HEATED Debate With Jason Unruhe

all right what's up

hey sorry

are we on right now yeah we're on right

now okay good good so do you want me to

just basically run down what happened

uh yeah yeah the floor is yours okay so

basically caleb put out a tweet earlier

saying that third world is support

imperialism well that's an outright lie

the the entire cornerstone of everything

that we are is anti-imperialism putting

anti-imperialism before everything else

um

i mean whether or not you want to agree

with the ideology or not to say that we

support imperialism is a falsehood all

right so

i

i didn't see his tweets specifically but

i think as materialists we do have to

distinguish what an ideologist says

their ideology is and the real content

of uh what they're saying at the level

of the practical implications the

material implication implications and

the material implications are not about

uh what it would mean for their ideas to

be uh realized on the terms of the ideas

but what it would mean for their ideas

to be realized in actual reality which

isn't something that's can be controlled

by the ideas themselves if that makes

sense like for example one can say

uh that they are an anti-imperialist but

because of the specific way they're

positioning themselves in relation to

real existing imperialism they can end

up serving imperialism

okay so how is it you think i'm serving

imperialism i don't know specifically

how you are doing it but just for the

hypothetical sake if you're addressing

an audience and basically telling them

that they have to hate america and

oppose america and patriotism and things

like that they don't have to hate

america it'd be beneficial but they

don't necessarily have to

well if they take a part but for the

sake of argument let's say you have to

yeah well that's like a consequence of

marxism or marxism leninism

the net effect is the support of

imperialism because you're basically

nullifying

their ability to pose a threat to

american imperialism whatsoever exactly

how is being against america and hating

america supporting american imperialism

well because you're making it impossible

in that way for people to practically

oppose the real existing reality of

american imperialism not the one how

does that happen well it happens because

the only way to defeat american

imperialism as far as americans are

concerned is to win the american masses

not necessarily you could for the most

part i mean even if you did hate america

yeah that would be one way to do it

anti-war activism pretty much during the

vietnam war there was burning the

american flag yeah but that was not an

effective way of um that the vietnam war

was prolonged for so so many years even

at the expense of the anti-war movement

and part of that was because the

anti-war movement wasn't drawing from

the material basis of american statehood

which would eventually become the kind

of reagan uh democrats the kind of

working class that supported nixon and

later reagan if you could tap into those

people and um accentuate the

contradiction between them and the

american deep state and

military-industrial complex which does

exist you would be opposing imperialism

more effectively than any kind of

sloganeering or burning or symbolic

gestures could possibly example of this

is the fact that whether we like it or

not i mean this is not our preferred

it's not preferable to us but let's look

at the past 20 years the most effective

threat i just want to get something

straight you're going to fight the

military industrial complex by loving

your country yeah when

that is what it is no this is an

undialectical view because no no america

was born of slavery racism genocide and

land theft all of those things are what

made america what it is without those

things america does not exist but those

things preceded america no those are the

basis for america but those preceded the

american states by centuries they are

the basis of america you're saying

slavery existed before america well it

was the basis of america if it was the

basis of the united states why was a war

in need of being waged to give rise to

the united states because it was a

concept of the bourgeois ideas of

property ownership over the remaining

feudal notions that were still held by

the uh by the

british territories

for example like what do you mean as an

example for example uh

you say the unconstitution about

property and all of that

and the removal of

religion from the government those are

all anti-feudal notions before that many

of the feudal notions were you had to be

born into aristocracy to own any

significant amount of land you had to be

born of aristocracy to do business etc

the whole point of the constitution was

literally was without saying it

but if you look at the substance of it

it's pro-capitalism but the english

civil war had already overturned the um

the feudal order proper both in england

and

for the most part so i don't see how

that that's what that's what the

constitution is is literally a

pro-capitalist document america was

never and america was never feudal

property it was always um determined by

well i know you men who came from europe

and you know own small plots

yeah there was no surfs and there was no

things i never said there was yeah the

point of the constitution is the

opposite of that that was not formalized

until there was the constitution i mean

even then you can't say there is an

america without land theft okay you had

to kill off the natives and take their

land but that was something that again

was not essential to the founding of the

united states or the republic yes it

physically could not exist without it no

but you're not listening to what i'm

saying is that that was happening anyway

that was going to happen regardless of

whether they're literally trying to

separate

native genocide and land theft from

america

no i argued

a week ago that without slavery there

would be no united states so i agree

with that what i'm trying to say is that

so

that wouldn't have just seemed like it

just agreed but the u.s was not the

decisive factor in determining whether

there was going to be those things is

what i'm trying to say those things

existed before and would have existed

anyway you're saying there would have

been an america even if the land theft

wouldn't have no i'm not saying that i'm

saying there would have been land theft

and there would have been slavery even

if there was no republic so the fact

that they are there so in what way did

the republic make a difference is the

question well literally the us army

slaughtered native americans did the

british not do that particularly the u.s

cavalry did the british not do that and

so

america isn't england it's america okay

but you're not listening to what i'm

saying you're not recognizing the

decisive significance of the american

republic you're taking a concept of

america that doesn't materially exist

and saying no i'm not well it could have

existed i'm just telling you where

america made a difference in history and

the difference wasn't that it introduced

all those things those things existed

anyway those were there the only

difference as far as the american

republic is concerned and the american

republic does not exist without them how

do you know well you see it physically

would have nowhere to be if it wasn't

there uh explain how is that you know

where america physically exists turtle

island right had the native population

not been forcibly wrong right now

okay but we're speaking now in 2021 why

is it oh oh as long as we remove the

historical context of the creation of

america and everything it's done but

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

you okay so as long as we completely

remove the material basis for the

existence of america and everything i'm

not denying the i again if it wasn't for

slavery you're not denying it turning

around and saying yeah well it's a

different time now this is the thing i'm

asking you what

what does it mean in 2021 now oh so

natives aren't marginalized and still

have their lands they are but for

example why would it be incompatible

with the continuity of the republic and

even the constitution for example for

land reparations to be given to uh

native americans and for their rights to

be up their treaties to be upholded and

for them to be given more uh land and

more rights and all these

self-determination

why would that not be possible as long

as the republic uh stands

because the republic would still be on

their land even if you quote gave them

reparations which by the way they don't

want they so what do they want

so basically what you're saying if the

israelis throw a scrap of land of the

palestinians then it's over no the

decisive significance in regards to the

israel-palestine conflict is the fact

that the palestinians are still

contesting the land in the west bank and

gaza and elsewhere native americans are

still doing the same thing right but the

difference is that the native american

population is what percentage of the

united states oh because they were

basically slaughtered off their claim is

what not as valid as palestinians it

would be proportionate to the amount of

space they need as a people oh so

basically there's not a lot of native

americans left so they don't get their

land back do you know what native

americans are demanding and what they

want yes what do they want they want

their land back and so they want the

entirety of the united states

only is their property how however and i

can tell you this comes from comrade

number three the political the uh the

political leader of the navajo nation

and this is exactly what he told me who

is a socialist by the way and he

represents the navajo people yes

actually i i have a thing of him on my

channel him speaking about

decolonization et cetera and he wants

all of america for the navajo there is a

question of what it is they want to do

and it's their decision to make not the

colonizer i'm trying to google him and i

can't find him so you're not going to

find anything on a google he doesn't

have a social media so how do you know

he represents

the whole navajo people and he's their

actual representative because i've

talked to him and i've talked to his

people you've talked to every navajo or

you've talked to no i've not talked to

everybody because there are official

organizations that are great so

basically you're good you're just going

to claim he doesn't exist i don't know

i don't know what you're talking about

there i'm saying there are

there are official representatives of

indigenous organizations and people and

reservations and tribes there are

official tribes that are registered and

recognized by the us government and oh

well it's recognized by the us

government because that's someone you

can trust well who are you going to

trust then otherwise you're just dealing

with individuals the people themselves

which people the native americans

themselves but that's the issue with

individuals right some many individuals

can say well we support trump many

individuals can say well we support this

we support that so i don't support the

ones that how do you know who speaks for

all indigenous people no one person does

but that is the general consensus is yes

