnic nationalist who wanted to

exterminate the chechen people

putin considered the separatism in

chechnya

to be something that is undermining

russia as this big space this

multi-polar

civilization i sorry multi-ethnic uh

civilization

so it's not it it doesn't mean he's a

racist for example

the second thing i would argue i would

argue it certainly

is a pretty strong indication of that

but also what's his issue with

self-determination

yeah i'm just open as from an open

perspective why do you think he's racist

um i think a lot of what he plays into

a lot of the groups he stands um

are pretty fucking disgustingly racist

actually he's kick put him outside of

russia is what you mean

no we're inside of russia he's

there have been various neo-nazi groups

who have been um

egg done by his people because he

essentially uses them as a sort of

pseudo brown shirtist movement

to attack gay people for instance you're

talking about

the what are they called the nashi the

nashi youth right

they fight they're called anti-fascists

they fight neo-nazis

neo-nazism in russia has been in the

decline ever since the war in

ukraine where nazism has now been

associated with ukrainian

nationalism so putin is not well no i

mean i'm

to be honest i'm against most forms of

nationalism if not

all relay but whatever i mean the the

basic point i would

draw back to is even if it was not

racially based

why are we supposed to be okay with the

guy who will brutally and violently

repress

people's self-determination if chechnya

is set

on becoming its own thing then i don't

see why

violent murderous repression is okay

well um the to play the devil's advocate

from the russian perspective

historically russian civilization has

incompetent many ethnicities in many

nations and they would they viewed the

separatism

in chechnya for example uh as a type of

american ploy to undermine this russian

civilization so they didn't actually

associate it with the inner striving of

the chechen people okay but that's i

mean regardless of

who's doing what and where the point

being if the chechen people wish to

leave

yeah it's not the acceptable moral thing

to do

to brutally slaughter them like the

breakup of the soviet union happened and

it didn't turn

to or for the most part in turn seen

uh bloodletting those countries those

countries and those different

nationalities and those

different um ethnicities became their

own countries and that was fine

yeah well uh the troubling thing is how

do a people

express their will for sovereignty

there's two examples that i think and

i'm not trying to

hound you or make this as a gotcha

because i don't know your position

necessarily

but it's interesting that in crimea when

people voted in a referendum

overwhelmingly to go to the russian

federation

that was considered an occupation of

crimea on russia's part

the second thing is that catalonia

wasn't even allowed to express

its sovereignty in spain and yet spain

is

held nowhere near to the standard as uh

no

he's russian i will absolutely agree

with you that the the fact that the

catalan

independence leadership is still in

prison is a disgusting blight on spain

and on europe as a whole

i quite agree with you there but that

doesn't um

change anything else elsewhere in this

in a sense

um i don't know the rights and wrongs of

the crimean

um vote but i would it wouldn't surprise

me if the crimean people did vote that

way

and if it were that way then they should

be allowed to secede and become part of

the russian federation if they so wish

that's interesting it's very interesting

um i'm genuinely i'm for

self-determination i think democracy is

a good thing

i i'm i'm not familiar that the chechen

people uh

voted in a referendum to express i don't

know i don't think they did but i think

it was pretty

clear that they a very significant chunk

of the population wanted to leave they

didn't feel

and i think many still don't feel

russian yeah

but this is the troubling thing with

issues of sovereignty and statehood is

that um

being able to establish independence and

sovereignty is uh

as in all things the state is built upon

violence

right so any type of secession

uh any type of secession whatsoever is a

declaration of war in a sense against

the state within which the territory

not not remotely no i i completely well

well in a manner that's outside of the

law

in a matter outside of the law well it's

well yeah in that case then the uh

catalan you can't have a problem with

what happened in catalonia because that

wasn't sanctioned by the spanish

government

well uh i i know that from the spanish

government's perspective it can find a

way to justify it

i side explicitly think no no but i'm

not sure it doesn't

you have to get the say so of the

central government no no i'm not saying

and the catalan

the catalan leaders cannot possibly have

any complaint because the spanish

government did not allow that please

don't misunderstand

me i'm not saying you need the

i'm saying that politics in statehood is

based on violence

it's also true in in catalonia

um it's but i just wish that they would

hold

spain to the same standard that they're

doing to these other countries or they

wouldn't hold anyone to that standard

whatsoever is what i'm trying to point

out but

in my view for example a liberation

struggle

colonial liberation struggle you don't

ask permission

to wage a violent war of liberation you

just do it or you fail

that's how i view statehood in general

states are based on violence

and uh it is a matter of yeah it's a

matter of

rules and decide that outcome but in the

case of chechnya

we can identify the leaders of the

catalan independence movements

who were the leaders of the chechen

separatism and secession

and would you be so keen on identifying

with them because i certainly

don't have an issue supporting the

catalan forces of independence

but i i wonder if you would take issue

supporting the

forces of secession oh well i don't know

the individuals involved but

in general i stand with

yeah well yeah or organization yeah i

don't i can't

speak to that off the top of my head but

um i got no problem with standing with

the chechen people

but i don't know the leadership of that

organism of those organizations

particularly well but how are those

people

according to you given being given

expression in the case of the separatism

because

as we as maybe uh you're not familiar

with this and that's completely fine

but you know that um foreign imported

islamic fundamentalism

was the prevailing uh force behind the

separatism

behind the the violence involved yeah

although again i

i'm i'm not gonna for a second stand up

for any fucking

islamist nonsense of course but what i

will say is that

if you see people who you consider your

kin in some respect being brutally

oppressed by

russians you might well go there in the

same way that i mean

it's a different historical perspective

but if the same way that people in the

mudra mujahideen who weren't necessarily

from afghanistan

if you see what you consider to be your

land being in

invaded by foreigners you are far more

likely to go there and um

but defend your people but don't you