they do want their land back and even

now we've gone okay what but hold on

what is their land what land do they

want back they want half of the they

want the entirety of seaboard to

seaboard united states some of them yes

to do what with historically speaking

they didn't uh have all of that land

they didn't even use all of that land

that doesn't even make any sense funny

like i have studied

this

they literally did not i'm not saying

they didn't exploit them saying that

they literally had no it wasn't a sacred

grounds for that they didn't even

operate in all of america's seaboard to

seaboard that's what i'm trying to say

that's funny because i've had zionists

say the same thing about palestine well

they weren't using all of it so

therefore the colonization is okay well

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

saying that they didn't use all of it

but we're not saying it's okay that

doesn't make any sense okay i'm trying

to talk about mine okay historically

speaking you can actually map historical

and ancestral lands and various

different

tribes so therefore it's okay to steal

some of the land no that happened in the

past oh so it happened a long time ago

therefore it doesn't count well what do

you what would it mean for it to come

the land was stolen okay well no no

amount of time since we're since we're

talking about the past and it's the

weight of the past matters so much where

do you currently live i currently live

in canada so why don't you pack your

bags give your land to indigenous people

first of all with with what money and by

the way i don't own any land you don't

have a house i i no i live in a rented

apartment so give europe start giving

your or share your apartment at least

with homeless indigenous people oh so

very right-wing argument

that on an individual level that i can

make any kind of a difference in that

way but i'm asking you what are the

contemporary importance so what the past

doesn't count move to cuba so the past

doesn't count i'm saying it does count

so if it counts stop occupying their

land now and leave well if it can't if

you like socialism move to cuba it's

okay

well for me the implications of

socialism are building socialism here so

why would i move to cuba if the

implications of socialism for you are

giving all of the native people their

land

arguments but the implications of

socialism to you are giving all

indigenous peoples

so what are the implications i can't

give their land back i don't have any

land you can give

back something i don't you

own the apartment you can give your

belongings and you can give your i

belong they don't want my belongings

they want their land i don't have any

land but you're but you are physically

living in an apartment on stolen lands

you're

do you remember the clip of that settler

who was saying if it wasn't if it's not

going to be me who takes the house it's

going to be someone else that's kind of

how you're being right no no no no no no

no no that's not the argument i'm making

i never said it sounds a lot like the

argument you're making no no no

absolutely not because i don't i don't i

don't deny that i'm on occupy land and

it should change how how is that going

to change this is nice it's like saying

if you don't like a capitalist economy

then leave no it's

it's not the same argument because

socialism mental gymnastics to get out

of the fact that you are on stolen land

just as i am and it should be returned

to those people and they can i i don't

believe that's the contemporary

implication is that they want all of

america you're really raising the bar no

no i think you're really trivializing

the ongoing injustices against

indigenous people by raising the bar so

high you're lying about what i'm saying

well you realize that

have you actually studied what

indigenous people do want yeah because

they don't just want all of america they

tell me like i said some do want all

back i never said they all

i know indigenous people who are

fascists and i know indigenous people

too but i know some who are fascists and

who love mussolini and hitler stop

putting words in my mouth because i

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

indigenous people who like mussolini and

hitler do they represent all indigenous

people no well you can only go off of

the actual tribal leaders and what

they are saying literally okay so some

people could stay some people can go

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

that they'd be willing to give some land

to uh descendants of slaves etcetera

that's not the question here the

question that's really convenient

hold on that's really convenient that

like that's their their view is

everything that conforms to white

western left wokeness

do you do you know that there's

historical way do you know that there's

a history of conflict between um

descendants of slaves and slaves and

indigenous peoples you know that

indigenous people had slaves and it's

still their land and they can still make

the decision whether or not they want

anyone to be able to stay on but it

seems like it's so convenient that what

they apparently want it's not convenient

it's just what white western leftists

one no no no no it's not what white left

or western left

western leftists could want to erase

decolonization

entirely then why was the response to me

caleb and jackson overwhelmingly

negative by the leftists because your

position was bullshit so you're

contradicting yourself no it's the

patriotism that was bullshit

i didn't see anybody getting mad over

decolonization that's exactly what they

were getting at that's exactly what they

were getting mad over you yeah because

you can't say you stand for

decolonization while supporting the

state or supporting the country that is

the colonizer you know okay do you know

the origins of this term um

decolonization within academia okay now

now you're going to try to play

semantics

you it's it's a complete white western

left white guild plan

land that was stolen and you are coming

up with justifications for it continuing

to be that way oh we'll make treaties

give them treaties that they can't

actually that they can't actually turn

down i mean i mean you do know the

history of land treaties i think you can

actually address their real demands and

claims on a fair basis that addresses

the needs of everyone who lives here in

america i think that they would largely

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

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

right exactly what about america does

that does that essentially change

america's on stolen land if they had a

they agree

to give that land to america that

wouldn't even be america anymore is

there land in your view that is not

stolen in history what's an example of

non-stolen land the other half of the

world none of that land was conquered

canada united states australia that's

what i'm talking about so no other land

was taken forcefully in the world i

didn't say that i don't i don't so

should that land be given back as well

maybe depending on the case i don't know

i'm not talking about them so i am

talking about the western world why

because the western world is the problem

the western world is the imperialist

core i i agree that it's imperialism why

are you trying to change the subject to

some other country because i don't know

why i don't know what you mean by like

we live on stolen land well who doesn't

what do you what do you mean

britain's live in britain russians live

in russia so you don't think any british

land is stolen from indigenous people in

the british isles like the normans

conquests and those kinds of things

depending on the area so should that

land again neither would that be your

advice maybe i would have to i would

have to research those individual things

but i am not talking about those ones i

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

make the points i'm trying to make

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

point

no i'll throw you a bone even though you

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

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

agree that there is something unique um

compared to the rest of the world about

the western colonialism in the new world

i agree it's not just like you know the

historical forms of conquest and

subjugation that existed elsewhere so

i'll just throw you that bone but the

underlying point i'm trying to give to

you is that the only way to reconcile

the sins of the past is to live and

address their implications in the

present you're not going to rectify the

so-called injustices of the past because

all of history is written in blood

slaughter war rape and injustice and

there's no way for you to like reverse

that or just make it so that that that

wrong can be right you have to come to

terms with the fact that this was an

objective part of the development of

history and yeah i just that was my

point that is an objective part of what

is america where i agree but so what are

the implica

but you're saying the implications of

that is that we can just reverse that

and give all indigenous people all the

land instead of addressing the needs of

the people who live here now you don't

need to address their or the people

living here do not need to address it

they need to give and and

one of the differences with the

israel-palestine conflict too is that

that conflict is not based on the

humanitarian good graces of the

colonizers it's an actual like real war

that's going on so if the palestinians

were not aware what's going on on

reservations and the history well for

example i would never appeal to western

morality in defense of the palestinian i

would say the palestinians and their

allies will be victorious right because

i do believe that

um whether i like that or not that's

just my assessment and my belief i

cannot make the same assessment when it

comes to what if native americans are

waging a protracted people's war against

the federal government which they're not

it's not going to fare well for them so

therefore it's okay to just continue the

way it is you don't have a material if

you're not fighting for it

but you have you don't have a

materialist view of morality what do you

mean okay okay according to the woman by

whose actions and morality isn't even

necessarily material

what it's not even an objective thing

but you're appealing to morality no i'm

saying how is one valid and not the

other well valid is a moral no there is

no addressing their concerns they make

the decision because it is their land so

let them they address our concerns so so

they'll do it then okay and that's i'm

not going to get in their way but you

guys don't see them

but i don't see them conquering all of

america i just don't see it happening

who said anything about conquering well

then how are they going to get all of

america if not by i didn't say that they

would necessarily would i said it should

be given to them too

which is about morality okay so you're

saying that because they can't kick our

ass and take it back then it's okay

that's materialism for you so you're

saying because they literally can't so

you literally making might is right

that's materialism and by the way i'm

not saying you literally are yes you are