think it's a little curious that

it seems like you're more concerned

about chechen independence now than the

chechen people themselves are i haven't

seen any indications that people in

chechnya

no i'm not that you know no no but it's

not a massive priority

uh how are they doing you know this was

my question today

well i'm not suggesting they necessarily

are now but i'm saying they were in the

past and i just raised that

as an example of maybe vladimir putin

not being the

uh soft fluffy multi-ethnic liberal you

want to try and make him out to be

please don't get me wrong my paradigm of

multi-ethnic

polarity and civilization and polity

doesn't actually come from liberalism it

comes from

genghis khan it comes from the mongol

era that type of universality

you have to understand that well

brutally right

multi-ethnic civilization and this type

of ambiguous national syncretism

predates

liberalism by centuries by several

centuries

yeah it was the default for human

civilization before the nation state and

before

uh liberalism actually there was no uh

peer of blood ethnic nationalism before

liberalism actually no abs well yeah

basically so yes

that's that is true um i find it

interesting that you would prenate

genghis khan though

jesus um well yeah the mongol empire was

a multi-ethnic

and multi-religious uh civilization it

wasn't just

the rule of all the mongols over

everyone well yeah but he didn't do so

by

being nicely nicely with different

racial groupings it

brutally repressed anyone with any

descent whatsoever he was a conqueror

yes but

states are built as such uh this is the

history of

humanity that we have to face but um

it's it's not it's just as true as in

as europe as it was in uh in asia

because of um a type of uh prejudice

maybe we see the mongols

as far more savage and uh brutal

well i i don't know i think the romans

were equally savage

um the roman empire to be fair it was

also a multi-ethnic

uh it was civilization too so

it actually had in terms of nationalism

it had a far more um

progressive look at things you were

either a roman or you were not

roman those are the two races basically

which is an interesting take on things

um

uh yeah um so yeah

in terms of um your defense of vladimir

putin as well

his suppression of gay people um

following in a line that it seems from

stalin of um

russian leaders who or well technically

he wasn't russian he was georgian

but leaders of uh russia who were um

incredibly homophobic oh i i don't deny

that

homophobia is an extremely prevalent

issue

within russia for russian uh non-uh

non-heterosexual people themselves

because it's not an issue for us

it's an issue for them it's about them

right so i don't deny

them that and i don't deny their

struggle against that

i just ha i just take issue with the

view that this somehow qualifies putin

as a fascist i don't think being

homophobic means you're a fascist

no but it's well that in of itself isn't

no but

his um bullying of smaller countries

that neighbor him his repression of

internal

descent is clamped on the media he's

kicking out

foreign ngos he's engaging in spies

uh on a true almost soviet style level

his repression of gay people to the

point where the moscow pride parade is

banned for a century

um that all of this put together makes

him sound quite fashion

well a few things you mentioned the one

is that you mention he's bullying small

countries

well it's interesting that after the

dissolution of the soviet union

nato promised it wouldn't include any

more states

within nato as soon as the soviet union

collapsed

what happened the eastern european

countries started joining nato and mass

obviously russia is going to take a

hostile attitude towards some of these

small

neighbors but these small neighbors are

with nato they're associated with nato

russia sees this as an encroachment upon

its own sovereignty and its own

security so russian perspective is that

they're engaging in a type of

self-defense not a chauvinistic

type of genocidal and exterminationist

no i didn't say it was examination

with with fascism for example uh

you can maybe say that putin is not a

liberal democrat

if that's what you're saying foreign

ngos by the way i would definitely say

he's not democratic yes you've mentioned

a lot of things about

uh related to geopolitics foreign and

we have for example small businesses i

argued about this with destiny

he said some businesses came from russia

and spread memes and this was russian

intervention in democracy

well ngos are not universal global

you know neutral entities they're

aligned they have certain geopolitical

alignments in this case with america and

the european union

so we have an easy time seeing russia as

an alien force

why isn't russia allowed to see the west

as an alien

air force no no i've got no problem with

them doing that and if you look at the

the way in which like you say nato was

expanded or

the fact that there's a ring of nuclear

weapons basically around the entirety of

russia

i've no problem with russia feeling

threatened and seeing the west

as an alien thing but you'll note that

russia today is allowed to exist

in the uk in france i think it's still

got a licence in america

which is essentially russian state

television

but the bbc is often banned in russia

uh foreign ngos are banned in russia

that suggests to me that one side is at

least open to

russia in a way that russia is not open

to anyone else

um yeah i would suggest that again

belies a certain flashy tendency within

putin's

uh governance along with the murder of

journalists and political opponents and

stuff which is very very reminiscent of

20

20th century fascism well it's

reminiscent of 20th century so-called

non-liberal authoritarianism in general

but we'll get to that

including the communist states but we'll

we'll get to that later

i want to say about this business about

ngos from the russian perspective

precisely the opposite is true from the

russian perspective russia is too open

to the west

while the west is treating russia

unfairly

yes uh russian news is allowed to exist

in

america because america's laws america

claims

america is the one claiming to be a

liberal democracy

uh russia doesn't claim to be a liberal

democracy so it doesn't have an

obligation to tolerate

all these types of speech no it no when

it doesn't have to tolerate

anything but your argument was that he

wasn't a fascist i i don't think that

just because you're not a liberal

i i don't think everything outside of

liberalism is fascism

yeah they are they're absolutely core

cornerstones of 20th century

european fascisms they absolutely are

they if you do a tick box of what did

hitler do what did mussolini do what did

franco do

they they all check the list okay but

other than concentration camps he's

basically

he's got the the four quota but my

contention is that

this is true for all non-liberal

societies in the 20th century

not just the fascist one so i want to

know what is essentially fascistic about

this because

i like in a previous argument i said i

put it this way

nazis wear shoes i wear shoes does this

make me a nazi

no because essentially speaking what