you just did well that's how you were

interpreting it can't kill us and take

it back that literally is might makes

right

i'm saying whatever morality you have

has to be make peace with that objective

material fact not saying it that makes

it okay you're you're whatever it is or

isn't okay you have to make peace with

the material circumstances and the

reality yeah and the reality is the land

on the is stolen and all you're really

saying is that they can't kill us and

take it back so it's ours the land who

is all you're saying who's ours what do

you mean who's ours i mean are you

saying what do i think should happen if

i could snap my fingers and have

whatever reality i want or am i talking

about what is the reality and how should

the marxist and materialists respond

accordingly you don't think that you

should fight to have the land taken

given back to them okay what does it

mean to fight for that does it mean just

virtue signaling to no avail that's what

i think you think no that's what first

world is doing so how do you do it then

well first of all theoretically if you

felt it was necessary not that i'm

necessarily advocating it you would

essentially destroy american society

overthrow the government or something

like that i am not necessarily endorsing

that officer all you would have to do is

destabilize i get i get it i get it

that's the anarchistic approach there's

plenty of groups that are working

overtime 24 7 to do that a lot of them

are far right the order of nine angels

the atom often you know they just want

to destroy it all right but they're not

they're those are federal honey pots

that for people to go and get arrested

and go to jail and theoretically so if

you try to organize if you try to

organize something like that you're

going to create a federal honey pot

you're not going to succeed oh again you

come right back to mike makes right well

i'm actually saying no you can't beat

the government so therefore it's okay to

remain the way it is i never said that

no but that's exactly the implications

of exactly what you know the

implications to me is that what you're

calling the government or at least

society has internal contradictions and

that marxists are trying to

accustom to them to themselves to those

contradictions and make sense of those

contradictions i'm sorry what did what

did that have anything to do with taking

down you're saying nothing will change

and that's not true because change

happens in an imminent i'm not saying

nothing according to the internal

contradiction

and not according to the voluntary will

of anarchy we just want to destroy

everything you're putting words in my

mouth again i never said nothing changes

okay what you said you said i think

nothing should change that's not what i

think because it's not about morality

it's about the objective fact that no

things are changing according to the

development of their internal

contradictions yes that's not what i

meant so what did you mean i think it

should change like what what what are

you even accusing me of you think it

should change right yes so does your

should include a little bit of reality

or is it just something purely here yes

this is reality okay

there has to be a can too not just to

show that so yeah so it's stolen but

you're adding the

you're adding if you say for example

this cat that i have it's a brown cat

this cat has four legs let's say his cat

has four legs this cat should have five

legs is there a bit of reality in that

demand don't compare them but don't make

such an idiotic comparison but it's it's

like an extreme comparison to try to

explain to you no way it's a pretty

stupid comparison but it's it's about

explaining to the relationship between

morality and reality yes i understand

what you're saying yeah the reality if

you're should it has no can or means

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

how it could be given back so if your

morality has no means to realize itself

you're not ignoring you don't have a

materialist understanding of morality no

yes i do so

okay how is your morality material

because this is stolen land and your

only argument is you can't force it to

give it back so therefore don't bother

and you know what that doesn't even that

doesn't even have to do with what the

entire debate was supposed to be about

anyway what is america okay hold on this

is

okay it happened before it happened

before america existed and some of it

did happen while america existed

all of these things

are what america is all of these things

built what america is well why why is it

okay but that's still the reality that

nonetheless you inhabit you live breathe

and eat and drink sometimes

and and

nonetheless despite this reality there

still manages to be internal

contradictions that don't that don't

obey

merely being a result of this founding

sin you're talking about what is that

what does that have to do with the fact

what i'm trying to say is that you have

to come to peace with the facts of

history

instead of having

i have to come to peace with native

genocide slavery you're telling a white

person to come to peace with that yeah

so what are you saying i have to just

accept that it happened okay well

you're making it seem like i'm asking

you to like go into a time machine and

and not alter the events of what

happened you can't you can't alter the

events of what that's the point so what

what do you do going forward

so what did what to do going forward it

just doesn't matter so what to do going

forward decolonize how let them the

native americans decide what they want

to do don't let them have some contracts

but don't let them write up contracts so

let them

don't let them let them can they finish

finish don't write up contracts by the

us government they have to decide

autonomously what happens

so let them but the settler colonial

state that is america

brutally represses them to this day

preventing that from happening so what

you're doing is virtue signaling moral

indignation no it's not backing it up

with that literally no what are you

talking about

what is the implication of what you're

saying practically what does that mean

practically again practice is not about

practice is not about what you want to

happen it's about what will happen

so what does it mean practically i just

explained what america is and what it

does that's why you should not be people

why is it that the way you explain

america is just this kind of protestant

calvinist more like morality of a world

of total depravity it just seems all too

conveniently white in western europe

actually did happen and these things do

fail okay so you're basically saying

this is america america is our reality

so reality is evil corrupted and sinful

and fallen that's what you're america is

is bad is america our reality yes or no

is america our reality is our reality so

our reality is a fallen sinful evil

world right the last time i checked the

american empire is a pretty fucking evil

thing yes okay but you're just repeating

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

no no no no no no no no no so i'll

explain to you my theology

i will explain to you my theology okay

so

for muslims for muslims i'll explain to

you my theology if you are a protestant

it has everything to do with it it has

everything to do with it it has it has

everything to do with it in my in my

muslim theologies

reality is not evil fallen and sinful

there is a divine wisdom and ultimate

reconciliation in all the events of

history that's my muslim uh

understanding of the world break it to

you but there's no material proof of god

but you still are

no i am religious myself but i also know

that there is no such thing as an

objective but you're a fanatical

calvinist protestant who believes a

world of total depravity is protestant

then why are you merely why are you

merely reproducing people i'm being a

protestant calvin well why are you

merely reproducing the world of total

depravity the theology of the world of

total debris well i'm saying that it

should be changed

well how is it okay what are you even

doing it should be changed how will it

be changed

okay

we were never arguing that we were

arguing what america we have to argue

what no we if okay then your morality

has your morality has no basis in

reality and why should we

trying to twist morals and all this

other stuff what is america and why

shouldn't we support it you are trying

to get as far away from that as possible

i don't just see america as the theft of

genocide and stolen land how could i

it's not just

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

not all it is is that all it is realism

so hold on let's break it down is that

all it is that is the basis of what is

okay so there are some other aspects of

it too so

justify its existence so morality is the

basis

the violation of morality is the

material basis of america

so let's

let's okay reign in the argument the

violation of your morality is the basis

of america no no we're not talking about

my my morality or whatever morality the

violation of morality objectively what

is america what built it what is it

today

what is its foundation and everything

that it is and that is that doesn't

address what is essentially american

exactly you want to change what it is no

it doesn't address what america actually

is essentially speaking essentially

speaking it's a genocidal fucking war

machine then according to you and this

is your view not mine had the american

republic not been founded all of those

things would have eliminated there is no

maybe so had there been no american

republic

so i i i have you on record to be clear

had the british empire continue to rule

the americas none of those things would

have continued to happen what exactly

what does that have to do with it we're

talk well if we're talking about what

america essentially is we're addressing

why

in what way did america make a

difference right that's what's what

defines itself

distracting away from the essence of

what it is all these things that it did

to get to where it is well what if the

british had kept so what

okay so the same thing happened with

with with with the british flavor so

what it would still be

wrong and decolonization would still

need to exist

you will not acknowledge the basis of

america you'll say that you will but

then you will go into all this other

talk about morals and shit that has

nothing but morality is the only basis

of your argument here oh so you don't

think that land theft is wrong and land

theft genocide and slavery is wrong the

reason i think it's wrong is because i

wouldn't do it now oh i'm against doing

it in the here and now how can i be

against something that happened in the

past

you need to be told or have someone tell

you that bad things happening a long

time all right okay hold on let me take

a call then give me a second uh yeah

that's uh that's actually a pretty

fucked up morality that you have there

all right i just got off the phone with

george washington i told him he's an

asshole because i don't approve of what

he was doing i'm sorry that was supposed

to make what point it was supposed to

make the point that i can't account for

the past i can't change the past in the

way you're asking i know so what did the