defines nazism

just please let me continue now from the

liberal perspective it may be

that cl uh big strong man

authoritarianism and clamping down

on free speech is what essentially

defines fascism

but i consider this a narrow perspective

of the liberal

subjectivity not an eternal one

and to be fair if you are a liberal and

you just

simply consider everything outside of

liberalism as fascist

that clarifies to me your your position

very well but i

i uh declined to accept that this is

true for everyone we communists

uh stalinists we don't see fascism

simply as uh

so-called authoritarianism or

illiberalism so it's not enough

to be outside of liberalism and let's

call a spade a spade the specific

continuity institutionally

historically politically like concretely

like actual inheritance of the

institution of

anglo-saxon liberalism because

liberalism

originates in england and through

america and so on and so on

this uh this is uh

not the supreme form of

civilization beyond which is fascism

no well absolutely no i agree with that

last point and i'm not a liberal myself

although you did call me that in the

twitch title to this um but that's

that's fine you can have your opinion

um that this the question your title is

less

less genuine well yeah

um but the point being is that um

the comparison to eyewear shoes

therefore and

hitler wore shoes that's nonsense

obviously wearing shoes is a very

everyday thing that everyone does

whether you're a fascist a liberal or

anything

clamping down on the media uh killing

journalists and political opponents

doing so on foreign soil which is

objectively an act of war

um doing all of those things is not an

everyday occurrence i don't know if you

or i have ever

murdered a political opponent in a

foreign country for instance a few

things

uh america has done all those things and

we don't call them yeah

absolutely

is even more so yeah america has done

that yes yeah so but uh the things i

would say though is that

yes everyone wears shoes but then i

would also say everyone outside of

liberalism

uh considers the speech that can be

tolerated within the country

the type of media that is tolerated

within my liberalism does that too

actually as it works out but

well i would actually point that to the

fact that liberalism is

uh untenable hypocritical and

unsustainable

and self-contradictory so that's how i

well i don't know about unsustainable

but i would certainly say it's

hypocritical yes

but the point being is that i'm not

suggesting that you're either liberal or

fascist i think that's a very uh

reductive way of approaching anything

i think you can say that maybe you're

liberal-ish or

authoritarian and that with inside

authoritarianism is fascism

and if you want to just fall back on

putin's an authoritarian instead

that's fine but it doesn't make it any

better like for example

genghis khan if someone wrote on a

scribe fuck genghis khan or whatever

kangaskhan would probably have his head

right is he a fascist

yeah no because it's outside while he

was

he was pre liberalism well he was pre

fascism so that wouldn't really make any

sense historically speaking but

i guess i get the point you're making

this is my issue though is that why

is it that after this threshold of

nazism emerging

this becomes the supreme measure

everything therefore after nazism

because we still could because humanity

saw the

destructive effects that fascism had so

people are very very sensitive to the

rise of fascism because

we don't want to go back to that place

again but abstractly speaking

as a stalinist surely you must be aware

intrinsically as as to the destructive

nature of that russia

while the soviet union suffered more

than any country

of course but from the stalinist

perspective

from that perspective anti-fascism means

something different

from the stalinist perspective nato

inherited

the exterminationist and genocidal

threat

that the germany which was considered

the west

nazism uh posed to the soviet union uh

the warsaw pact the statue where is the

statue i forget

of the soldier with a sword carrying a

baby on his shoulder

that basically you know what i'm talking

about or you know i'm referring i

i don't know that's not you sorry no uh

forget it then but um

they view that american liberalism as

the heir

to fascism and soviet propaganda during

the cold war

the idea was that and i think this is

pretty much true

the fundamental drive of military

industrial complex created

in a nazi germany was inherited

by the american deep state and i think

this is true

i would argue that um whilst i think

that probably is true i think

a lot of the criticisms that could be

made about the american state can also

be made about

the soviet union too which ones just

were clear

um it's an imperialist

agenda in several parts of the world um

you mean afghanistan

well not just afghanistan but

afghanistan's a pretty uh

well the most recent one because

obviously happened just before

the dissolution and all of that or about

a decade before

but yeah that's it's

its use of pseudo imperialism in the

eastern bloc after the second world war

as well

isn't exactly great and i understand and

again

i absolutely understand in the same way

that russia now sees the west as a

threat

it could understand it doing so um

especially when

the west had a nuclear weapon and russia

didn't during that period

that's fine but that doesn't make it any

less imperialism

i actually don't think uh any of this

qualifies as imperialism obviously

russia was the boss of the eastern bloc

everyone knew it it wasn't formally

instantiated anywhere but everyone

acknowledged that

but then again all political realities

have unwritten

dynamics but nowhere was this everly

formally written in stone

it just was the case objectively maybe

but that's true for everything right you

can't just call it fascists

because it cannot be exhausted within uh

universal equality of liberalism

uh the second thing is that um there is

no comparison

between the the way the ussr

whether in afghanistan or anywhere else

in the world no comparison between

the ussr's uh foreign

relations to the level of american

universalistic intervention

interventionism and containment policy

during the cold war simply no comparison

if anything it's completely the opposite

the soviet union's so-called

military-industrial complex

serve the purpose of aiding peoples of

the world

fighting against colonialism and

european and american imperialism this

soviet union's

so-called because i saw someone in your

chat say didn't the soviet union have a

military industrial complex

well it depends on what you mean

obviously was manufacturing arms to

defend itself

and it was manufacturing a lot of

weapons and so on to send to people

fighting for their liberation but it

wasn't doing this for the purpose of um

for engaging in a chauvinistic

exterminationist war of

uh of uh

genocide against the people it deems

inferior and lester to itself well i

don't know what it has to be

extermination is to be

i can actually explain that to you to be

imperialist i can explain that too if

you want

yeah go for it yeah well what i view it

actually is that

we have to go back i'm sure i'm not

going to detour this derailleur it's

going to seem like it's not relevant

you're going to see how it's relevant

we have to go back to modernity

modernity began

in uh netherlands or england somewhere

like that right

uh this is where what we call modernity

began and liberalism and so on and so on

um modern civilization so-called modern

civilization was first emerged in europe

right the trouble is is that modernity

was something

so traumatic in the way it overturned

the past

uh that um this trauma was exported

elsewhere with colonialism in europe

like

the century of humiliation when with the

gunpowder diplomacy against japan and

all this was incredibly shocking to me

against these other people

the issue is that when non-western

peoples

pass through this uh trial

of modernity to industrialize themselves

to enter the fold of modern civilization

in an independent way

there is an impulse within the west

an exterminationist and genocidal

attitude

towards them because the west uh

the west does not acknowledge uh does

not acknowledge

any type of possible civilization

beyond its own it's this primordial type

of

universalism that begins with western

modernity

according to which the west is the only

real civilization and any other

civilization that attempts to break out

of the western

world order must be kept down suppressed

exterminate now in case of

a nazism in germany there is no meaning

to fascism

there's no meaning to nazism without the

context of the soviet union

in my view in my view the germans

were trying to uh we're trying to

repress

the way that the soviet union passed

through modernity in an independent

way while reviving the russian special

russian

civilization the nazis

i'm not sure that works on the basis

that nazism

arose before russia had really

industrialized

uh it's not important that it

industrialized yet it had the october

revolution this is what sent the shock

waves

the uh the fear yeah it was the october

revolution

but i think that the reason the nazis

ever got to power though

and this is the important thing was

because the german ruling classes

and the again no anglophobia here but

it's just a matter of historical fact

the american and english elites

alongside the german industrial

industrialists

uh wanted to destroy the soviet union

basically

and this is why this is what enabled uh

hitler to

well i don't think it's about destroying

the subu they certainly feared

uh communism and you had obviously the

um

uh the communist revolution in was it

barrier before

um and then put down by the frey corps

and all that yeah

um that's that's definitely a problem

but i don't think that had anything to

do with the soviet union as

such because the soviet union wasn't

really interfering with

large parts of europe because it was

still reeling from a civil war

true true yes but here's the issue is

that

the soviet union its mere existence was

a defiance of the western world order so

what you're describing as the specter of

communism at this specific point of

history can be

understood in two ways the first way is

the fact that the 19th century liberal

order

broke down with 1929 the crash of uh

the great depression it was clear some

type of social revolution was imminent

you know not necessarily a political

revolution but there was an objective

social revolution

happening that changed the way

governments relate to the economy

the welfare state and new deal and all

that attest to this

um but that was generally associated

with this new

thing represented by the soviet union

communism and

soviet union is what gave proof to the

fact that it was a real

possibility a real threat the second

thing

was this decline or the threat

uh threat to the world colonial order

the soviet union uh the soviet union

also was a beacon of light and hope

to the colonized peoples of the world

its

existence was a defiance of uh the

west's

colonial uh rule so um

there's two here instituting its own

colonial rule

even if the conditions would have been

slightly better in some respects

doesn't make it less colonial and

doesn't make it therefore less

yeah i would argue the way in which

the russians treated eastern europe was

essentially a little more than

you mean yeah i don't agree i don't

agree i don't agree that it was

comparable

to colonialism maybe you can say it's uh

comparable to the neocolonialism that

people

talk about in relation between uh it's

vassalage

what's that it's vassalage not formally

though so it's not colonialism it

doesn't matter

well look in the same way that a mafia

boss will tell you you know

yeah this is the unwritten reality of

all relation between states

no such thing exactly but the point but

the point is just because it's not

written down

joseph stalin want to fuck you over

czechoslovakia

doesn't mean he doesn't want to fuck

over czechoslovakia i think this

reflects

differing views of geopolitics from the

liberal perspective

and a more post-liberal maybe communist

perspective

just because it would not have been

tolerated for eastern european states

to defy this soviet union doesn't mean

that they weren't they they weren't

allowed to be given particular

uh national self-determination and uh

expression

yes it there is no i'll explain closely

please let me continue um the reason is

because the liberal view of rights

is basically a blank check a blank check

i have the right to do it no matter the

circumstances

is what it is and this is the condition

of equality but a post-liberal view

communistic view if you will

or marxist view whatever you want asian

view maybe

is basically that there is no blank

check the relation is always a

determinate relation so there's a

meaning to defying the soviet union

it's not simply a blanket expression of

your own uh

sovereignty in actual concrete terms

defiance of the soviet union means

you're allying with the west

that's what it actually means concretely

now from the prison

liberal from the and if you're going to

say

that these you you're you're free as

long as you do exactly what i want you

to do but what is that

that's just slavery by a different knife

there's a few problems with this

what is the content of this want the

soviet union wants these

countries not to ally with the west

other than that what does the soviet

union care

uh that they do independently they there

was an incredible degree of flexible

they want to make sure in the same way

for example for example in the same way

you can get raw materials from these

other countries in ways that you want to

but what you're saying doesn't even make

sense why was it that romania

was able to defy the soviet union why

was yugoslavia able to defy

the soviet union the only time the

soviet union invaded czechoslovakia

which by the way had nothing to do with

stalin but the only time the soviet

union invaded hungary and czechoslovakia

was when the communist governments in

those countries were begging the soviet

union to intervene

the soviet union wasn't just saying you

yeah

yeah yeah when they when russia's public

governments

asked the russian goods to go in there