what is the script you're trying to draw

a moral prescription based on something

that happened in the past what is the

implication now

you're you're just trying to reverse the

past you can't reverse the

yes you are you're trying to effectively

reverse the past and cleanse your white

self of your ancestors sins yeah because

i'll break it down jason

jason you have white

now you're just making personal attacks

because you can't back up your oh okay

okay forget about you personally the

people who are pushing this stuff just

want to be free from their white guilt

oh so the native americans that don't

like america native americans by and

large do not push for taking all of

america

seaboard to seaboard all of it you're

putting words into my mouth again they

are not pushing for these audacious

grand claims

no they are not and they don't love

america either well why should they

reporting why

are native americans helped by american

white people running them hey let me

join you guys i hate america too no you

help them by focusing on your own people

focusing on your own country and making

right by them that's what will fucking

help them not by fucking running to uh

the keystone protest and partying there

and acting like you're part of them they

want you to go win power among your own

people so you could do right by them and

you can address their current demands

and their current needs and work

something out with them in a fair way

they don't need you to virtue signal and

condemn america and hate america because

the basis of the american state lies in

the american people if you don't win the

american people you are not going to

challenge the actions of the american

state

you think the american people are the

state

that is the basis the material basis of

every state on earth literally think the

united states government is the american

people it is materially based in the

american people yes as all states are

well there's a pretty big disconnect

between the american people and the u.s

state well i didn't say it's

subjectively based in them i said it's

materially based in that yeah so that's

pretty a pretty outlandish claim yeah

there's a big which basically means

between two and so which basically

so what if you win the american people

you can pose a threat to the current

order um trust me the american people

don't pose a threat to the american

order

look and to be in in all honesty first

world people that includes canadians so

why why was the media and the deep state

so worried about this thing they were

calling populism it seemed like they

were really scared of that and they were

really um worried about the threat of

populism because they didn't want

violence there's a big difference

between them being worried about street

violence and there being a revolution

there's a fear i know a lot of americans

can't tell the difference it's not about

no they weren't worried about the street

violence during the black lives matter

protest they were worried about the

people the american people starting to

disobey the institutions that rule over

them effectively leading to a crumbling

of the deep state and the establishment

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

scared shitless of that because formally

speaking we are still a democracy and

you can get people like trump elected

still formally speaking you think

america's a democracy formally it is yes

well the term you're looking for is

bourgeois democracy sure but that's

that's what that's what by the way

that's what democracy that's what formal

democracy means bourgeois democracy that

thing where the ruling class picks who

runs the country that's what they've

been getting away with but the way you

pose a threat to that is by forming a

base in the hinterlands and in the

countryside and encircling the cities

yeah and i'm sure the american people

will be doing that any day now well

that's the job of communists and you see

how you're serving american imperialism

by telling communists that they

shouldn't do that i'm not saying that

they shouldn't do that well that's what

me caleb and

that's what caleb and jackson said very

specifically every time this accusation

has been made

resistance in the first world revolution

in the third it's right there resistance

and then will over and over and over

again just ignore the fact that i said

so what is resistance in the first world

what's an example

black lives matter

anything that you mean something that's

run by the democratic party

did you let me finish

something that is like that but outside

of it

what's an example

would you let me answer

i'm sorry anything that runs at that

would that would destabilize the society

in general

i don't care if it's right wing

i don't care if it's radical islam

as long as it destroys the american

empire

so you're saying you're wagering that

these things will destroy the american

empire i'm not saying that i'm wagering

these things in my personal view i think

global warming is going to kill us

before any of this happens but that's

not an excuse so your message in

practice indeed is one of defeatism

yes or no it's not really defeatism yeah

we can't do anything just sit back and

wait for something to happen no no no no

no no my statement is that the american

people will not do revolution so it's

defeated so you cannot do

then destroy america okay okay

okay

two problems there's two problems how do

you know they can't do it second issue

okay the second issue is how are you

gonna destroy america i i the second one

i literally just answered that you

didn't answer it you said you're going

to wager that

broad you know radicalism

right-wing anything i just said anything

right

what are you going to be a magician who

puppeteers all of these things like as a

conduit like it seems like you're saying

sit back and and wait for those people

to do something otherwise how you can't

control those things that's literally

the same thing as waiting for americans

to do revolution when they've been

saying oh yeah we're gonna do it i've

never advocated for waiting well that's

literally what's happening well no

what's happening is that i'm trying i'm

trying to personally build any minute

now any minute now we're going to do it

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

after russia oh

we're going to do it right after the

great depression oh oh it's building

right after the great recess what i'm

trying to do building in the 1960s dude

we're good what i'm trying to do

what i'm trying to do is build a media

platform that will eventually help and

steer and inform um parties you even got

even the slightest amount of real

influence the government would shut you

down you'd be confused we'll see i'm

willing to wait and test it and see what

will happen well

i i don't need a crystal ball to see

that if you do become

yeah but the difference between me and

you is that i'm actually willing to like

like prove it like okay you're you're

not seeing anything in fact the opposite

has always been true in fact this is

where marx actually marx's prediction

actually was wrong what was this he said

he said that the advanced industrialized

countries of the world that would be

germany and england at his time were

going to be the ones to lead the

revolution because they were the most

proletarianized i don't believe that

that's what he said

the opposite was true well he was

actually the less

he and angles came to recognize that

later

yes and even lenin recognized that the

industrialized advanced countries which

we now which today would be the first

world will sell out every single

struggle to democratic reforms that's

not true that is exactly what has always

well i can try to explain it for you but

every single time please don't interrupt

exactly what's going on i'll explain it

to you show me one advanced

industrialized country that went into

revolutionary you're getting the theory

wrong really wrong no i'm not getting

the theory wrong well i'll explain

exactly what happened okay i'll explain

explain what really happened yeah so

marx later in his life acknowledged that

the revolution was going to happen in

russia it did um lenin obviously

recognized he could explain why it is

the bolsheviks triumph within russia

rather than the advanced countries but

his message actually wasn't one of

despair and defeatism to um not arguing

defeated please don't interrupt me to

the first world um communists his

message was that russia countries like

russia the less developed countries um

explicitly and overtly made intelligible

the fundamental distinctions whether

sociological or programmatic or

like theoretical in terms of the party

with which people in the so-called

developed countries can make use of it

to learn from so the point is that

people in the advanced countries need to

learn from the experience of the

successful communist revolutions and

parties not just despair and say it's

not possible because we're not poor and

desperate enough as they were so for an

example of that for example which many

chinese communists actually endorse and

it makes intuitive sense to them is that

how you learn from maoism and the

experience of maoism in america is

applying being able to have insight into

the fact that the fundamental

sociological distinctions that were

essential to the events of the um the

revolution within china can actually be

discerned within america with more

insight america does have a countryside

that can encircle the cities we do have

a popular broad strata that is

applicable here we do have not just

farmers or whatever but we do have a

rule working class uh that mao's

theories and his thought can apply to so

it's in china that these things become

intelligible to us and become apparent

to us and it's the job of people in

communist con sorry it's the job of

communists in the advanced uh

imperialist countries um to learn to

humble themselves and learn from these

experiences so the logical conclusion of

marx being wrong does not mean that

communists can't do anything to win

power and or even try to win power at

least build a base of power a movement

within advanced western countries so

that's a wrong interpretation so that

explains why it has been a complete

historical failure in every way shape or

form which is why we have the inverse

denominator i think the reason for the

failure though is that communists in the

west are much like you people no no no

that's bullshit that's bullshit yeah no

it's pretty it's exactly the same

fucking you that is that that is

complete bullshit they are nothing it's

a hundred percent the fact they they

were they were completely contemporary

everybody is just like me a defeatist no

that is not evil they really say they're

gonna do it they really believe they're

gonna do it they form up a party and

then it never happens but what are they

doing what are they doing

they forget every communist party in the

first world makes the same mistake no

one follows them yeah i agree

i agree but i think the reason no one

follows them is because they're wrong

and not because the people are not in

their material so let's let's let's

walk up to a construction worker and

make seventy thousand dollars a year

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