they imperialistically went in there and

slaughtered people

with imperialism but i think that's no

worse

than the french slaughtering those in

ivory coast or the british firing upon

the indians there's no person you call

them a puppet government

i think those represented the

independent communist forces within

those countries

now you can call them but they're not

independent we've already said they're

not independent because if they don't do

what russia tells them

i disagree with your view of sovereignty

and uh independence

i simply disagree i think all these

states under your

under your i have a fundamental i'm

basically suggesting that

there's no relation that could exist

that isn't basically imperialism in

practice

it's not imperialist whatsoever because

my view for example of the mongol

universality not the liberal

universality is based on determinate

relations uh has nothing to do with his

blank

check rights of so it's just might means

right then

what's that

arbitrariness that isn't there maybe

it's might is right

but there is a determinate content of

that might it's not a random completely

arbitrary completely senseless

meaningless

arbitrary power it has a determinate

content

that's the difference right but that

doesn't make any difference to the fact

like

this bigger power is still

imperialistically forcing

qualified as imperialist is the problem

though it can be qualified as

imperialist

because uh there is no uh there is no

blanket

uh intervention into countries that from

a civilizational

perspective have no it doesn't it

doesn't have to be blanket

i think it does i think american

imperialism european imperialism is

completely different

completely different from soviet

intervention into

other countries and in the one of the

reasons this is self-evident i'm not

sure it is

i'm not i'm really not sure is like i

say at the the um

invasion of uh czechoslovakia or

anywhere else

uh that russia got involved in when

you're slaughtering innocents

it looks a lot the same as the french in

the ivory coast or britain

and czech slovak government was telling

the soviet

union to intervene and they did yeah the

puppet government that's at the behest

of moscow

asks moscow here's the problem when you

say it's a puppet government and it's at

the

behest of moscow you're making it seem

like every content of this government

is merely that it's taking orders from

moscow but it's not not every

it is it is uh this is the

truth of the ancient world it is

subservient to moscow

to the extent and even this is

contestable by the way and you didn't

really respond this what i brought up

earlier

uh it is contestable that for example it

even

must must agree with the soviet union's

uh foreign policy like there had to be a

consensus between all these governments

we know that because of romania

we know it because of yugoslavia why was

romania able to defy

the soviet union if what you're saying

is true romania did defy the soviet

union and did leave the fold

no no the eastern bloc it is

were not soviet puppet governments they

were ruled by independent what i mean by

independent is that

these were communists who were not

simply blind puppets but had their own

communistic vision for their nation and

their countries

yeah they were they were they were

essentially i would make them

or i would describe them as being like

the sat traps of the ancient world

they had a certain amount of power

within their own

borders but were essentially when it

came down to the big important issues

they were puppets this is true

if we create this idea maybe it's a real

idea of a big

communistic empire but not it's not

simply a relation of imperialism between

the soviet union imposing itself

on them then you would say it's one big

empire and they were the sad traps of

this one big empire that wasn't formally

uh instantiated empire it's you've just

described it as an empire but this is

imperialism this empire is not the

soviet union controlling them

it is one big empire of which they are

all apart

if you want to use the center but the

soviet union in

again it's not formal we know that we've

we've agreed on that yeah

but when ro when moscow says a thing

they're not really powerful enough to

not do the thing

so it's basically the same but this is

but

listen there's no such thing as the

blank check of liberal sovereignty in

the real world there's no such thing

there are determinants no there's not

really there's no there's no absolute

blank check to anything

this is the mongol view of universality

as opposed to the liberal one

formally speaking there was no uh

imperialism now maybe you can say in

practice they didn't have the right

to defy the soviets exactly yeah

in this sense i would say rights don't

even exist

you don't have a right in the real world

to have a wonderful school

right work don't actually exist they

don't grow on trees

no obviously not rights are enforced by

might in a sense of course but the point

being

that if you're going to have um an

actual sovereign nation it has to be

sovereign and those of the eastern bloc

during the time where uh the um

before the sort of the beginning is of

the end let's say for the soviet union

um they that was absolutely an empire of

satraps and just because the sat trap

asks

the uh the the was it grand vizier or

whatever it's called

uh to come in and solve its problems for

it

that's not an independent government

asking for assistance from another

sovereign nation well

in that case patsy asking its boss to

cover its line manager to come down and

sort the situation for it

in that case it's one big polity then

it's not just

one uh nation imposing itself on another

it's one big polity and it's organized

in a certain way no it's

no it's not because no because poland

didn't get to say to moscow or well on

this occasion we're having a ride

poland just sat there and did what he

was fucking told that's objective

reality poland was not strong enough to

by the way

you're saying might is right and the

empire is fine objectively

this is the sobering truth of reality

but i want to say a few things there's a

few reasons why this is a little bit

confusing

the first one is people in my chat i

just want to tell them guys i'm not

talking about lenin's imperialism

because we're talking about imperialism

in the more charged sense within the

cold war of the unprecedented and

uh chauvinistic way in which european

countries and america are intervening in

other countries so

i know there's a more technical meaning

but i'm using the common sense one we

don't have to get into this

like technical one the second one

the second thing is regarding this

meaning of imperialism

the point of imperialism is not that it

is wrong

per se from a normative whatever

perspective the point of imperialism is

that marxists

objectively recognize in the

anti-imperialist position the

revolutionary one the one

in which and hears the actual future

it's not simply that we say imperialism

is morally wrong

we say the forces of anti-imperialism

will prevail objectively

there's a quote from mao zeitung the

winds

blow in the eastern direction it wasn't

this moral claim that i believe