revolution give up uh i would never do

such a ridiculous anarchist because he

would laugh at you i would laugh at that

proposal myself that's an anarchistic

volunteeristic adventurous

stupid thing to do no that's so that's

not how revolutions happen revolutions

don't happen because people just say i

want to overthrow the government and

that's it no revolutions happen because

of the objective development of

contradictions that's not like leading

to the collapse of the state

they don't happen just because you take

power voluntarily that's volunteerism

the government falls by itself and then

communists sweep in yeah in some

objective way the government does

collapse it's legitimacy

what when nobody supports communists in

the first world to begin with well whose

fault is that is it the people's fault

or communist fault i'm thinking it's the

communist fault i'm saying it's the

material conditions well you're saying

the people are to blame for not buying

into my ideology i'm saying your

ideology is wrong it's not in their

interest to fight why why isn't in their

interest of white they're not going to

give up their middle class life no one's

asking them to why why would you ask

them to give up their middle class life

no one is going to give up their life to

just go be a guerrilla fighter and live

a life i would never ask them to be a

guerrilla fighter in the first place

exactly who's going to be doing the role

why does anyone need to be a guerrilla

fighter in america that's stupid just

said you believed in revolution who do

you think who's supposed to yeah because

i believe the objective laws of social

revolution are not the same thing as a

volunteeristic adventure of being a

gorilla so you're basically saying

violent revolution is not going to

happen you don't go out of your way to

be violent no you don't you don't go out

of your way to be violent don't know

what revolution is if that's an

objective consequence of a revolution

then whatever but you don't go out of

your way to be violent that's stupid so

you oppose violent revolution i oppose

adventurism no you just literally yeah i

oppose criminal adventurism and um

stupidities like that of course i do

yeah so you you literally just said so

you don't believe in violent revolution

you literally just said that well

violent revolution just seems like

adventure is the government who is it

that's going to overthrow the government

and bushwick society um

it's not going to be voluntary people

aren't going to voluntarily fight the

revolution what revolution are you

talking about when we talk about an

objective hypothetical

when we talk about revolution there's

two aspects of it there's an objective

social revolution and there's a

political revolution objective social

revolutions follow the laws of history

they happen because of revolutions and

the forces of production this gives rise

to a strata that is um that

fundamentally socially changes in its

composition this is a social revolution

okay now let's talk about reality yeah

in reality someone fights it i can give

you an example of this in reality for

example american workers have been used

to manufacturing jobs and guaranteed

jobs and white picket fences in middle

class houses and this kind of way of

life but when jobs got outsourced and

overseas and we're seeing rise to the

fourth industrial revolution we're

seeing rise to a social revolution

occurring a former mode of production is

changing and shifting and transforming

into another and a former class um

is breaking down and being

proletarianized in a new way okay so

that is a social revolution that is

happening now it has been the source the

primary source of america's internal

political contradictions since the nixon

era right nixon championed this working

class later reagan was trying to do it

um paradoxically the democrats abandoned

the working class and moved on to get

support from urban uh liberal cities so

when does this become like an actual

revolution i think you're just talking

about a fantasy not reality no in real

life revolution is a tremendously

violent act that's why melrose

revolution is not a dinner party that

was that was his explanation for why

things were being so violent and

destructive why are you so fixated on

the question of violence is my question

because that's literally what a

revolution is sure it may inevitably be

that but no that's not the essence of

the point there are objective social

revolutions arguing something that is

not violent revolution you're a sock dem

but marxists don't advocate for violent

revolutions they may recognize that the

revolutions fuck did you just say they

don't they may recognize that

revolutions may inevitably be very

specifically and in

all

history of revolutions when these things

actually happen they were violence

marx even he never advocated for them to

be violent yes he

lie marx never advocated for violent

revolution dude you're fucking done

you're fucking done he didn't you're

done

he recognized that revolution no she did

he said it had to come from violence

he said that it will inevitably be

violent probably but there may it might

not in england or in america but then it

then with imperialism the state

machinery must be smashed so yeah it

will inevitably be violent i'm sorry but

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

but he's not saying it will be violent

because it should be violent he's saying

that because it has to be what does it

mean hassle was he don't go away by

themselves we didn't move from feudalism

to capitalism peacefully either we

didn't move from primitive accumulation

to feudalism peacefully but you don't

advocate for violence violence is how it

changes no violence is a part of how it

changes you don't advocate for the

violence itself violence is what jason i

think you just want to learn sorry i'm

sorry i think you're just bored in one

of our that's what i think i just think

you want to larp the first first i was a

defeatist now i'm a larp which is it i

think you're a defeatist because you

realize you can't learn you are full of

shit marx specifically said it was

violent it has always been violent

because it always has to be because the

bad guys don't go away by themselves but

revolution isn't the voluntary act is

the problem see the thing is it kind of

is no it obeys doesn't just happen by

itself but it obeys social laws

it's not a voluntary act and absolutely

not always necessary in all of them if

you were going to stand here and say

revolution is going to happen without

violence or that marx didn't advocate

for violence you literally don't know

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

revolution can happen without violence i

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

doesn't mean i'm going to advocate for

violence see the difference because

that's literally how it works so if

you're not advocating for literally how

it works what are you doing what does it

mean to advocate for a revolution go

ahead that's what it means that's what a

communist revolution is so you want to

ask people to violently overthrow the

government no under the right conditions

they will do it and i would say under

the conditions of the first world they

will not do it that is why revolution is

not possible in the first world until

the only exception would be is if there

was enough of an economic crisis that

broke the first world down to the level

of a third world country then it might

be possible you know the problem with

this theory is that third world

countries only enter revolutionary

situations when a middle class becomes

downwardly mobile from its previous

position rather than people just being

poor and desperate and people are just

poor and desperate there are there is no

revolution so the philippine revolution

has been going on for like what almost

50 years which is why it's not a real

revolution real revolutions don't last

50 years states last 50 years you can

you can do a revolution badly no it's

not a real revolution it's just not okay

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

didn't happen instantly overnight so

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

think there's a difference between

overnight and 50 years don't you think

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

there is just because they're not doing

it very well or maybe there there are

other factors in and i would say that

their revolution is actually failing but

it's not a revolution unless you have a

strange definition of revolution that

i'm not aware of a revolution means

you're overthrowing the government

they're not doing they are they are

trying to so if i try to overthrow the

god if you try to overthrow the

government are you are you doing a

revolution at a movement so how many

people do do you need for it to be okay

so now you want to play semantics i just

want to know why you tolerate a

revolution

look this this debate is already over

you already refused to acknowledge that

the the basis for what america is and

destroy tried to go off into all this

morality stuff and calling me a

calvinist well because you're you're it

seems like the only significance you

have went and said revolution wasn't but

hold on

a violent fact but the reason he started

that way he literally just admitted that

you're a sock damn okay but the reason

we if we started that way jason was

because you said the basis the material

basis of america is defined by morality

and i don't agree that it's not in my

mind i said it was defined by slavery

and genocide things whose essential

significance is moral uh and so they

still are the basis of america and when

you champion there's a difference

between the basis that's what you're

defending the difference between the

basis of america and an immoral fact of

america's founding you you want to play

that you can't come into terms with

you're playing you're playing word games

you're trying to pretend that none of

the the slaves you can't you can't just

lose an argument and accuse the other

person of playing word games you're

losing the arguments here you literally

lost okay fine what let the public think

what they might i'm in the hands of god

but all i can say is that yeah the hands

of god are pretty fucking useless and i

say that as a religious person myself

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

like sorry that's complete bullshit well

i'm open to whatever the public will

think of it is my point me too so i just

want to state my piece and my pieces to

erase the history of the united states

and pretend that it has no bearing on

what it is today i think you want to

erase i i didn't want to erase from

history

is a fundamental fact of history that

cannot be reversed no but you can give

justice to the survivors but the

survivors don't want justice in the form

of reversing the history altogether i'm

not talking about reverse it's a part of

our communists or lying about what i'm

percent based in morality your position

is 100 percent entirely yes i do stand

on the moral position that slavery and

genocide are bad things well you were

just ignoring that okay here's all i

have to say on right this is a

fundamental fact of history it's a

history which we reproduce we eat

breathe and live in this dirtied and