imperialism is wrong therefore no you

don't begin there first you begin with

what are the forces of anti-imperialism

and what

is imperialism objectively

when we understand it from that

perspective it clarifies why the soviet

union is not

imperialist well yeah but that's a

there's a lot of special pleading going

on here you're basically trying to

redefine what imperialism is so that the

obvious materialism of the soviet union

isn't imperialism i'm rejecting the

moralistic

and over uh normative sense that you

are attributing to the word imperialism

of course might is right

but anti-imperialists would say the

mighty belong

the anti-imperialist forces are the

mighty ones and the imperialists are the

paper tigers

that's the of course might is right

there's no denying that well yeah but

you're

you're defining from the very start

you're going backwards at this you're

saying the soviet union

was anti-imperialist when its actions

clearly show that it wasn't no its

actions

uh corresponded to the decline of

western imperialist

global order

well it coincided but i mean

perspective saying there was a special

social imperialism unique

to the soviet union itself that was

being a new type of system that was

created

besides the western kind i think is

where you're coming from

i think right but i don't care my

problem isn't western imperialism it's

imperialism full stop

there's no such thing as imperialism in

general imperialism is always concrete

there's no no

no it's no it's always different but my

point is i've never seen an example

where imperialism wasn't

disgusting so i'm not suggesting that i

only have a problem with western

imperialists i'm saying imperialists of

all stripes are evil bastards

but before we can say it's evil and

disgusting we must

know uh what actually is

like i reject a romantic position

according to which we can say

something is evil even if it is real

objectively marxist leninist simply say

in a

in a more qualified sense what marxist

leninists are saying is that

from a scale of uh maybe hundreds of

years

imperialism is not even real it is in

the process of being disintegrated

it is a paper tiger in a sense oh

nothing's

well if you we don't have to we don't

have to attract we don't have to say

it's evil we don't have to say it's bad

it is simply a paper tiger it is simply

will be destroyed

and should say we must find the courage

to submit surely

ultimately the core of the core of what

is attractive about marxism is that it

does away with

the controllable evils of the world

they're uncontrollable

actually i think this is more it does it

does away with

the ability of people to enact their

evil upon others of course

there were many moralistic and uh marx

would call them bourgeois socialists

marxism distinguished itself precisely

not being what you're talking about

marxism was about materialism marxism

was about materialist dialectic

but i thought you're against empiricism

materialism and empiricism are two

entirely different things

completely different things completely

completely okay

yeah okay i mean i'm going to need you

to define the

sure sure well this is where i was

coming from actually in my critiques

speaking about 17th century anglo-saxon

metaphysics

i think many marxists when they use the

word materialism actually mean what i

like to call substantialism

they mean to say that the material

object is already

formally predefined somewhere when in

actuality

material objectivity possesses a

dialectical relationship

with form this is why marx's materialism

is dialectical

marx's materialism doesn't say there is

simply a substance

already uh already

formally definite and all we're doing is

passively

uh reflecting this form we are act the

the way in which

humanity gives form to the material

content is dialectical

so in in simpler terms

material materialism is about what is

material but what

is the material just straying into the

word solid territory you know my friend

listen uh i don't want to be rude here i

don't want to make this rude but i think

you're kind of being arrogant

i think you're just not familiar with

this more

philosophical whatever approach and just

because you're not familiar with it

you're saying it's meaningless and i

think that's an unjustifiable assumption

if it's not clear to you that is

perfectly understandable and perfectly

reasonable

i think it's really rude that you're

just saying it's completely meaningless

just because you're not familiar with

where i'm coming from

if i was talking to a scholar of

heidegger and if i was talking to

these even these people in universities

what i'm saying would be perfectly

uh understandable but and it's perfectly

understandable to many people

if you're not coming from that

background yourself i can

sympathize with that and i can try to

work with you

but calling it meaningless just because

you're kind of familiar with it

is just a bit okay but talking down to

me being like well i'm too much of a

philosopher for you to understand but

you're calling me meaningless

and i'm trying to work with you so

instead of saying it's word salad can't

you just ask me to clarify and elaborate

a little bit

and maybe no well no because it's it's

it's three in the morning and i i think

i've let you speak plenty in this

conversation

to be honest and um i

i think you want to invent new

definitions for words

yeah i'm using words you're not familiar

with and i don't that doesn't mean i'm

creating new dogmas and definitions i'm

just using them in ways you're not

familiar well no not no dogmas new

different

new definitions just new definitions of

words to try and get over

the fact that you support things that

you claim you don't support

so you claim to be anti-imperialist but

yet support imperialists

i don't think the definitions are new

whatsoever i think the manner in which

i'm giving expression to the

definite meaning of these words is just

unfamiliar to you which is completely

fine

but i think the human and dialectical

approach to

expressing meaning and to knowledge is

that it's an

active thing there are no definitions

set in stone

pre-inscribed somewhere human language

is something active

and we must constantly actively give

meaning to

things in different ways and actually i

think the ability to describe

things old things in new ways is proof

that you actually know what you're

talking about

if you're only using words in ways that

other people have

already used them in the sense of you're

not actually proving you have an

independent understanding of these words

you're just repeating

something else said no but the the point

i would make is not that you're

describing the same thing that happened

in the past in a new way

i'm saying you're redefining what a

concept is to try and make it seem like

the thing in the past wasn't the thing

that it was whatever definition you have

attributed to that concept

is precisely what i'm contesting then

i'm contesting that

your definition of that contest concept

can even be assumed in the first place

well no it's not a matter of assuming

anything it's saying that there are

generations of scholars who have studied