sinful reality all those crimes so the

difference between you and me is this

the difference between you and me is

this we are all marked by sin and

there's sin and in a fallen world all

around us my point is that we can find

meaning in this history and we can

reconcile this history your position is

that we must commit ourselves to

completely erasing and reversing this

history not trying to so that we could

be devoid of something

on anything we must cleanse ourselves of

the sin of the forefathers that is the

basis of america a complete christian

prejudice what the fuck are you talking

about you want to wipe all the sins away

as a prerequisite for getting to work

yes or no this has nothing to do the

sins must be wiped away before we can be

communist yes or no i think we cannot be

communist until that happens until we

wipe the sins clean state christ

sacrificed himself until we give justice

clean for the people that were wrong so

who will die for our sins to give us

this clean state slave no no one really

theoretically even has to die should i

offer myself as the christ to redeem

humanity no you're actually all over the

place right now are gone you are pure

now western white leftist now okay so

yeah you're just gonna reduce it to

insults okay okay i think we're done

here

you literally want to ignore the history

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

saying i'm just saying you have a lot of

cultural exactly but you have a lot of

cultural and theological prejudices that

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

religion has nothing to do with this

no but yours does god has nothing to do

my religion doesn't but yours does

you're a hardcore calvinist you don't

even represent all christians

not all christians you don't represent

most christians but you are a hardcore

calvinist

you are the same thing vosh

no i'm saying mia calvin is the way vosh

calls people fascist that's exactly what

you're doing right now but okay

so

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

i'm willing to reason with you about it

okay

i'm calling you a calvinist and i'm

trying to reason with you about it

because your

your your understanding of reality is

pretty much the same as the calvinist

understanding no why not what's the

difference you ignore the history of

slavery and genocide you you share the

same what makes your view what makes

your view different from a calvinist you

share the same thing as a fascist you're

being a fascist okay but i can reason

about myself

it's fascism you try to ignore slavery

and genocide as the house somehow it's

but you're not you're not actually

reasoning you're

because the only way for you to be right

is to try to rip the context out of what

i was saying and then call me religious

well okay how about i just don't call

you religious i'll just call you an

idealist is that fair oh okay so

acknowledging the history of the united

states is idealism okay no but that's

not you're not just acknowledging

history you're creating an entire a

practical and moral prescription for the

present based on a certain moral

understanding of the people that have

been wronged that is a meaningless

phrase that doesn't mean justice to

people who have been wronged as a man

that can mean anything i think i already

outlined what that is and who are you to

outline that when native indigenous when

by and large indigenous people are not

outlining it the way you're saying i'm

wrong because i'm white even though

that's what that's what would be justice

who are you to speak for the justice of

shit oz you are fucking full of shit but

you are not indigenous people you are

so how do you know what justice means

for them

technically i don't like to play this

card but i am but that doesn't matter

but how do you know

okay but how do you know what justice

means for them because that's what

they're asking for and the only thing

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

how do we know that they

what the fuck do you think idle no more

means what do you think that the whole

resurgence they're not asking for that

they're not asking yeah okay so you're

saying that they're not they're not

asking they are not asking for all okay

america and i didn't say they were

asking for all land back this is the

third time so what land do they want

back that must lead to the destruction

of i don't know what it is exactly that

they want why must it lead to the

destruction of the republic because the

republic is bad i don't think you've

noticed that more morality that means

nothing oh i'm sorry a a an empire built

on imperialism slavery and genocide is

me being the republic was founded on the

basis of seceding from the empire the

the republic was founded on the basis

it has become one

also because we have allowed the british

uh

intelligence our country so therefore it

doesn't matter well the british the

british ruling the british ruling class

conquered our deep state in our country

and became our ruling class so yeah we

became an empire but that's not how the

republic was founded no but that's what

it is

that's what it became that's what it is

and that's what it was always so do you

think it's an american people's national

tradition to be an empire when our

national tradition is

our national tradition is to secede from

empires not to become them really

because i could have sworn there was

stealing of mexico the constant

supporting of uh endless wars to steal

territory that were highly supported by

the american people even if they weren't

supported by the american people it's

still a reality i'm sorry but they were

supported by the american people because

the people leading the american people

whereas lenin understood was a labor

aristocracy and were um petty bourgeois

elements aligned to u.s imperialism that

were leading them and lenin didn't

let him just say that you should concede

the battlefield to those elements you

said communists should lead the american

people in contrast to those elements

manifest destiny what about it you're

basically arguing well manifest destiny

included many injustices against

indigenous people i agree but that's not

all you are not significant today they

may be but you have to go on a

case-by-case basis no

they they they are relevant

it is the basis of america you have an

idealized version of what america is

detached from the material reality of

what it has been how is that it has

always been and what it will always be i

just don't think morality is the basis

in the essence of material reality

that's all no but slavery is a material

thing that happened so is genocide and

land so these are material things that

happened

you're essentially your position so

because they happen that means that's

that's all material reality is now it

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

for it what do you mean by bases

elaborate that's what built america so

elaborate america

exists physically on a space that was

stolen by slaughtering off the

population that lived there and then

brought a whole another population from

africa to do work on it

so now how is it the basis right now

because that's what built up america so

how is that the basis now it is the

basis because that's the foundation is a

foundation the past or is a foundation

something that exists in the present

actually it's something that exists in

the present too because that's what

built it up so how does it exist in the

present is my question america's

privileged position in the world and not

even if it wasn't privileged positioned

in the world it literally exists on

stolen land what part of that are you

not getting i know you keep repeating

these moral indignations

oh my god but i failed to see the scene

plant theft doesn't matter it's morally

so you are you can't get over how much

you're out my theft doesn't exist you

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

you're outraged about something that

happened hundreds of years ago

and you can't get it over trying to

whitewash it and pretend it never

existed

i never presented today doesn't matter

today oh exactly how far back i guess

i'm just not a calvinist who sees sin

all around me and i feel going i see and

breathe the sin all around me they're

sitting all around me i feel the smell

of the sin i don't live that way okay

you're going right back to the personal

attacks i'm sorry i just don't

understand

that way of approaching reality yes

everyone who disagrees with me is is a

calvinist i just think you're a

calvinist yeah okay sure yeah everyone

who doesn't agree with my ignoring of

history i just don't detect i don't like

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

spirit of sin all around me i don't have

white people with america i don't have

white people

attacking i don't have white skills

i'm not i'm not so help me understand it

i don't have the white

guilty you go

there you go ad hominem again you're

just going out okay on the one hand

you're saying i'm denying everyone who

disagrees with me is white guilt

calvinism well what else do you want me

to say you're telling me that you can't

if you cannot understand that america

stands on stolen land today and the

legacy of that theft and what it still

does to people to this day then there's

no helping you yeah but you're you're

saying that the implication is that all

of america must cease to exist because

of this sinful past i disagree with that

yeah and it's sinful present as well

because that sinful past and sinful

present is what it is there is no there

is no there is no divorcing that the 900

military bases that exist around the

world today are a thing that today so

are you

so you are aiding the demise of american

imperialism by isolating yourselves from

the masses so effectively you can't pose

any threat

no no in the way that you think that

they're just going to suddenly become

revolutionary and do something even when

all history has proven the opposite i

don't know why you're getting so excited

on the basis you can go ahead i don't

expect that

you agree with me i don't expect first

worldlist to agree with you

go ahead go cosplay revolution tell

everybody that they're the biggest i'm

not cosplaying revolution i'm cosplaying

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

cosplaying revolutions

playing mongols

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

like you're talking like you're going to

do revelations

you're not gonna do it you can go ahead

and believe that you can go you remind

me a lot of are relevant dude you're

getting high off your own supply of

copium and just excitedly repeating

mantras of straw men that i've never

said

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

no you're just like getting excited on

based on narratives instead of following

the line of argumentation that's been

presented i am following you you're

getting like high off now like you're

like that guy's like you're going away

for aristocracy you would deny the labor

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

it back a little bit

reel it back in a little bit and focus

on what's been said i never said

i have never ever said that americans

are just gonna suddenly wake up one day

and become revolution that's a straw man

argument i've never said that they're