things like fascism

and things like imperialism and they're

trying to redefine them so that they're

more convenient for a political agenda

that you've already

established in your mind doesn't get you

out of the fact that

you claim to be anti-imperialist but

clearly supports certain imperialists

the scholars you're talking about are

looking at the phenomena and giving it

expression in their own way i'm looking

at the phenomena and giving the

expression

in a new way i don't see why i must

agree with

i don't see what makes them uh holy

figures

whose definitions i have to agree with

now this is

the content of what we're talking about

is accessible to all of us to think

about independently

yeah no absolutely there's no i'm not

suggesting that they're holy

what i'm suggesting is that there are

there have to be

some broad definitions of words in order

for

a conversation to be understood by both

parties right

when i say the word car we know what it

means it's a motorized vehicle etcetera

right sure

and so when we're describing something a

bit more complex like imperialism that's

fine

that you have to go into a bit more

detail but i think i did go into pretty

significant detail as to how the soviet

union's interactions with those other

countries was imperialism

and you can say that's fine but what you

can't say is that's fine

and i'm against imperialism no no

i don't have to be against imperialism i

can merely be an anti-imperialist as

someone who bears witness to the

recognition

that imperialism objectively is a paper

tiger

is my point and that's i've been trying

to make that point the second thing

right but

that's that's that's business that's

contradictory you can't say

i'm okay with certain imperialism but

i'm not realistic that doesn't matter

logan when

when i think maybe we just think

differently when you say i'm okay or i'm

not okay with this

for me when i say am i okay or i'm not

okay with this i have to also take into

account

the concrete and practical sphere of my

intervention in relation to it what does

it mean to be okay

and not be okay with it i have to

understand you could

i completely support you i'm

yeah please let me finish i have to

understand

what power i have over this where i

stand subjectively in relation to this

phenomena in the first place

i don't say i'm not okay with

imperialism i say

this is imperialism here are the forces

of the contradictions internal to it

i recognize in these anti-imperialist

forces the kernel of the future

that is the to me the meaning of marx

scientific socialism

and materialism marx does not say i'm

against

capitalism he says in capitalism i

recognize a contradiction the

proletariat in the bourgeoisie

i see in the proletariat the future this

is mark's almost his own words

yeah but you're literally i mean you're

saying i'm anti-imperialist but i'm not

anti-imperialism but

an answer which doesn't make sense

anti-imperialism and

so there's anti-imperialism in the

normative sense of i am against

imperialism here i stand

and there is anti-realism in the

objective sense i am giving expression

to the objective

forces of anti-imperialism that exist in

the world which

i which i hope i'm doing but maybe but

your definition of what you consider to

be the objective forces of

anti-imperialism

are not anti-imperialist well it's not

first you're just adding a life sense

you can yeah

you can slap the label of a car my my

sense of

my sense of those forces in the 20th

century

is different from yours uh for reasons

that remain unknown yeah to me because

i've clarified my position and you

uh just say uh you rejected which is

fine but i

said the sense of the anti-imperialist

forces that i have

in relation to the 20th century to me is

clear was not themselves uh

maybe from a maoist criticism there's a

social imperialism

i think it's a little wishy-washy a

separate type of social imperialism that

was

emerging is an open question i think it

was more rhetorical and more

impassioned rejection

uh or surpassing of the old soviet

socialism by mao but

uh in my view i completely disagree i

disagree that i have to redefine and

have all these mental gymnastics to come

to the simple and sober conclusion

there's no comparison between soviet

uh power soviet power objective power it

is able to exert over other states

there is no unconditional relation

between states and geopolitics it

doesn't mean

that it's the same as western

imperialism

you can use that same basis to try and

basically say that

u.s

okay maybe we can make this way more

clear then do you think

that um the yuan dynasty the chinese po

yuan dynasty the mughal empire and the

safavid dynasty the persian safavid

dynasty

and maybe the mongol empire do you

consider those imperialists

yes okay then it's crystal clear why you

would

say the soviet union is imperialist to

me but i just think

that the phenomena of western

imperialism beginning from modernity

onwards into the 20th century

is qualitatively distinct from these

uh these world history empires

because the the the uh mongol empire

used force yeah to extract at the very

least tribute

and uh but soldiers yeah for its further

conquest and sure right those lands

okay which is very much the the race for

africa

but in a different part of the world

disagree there's a comparison to me

imperialism begins western imperialism

begins

with liberalism and modernity i can get

more into it if you if you want to know

the reasons well western imperialism but

i'm not suggesting that

the the the the carnates were yeah um

in the modern sense your notion of

soviet union as imperialist you're

saying it's imperialist more in the

pre-modern

sense i'm talking about imperialism in

the modern sense of the word

is what i'm trying to get at you can't

say it's pretty modern

all of those nations were industrialized

they used yeah yeah they literally as a

tanker you should know

power yeah but the form of power

relations you're

trying to qualify as imperialism is more

akin to the pre-modern type of

imperialism which is completely but why

is that why is that any better

that's it's not a question it's better

it's not a question of better or worse

we didn't get into this

moral judgment we just are okay okay

well i'll ask you this pretty

simply then right is the ancient form

of imperialism okay are you

do you support that kind of imperialism

it's arrogant it's arrogant to say it's

okay or it's not

who am i to say it's okay or it's not

okay what reality

that does it possess though is the real

question okay but okay well the same can

be said for the

us imperialism i agree you can't say i

agree

with you in judgment arrogant

agree with you and mao's view of the

western imperialism was that it was a

paper tiger

and i agree with that i think i don't

know i think

i think uh the victims of the countries

might disagree with you slightly as to

whether

but who avenges those victims is it

going to be moralizing people in the

west saying

i think this is wrong or is it going to

be the patriots the freedom fighters

and the revolutionary soldiers defending

and uh their country

who will prevent all those okay yeah but

that's yeah that's fine i agree

moralizing

liberal americans are not going to

avenge the victims of the drug wars or

anything like that

that's not the point i'm making my point

is if you're okay

with the uh various different types of

imperialism or at least you're not

prepared to

uh sit in judgement of those other kinds

of imperialism

how can you sit in judgment of american

imperialism i sit in judgment of them

but what is the content of that judgment

i'm analyzing what is happening

uh i'm not but no but you might actually

surely you would say that american

imperial if you want me to simplify it

the whole pathology of liberalism

rendered in

philosophical terms which is different

from materialistic terms but rendered in

philosophical terms

the whole pathology of liberalism is

saying first we decide

what it is we consider good or okay

abstractly

completely against the void against

complete indeterminate reality

and then we superimpose our position

upon reality

it's actually precisely this that i

think distinguishes

modern imperialism from every other type

of empire

uh in history other types of i'll just

i'll ask you let me tell you

to explain something other types of

empire like the mongol empire

after conquests enter into a syncretic

relationship with the conquered and a

dialectic

emerges that gives rise to a completely

new civilization

at no point do they say here i am here i

stand the cartesian i think therefore i

am

and then say uh here i am here i stand

and i simply impose myself

upon everyone else this is i'll ask you

a

very simple series of questions then

right is

american intervention in let's say south

america

good uh good for who

for the people of south america uh

according to them no and that's why the

people of south america okay we'll

triumph

no it's not okay but uh i do so do you

do you think therefore that um

in the same way that say the contras did

in nicaragua

uh slaughter people do you think it was

good that

um let's say hill farmers in afghanistan

were slaughtered

it was for them it was a horrible thing

horrible thing but

i am not arrogant enough to say i am the

moral agent

that exercises dominion over all of this

phenomena

now once you use my exercise dominion

clearly you're one person

before i can i'm saying before

before i can have a judgment i must be

clear

about this fear of my practical

relationship

over the uh phenomena that is being

judged

i cannot simply say i think it is i

don't want to be a vain person

i don't simply want to say this is bad i

want to clarify what

is it what i don't like again i don't

want i don't want to be rude here

but considering you've been going on

about how you've destroyed wash and how

you know own human things

i don't think you get to say i'm not a

vine person

that's not how that well okay not being

rude but if you look at my chat right

now

and you look at how active our community

is i don't think it's vain i think uh

you can say i'm punching above my weight

in terms of how big i am

oh yeah you can't flex

them together we have the momentum to

back it up i mean i peaked almost

300 viewers just this stream today and

this is not even a heated stream

we have the momentum to back up all

these things

i don't think it's vain i think you've

as you've pointed out well no

it could be accurate and vain vanity

isn't based on

inaccuracy how would you qualify my

vanity then

uh saying that you you've destroyed

people and

wrecked them and you now own them yeah

is pretty

you're basically kind of trying to flex

on if you look pretty

much the title is pretty buying yeah if

you look at the titles i give

it's based on how they've interacted

when they want to play monkey business

and play gorilla games

that's when i start saying oh yeah i

want to do our story the guerrilla thing

what's that about

but if okay i'll get to it when you

watch the xander hall debate he was very

polite

the latter half so i titled the debate

tanki debate xander hall

destiny was kind of polite

he was kind of polite but he was still

you know he was still kind of rude so i

said i defeated him right

he never wanted to engage in a

constructive conversation so to me he

pretty much conceded

vosh wanted to play guerrilla games and

vos got

the beast mode and he was destroyed

socialism done left was the worst one

yet

and he was obliter sorry i know we're

gonna be serious this one he was

obliterated you know what i'm saying

but we're not gonna be serious here

that's what happened with him now

unless something changes so far i think

i'll title this view

uh tanki debates kfl

logan this was a debate i think all

right okay

but what's the yeah what's the gorilla

thing about it so we uploaded a vid so

this is how the meme started

so i did an analysis of godzilla vs king

kong like

what the what is going on here what is

the meaning of this

to me and then we got to king kong

analysis of the film

king kong there have been

interpretations not my own

interpretations of the past of king kong

from the 20s movement

representing the proletariat that king

kong represents the kind of

modern condition of the proletariat in

relationship

to society as this kind of beast beast

in relation to society then there's the

anti-colonial

uh narrative the anti-colonial view of

what

the meaning of king kong is is this

encounter between

european modern civilization and

pre-pre-modern peoples

who have this similar it's kind of a

chauvinistic in the context of the 20s

view but it's almost as though

they are relating to the shock of

modernity as though

king kong is in new york city how

shocking and disorienting

and so on and so on modern life is but

to me there's a type of tragedy at the

heart of the film

king kong where king kong to me he

represents

a primordial the most primordial colonel

of our own humanity

and the fact that he was under attack by

all those planes and all this stuff

is about how our own uh modern society

attacks humanity itself so king kong to

me represents a deeper type of

humanity and that's the whole stick of

infrared

we believe we are a type of new humanism

we believe in a type of clear

plain spoken spirit of humanity over

what we consider more of an ironic

bread tube type of passive aggression

okay um i i mean it's an interesting

thought i think that maybe it's probably

a little bit simpler than that but

i mean it's poetic i'll give you that

okay um i'm just glad it wasn't as some

people were thinking it might be racist

but thankfully it's not no that's

absolutely not

oh okay good good okay um well it's

like 3 30 in the morning here so i'm

gonna yeah i won't title this

uh destroyed i'll just uh title it

debate so you know

ferris okay cool man um

we disagreed about a lot of things and

it was very difficult to establish

common communication that's clear to me

well if you're curious and you do want

to know more about where i'm coming from

maybe in the future we can have a longer

conversation

but uh it seems to me there's maybe a

barrier of

meaning that's fine that's okay uh

you were very polite and i hope i was

polite and it is what it is

yeah cool um yeah maybe we'll talk

another time

um enjoy uh what's left of your evening

okay