not going to be even in a protracted way

or whatever it is that you think it's

going to happen well i think revolution

means something different to you than

what it means to me yeah i'm sorry in

all of existing history it has been

violent revolution to you is like a

millenarian kind of like larpy like

voluntary

realize exactly what the revolution the

chinese revolution were they were very

jason jason

do you know what the merging is the

merger no what is this thing you made up

i didn't make it up a guy named chris

chan believes it's going to be a merger

and it's like the ultimate site of like

the absolute in the future okay you're

quoting christian stop but that's how

many american leftists think of

revolution they think of it as like this

thing in the future that is going to be

like the ultimate and absolute

realization of the inner like aesthetic

moral

craving and striving of the subject it

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

non-marxist view of how revolutions

would represent that's actually idealism

what you're talking for oh wait no

they're just going to suddenly wake up

one day

there's going to be a grand revelation

and all of a sudden everything's going

to be okay sorry that i've never i've

argued the opposite of that then why are

you then why are you bringing it up i'm

accusing you of bringing it up not me no

i don't think that at all well you think

of revolution as a point of like the

absolute in reality the ultimate and

absolute kind of thing that happens in

reality no i said it's a military matter

it's a violent military matter that's

how that's

literally it's one class overthrowing

another i'm sorry it's not it's not you

literally just denied it

okay it may be a military matter maybe

okay even though but it's

do you know what okay what is

volunteerism in the history of marxism

why do marxists accuse other of of

volunteerism what does that mean when

they do that i have no idea what that

kind of sounds like bullshit actually i

don't know what it is lenin talks about

it okay

what does he mean by it he means by

volunteerism people who think that

revolution is something that is enacted

in reality rather than something that

obeys historical and social laws yes and

in real life you need material

conditions and you need the effort to

actually do it no actually uh it's not

oh you won't need the effort to actually

but by effort do you mean a voluntary

act of taking up arms right yes yeah

that's that lenin calls that volunteers

you literally think people just

spontaneously just rise up all of a

sudden no lenin addresses the

distinction between scotland what is the

distinction because you just contradict

yeah they're two sides of the same coin

spontaneitism and voluntarism share the

same refusal to acknowledge the decisive

significance of the party

as the organ of the interests of the

material proletariat in reality the

party is in reality it's a part of

reality it becomes

part of the people and part of reality

that would be yes violence is necessary

no the party must become part of reality

yes i agree and by becoming part of

reality it seizes revolutionary moments

and acquires power and how do they

acquire that power they acquire that

power through the breakdown of the state

and through acquiring the support of the

masses the trust and support of the

people and they solidify that power and

that basis obviously on the basis of um

the military power in the case of the

october revolution it was the support of

the sailors and the soldiers that

allowed the bolsheviks to consolidate

power that's not the same as antifa

going and you know i didn't say that i

said revolutions required it kind of

just sounds like by violence revolution

you mean people just taking up arms no

i said violence in the end is necessary

along with everything else what do you

mean by violence

stop stop stop stop stop stop stop

stop

you fucking idiot what you fucking

dumbass get the fuck out of here it's

not even a real gun it's not a real gun

no you can't get a fucking ak in canada

i'm illustrating my point you pick up a

gun and then you fight i'm not saying

that's yeah but that's volunteerism

jason that's what fucking volunteerism

means that's all there is you have to

understand that when you're talking

about his volunteers that's not what the

bolsheviks did they didn't just pick up

a gun

i never said they did they defended

themselves in a civil war when they were

attacked for seizing power i never said

all they did was violence that is

another so how did mao

of china well largely by killing the

nationalists after killing the japanese

so what's the detail that's missing here

was there a central chinese state that

he randomly rebelled against and then

took took over what do you mean randomly

rebelled against no this the

the chinese state collapsed because of

the japanese invasion that that civil

war and it was the war there was it's

called the warlord era in the 30s there

was no government to take up arms

against so to speak there was an all-out

civil war already a warlord era the

communist emerged triumphant so you're

saying the nationalist party didn't have

anything i'm sorry you're full of shit

and by the way the russian that civil

war happened after the revolution in

russia yeah but the revolution in russia

wasn't just people taking up arms and

overthrowing the government oh i know

we've we've already agreed to that

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

violent revolution you mean if it's not

what happened in russia or china what is

it by violent revolution you mean

bourgeois state does not go away by

itself i don't understand what you're

not getting about the reason it doesn't

go away by itself is because the

proletarian party must have the

logistical

organizational and mass support to

acquire hegemony over the state yes to

replace it so you're arguing that no

violence is necessary along with all

that it may very well be necessary but

it's not the point the point isn't

violence i didn't say the point was

violence i said it so why are you so

fixated on it because you you said that

why can't you just

listen why can't you just follow the

laws you just you said why can't you

just follow why can't you just follow

the laws which majority you didn't

believe in violent revolution i said you

don't advocate for violent revolution

which you shouldn't you should never

advocate for a violent revolution in

this kind of situation

well i i know because first of all

people won't do it but that's because

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

it's because it's stupid oh okay when

the internal contradictions can be

developed and that's okay

when the internal contradictions can be

developed legally why would you advocate

for a violent revolution it makes no

sense because that's what it is because

no because your subjectivist who

believes that internally and morally

you've arrived at a position that

condemns the entirety of the american

state and gives you the right to

overthrow it violently

but that's complete individualist

subjectivism you don't have the right to

overthrow the us government violently

you know in order to have the right to

do that you have to develop the imminent

contradictions

that are the basis of the u.s state

and follow through with them the

imminent contradictions you just you

don't have the right to overthrow

governments just because internally and

subjectively you've decided they're

immoral and don't have a basis to exist

there has to be an imminent objective

and material basis for a revolution

it's not just based on your own moral uh

condemnation

on my own moral ground i was saying that

the american people aren't going to do

it

it needs to be done

system does need to be done they're not

going to do it because it's fucking

stupid

no because they won't do it period

so because the american people don't

want to join your fantasy larp they're

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

exactly what it is jason you brought up

you literally brought a fantasy prop toy

illustrating my fucking words you piece

of shit you brought a toy to fucking

illustrate your point

about needing a gun about violence

because there is violence

stupid larp dude

violence in a revolution is a stupid

larp

as you're putting it yeah it is no it's

not how i'm putting it you are twisting

my words you are making it say that i'm

saying that it's just violence that's

all there is no i never said that

you are a liar

i never said that i never gave the

impression so what are you saying he

said that it was a necessity to defend

yourself and clarify what are you saying

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

larger revolution that's part of the

larger revolutionary effort and then you

said that you didn't believe in using

violence so i that's not what i said so

i don't wait i took that to mean that

you didn't believe in you you just

accused me of being a liar but you just

lied about what i said hold on i just

lied about mine well hold on i'm trying

to explain i took that to mean

that you said there would be no violence

at all i miss that's not what i was

saying i just said that i just said i

misunderstood what i said is that you

shouldn't advocate for violence you

never advocate for violence come on down

to the revolution people don't worry

there won't be any violence no you just

don't advocate for you say we follow the

laws you know what

you tell the people you follow the laws

and if the government starts violating

its own laws and effectively collapses

at that point our bourgeois democracy

collapses then as our founding fathers

told us you have a right to uh fathers

are complete fucking but it's it's the

reason i would bring it up is because

it's it's it has

but it has legitimacy in the eyes of the

american people to defend themselves and

their liberties and their rights

that should be made which what is the

criticism that the constitution that

monstrous piece of shit should even have

i don't think the constitution is really

that bad it's really easy it's it's

complete reactionary capitalist garbage

there's like one or two good things in

there but materially that they do they

don't actually exist well it has a

different meaning for the american

people oh so you really do have freedom

of speech no and the american people

interpret the meaning of the

constitution is the founding document of

a country founded on the basis of

declaring independence from the british

empire and being a union

state that's by oven for the people and

we literally know what the founding

fathers meant by the people he met

specifically not the black ones

specifically not the red ones and not

the women because they weren't actually

people and they literally meant

well why why is it that communists have

consistently praised the founding

fathers like mao and lennon and marks

those people stalling because of those

people impressive role that it played at

the time and even then i would actually

criticize them for it the united states

i i i wouldn't i think they were right i

think before i think when mao said he

wanted to make posthumously make george

washington a member of the communist

party i agree with mom washington was a

slave owner yeah and first of all when

mao said that was late in his life and i

really really wouldn't take the stuff he

said late in life very seriously well i

think you're a revisionist then because

i take what he said

mal meeting nixon is a good thing that's

something i think it was a good thing

yeah uh okay so so it was a great

training the revolution is is okay

what's that

literally betraying the revolution what

revolution the chinese revolution how

did he betray the chinese revolution by

meeting by meeting with the enemy and

proposing to work with them against the

soviet union the soviet union was

engaging in aggression against china at

the time and china was just trying to

defend itself

you're literally supporting the

sino-soviet split wait why were the

soviets amassing troops at the border of

china they had a conflict that doesn't

mean you signed but they even before the

conflict they were you know what you

literally just defended siding with

imperialism i side with china during the

suno soviet split i do and you support

them meeting with nixon to engage in

collaboration against the soviets they

were defending themselves from a foreign

aggression so you think that they needed

to collaborate with the united states to

do that um they had to do whatever was

necessary bullshit they didn't need to

do that and it really wasn't the united

states per se that they were

collaborating oh no of course not they

were actually collaborating with nixon

against the democrats too

that's why mao said he likes the

republicans more than the democrats he

said that his words literally just

defended mao allying with the united

states imperialist power well i i am i

am with the united states against

another socialist isn't your name maoist

rebel news i'm more of a maoist i don't

know i'm sorry you're

you're advocating the opposite of maoism

but your name is literally maoist

you are uncritically taking everything

mao says is true that's literally that's

not necessarily true but yeah i'm sorry

but that was completely but i agree with

the decisions mao made uh sorry that was

an an incorrect decision i do not

support i don't think it was i think the

i changed the blame sorry well i think

the soviets um oh the soviets forced the

chinese to la with the united states

they really did actually

they really did what do you know about

soviet agents approaching the americans

about teaming up against china and

i would criticize them for that too so

what was china supposed to do to defend

itself well it physically could defend

itself it didn't have to turn around in

the united states and hey can we work

together so how did they work together

as my friend how did they materially

work together um that was so bad forming

diplomatic alliances against diplomatic

relations primarily trade relations if

you remember yeah which ultimately

benefited who united states or china in

the long run benefited both them in the

long run who did it actually been

technically both of them no it benefited

china and hurt america really bad in the

long run well i i because the chinese

were smart and they knew what they were

doing even then okay let's say let's say

let's just say it benefits because i'll

explain why you want to know why that is

though well because from the chinese

perspective they have a more kind of

eastern traditionalist spiritual

perspective on what revolution means for

them revolution isn't a

and you know romantic thing that just

suddenly happens

it's a lot it's a long game they think

of it as a long game

they they think it up generationally

they think of it as a longing they think

of it as something

that happens subtly that's something

that happens subtly accumulating into

something big yes a rupture

but

they don't think of it how you think of

it no and they were right about that i

haven't just i haven't china is the

premiere

is the ascendant and premier world power

now because of that wisdom

and you are in canada with a toy gun

take the personal shot didn't you

well you're criticizing mao's decisions

and you have to go

yes i can criticize him yeah well you

have to i can disagree with his decision

yes his decision which led to china

being the premier power of the world

something he couldn't even dream of at

the time

oh my

oh the chinese billionaires would agree

with you well we can actually i was

going to talk about that today too we

can talk about the fact that the

communist party has made it very clear

now decisively that this new class as

they call them in china will have no

part of sharing power with the community

if the communist party deems it fit they

will all be eliminated if that's the

resulting consequence of this decision

what's that

the capitalists don't have any power

also the capitalists continue to exist

exactly why

they have no power whatsoever why do

they exist

on the base because for now

they are serving the interests of the

communist party but they're starting to

not it's like it's starting to actually

slip we saw with jack ma we're seeing it

with evergrande now yeah and we see it

with the ways in which the chinese

communist party and this is what i

wanted to talk about on stream is

starting to promote small enterprises

and small um businesses that are coming

from the soil of the chinese people to

prevent the monopolization and the rise

of powerful monopolies like alibaba and

jack ma's empire so they are undermining

the power of the billionaires and this

doesn't serve the interests we're

stopping capitalism by creating more

capitalism

no it's it's well

you have to understand and obey the

objective laws of the forces of

production and the social revolutions i

i hate to break it so it's no longer

capitalism but the uh

the productive forces have already been

built up and they were probably built up

about 20 years ago how's that

they literally physically existed

yeah this is it's just an nep without

end

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

and an ndp was a implicit form of

sharing political power

with um the kulaks in the countryside uh

with with whom the soviet state did not

have the power to alter or change or

eliminate they had to form a negotiation

and deal with them yes and exactly where

are the kulaks now

yeah because the soviet state the

communist party of the soviet union

management

stopped them the way that they were

supposed because they took power they

took complete economic power and

political power of the country just like

china would criticize them china never

relented its power though this communist

party in china never relented its power

and never gave shared power with anyone

the new class exists on the good graces

of the communist party they can fall

just in the same way and you know

they're not necessary right

those those capitalists are not

necessary

up until this point they have been

for a period i would agree yes but that

probably ended about 20 years ago

well you know more than the um

1.4 billion chinese people i'm sure

oh no i'm not saying i know better than

them

you know more you know more than all of

their marxists all of their philosophers

all of their academics all of their

researchers all of their um

scholars and all of their experts and

all of their leaders

you know more than all of them you know

what's best for china more than that i

know whether or not they ex whether or

not the the productive forces existed

yes

in a way that they are just blind to for

some reason no they're not blind to it

they just don't care

why don't they care because they're not

as pure as you are

no because they're not doing marxism

and you are

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

do with the other

well you're saying they're not doing

marxism what does it mean to do marxism

are you doing it

who's doing it

well you could take what the soviet

union was doing the soviet union doesn't

exist anymore because it collapsed

because of what it was doing

no it collapsed politically from

internal from i didn't also economically

no

so the breadsnap stagnation never

happened

that was from capitalist reforms

the question reforms were a response to

the stagnation

uh i'm sorry but no capitalist reforms

are what just just what damaged the were

those that did that those under happen

under cruise shop or where did they have

i'm not exactly exactly talking about

the kosugan reforms those were a

response to the stagnation

and your point would be capitalist

reform still destroyed everything

i think you're talking about gorbachev's

reforms which were disastrous but those

came long after the economic crisis of

soviet central planning

actually there was a problem with soviet

central planning because they were

basically trying to do too much

and that what they did was they decided

well we can still compete with the us in

terms of standard of living as long as

we let you know the market come in

and do some of that organizing for us

which ultimately turned out to be a

mistake

so what should the soviet union have

done stopped growing and have its

economy collapse

no one advocated it for it to stop

growing so how would it have continued

in the world you know the basis of

soviet growth up until that point was in

things like steel production the

development of the primary forces of

production there was no light industry

to speak of or very little light

industry to speak of that there was no

way the soviet union was going to

develop

a computer industry that was going to

rival the west there was no way the

soviet union was going to view computers

they had computers but they were it was

so slow compared to the rapid pace of

development that was happening in the

u.s sorry that's not true soviet

computers were actually very good

i'm not denying that but their

development was very slow compared to

the development in the west

i would disagree with that and so would

paul cockshot

okay

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

abolish economic planning

do you know what the feldman chinese

never abolished economic planning

yeah they did no they didn't they did no

they they literally don't plan their

economy the economy is planned to this

day no

they don't have a plan and in fact i can

pull up an article where z specifically

says that it's oh you mean you mean

directly planning the inputs and outputs

of production this is what economic

claims no it's not

sense is no that's not necessarily what

it means at all yeah that's that's

exactly what it is

that that is what it is

no it's not yeah it is no it's not it's

not when you hand over that's that that

form of planning is only possible when

you can set determinate quotas based on

predictable outcomes

which are only things like the basics of

the primary sphere production when it

comes to the light consumer economy

which is the huge driving force of

economies of scale now so you literally

can't know what department one and

department two commodities are

what

so you don't know what

department one and department two

commodities are

yeah but the soviet

soviet economy could not develop light

industry the light industry was not

developed yes they did

no it wasn't

i can literally pull out the book that

has they did not have a developed light

industry there was constant shortages of

light industry goods the soviet people's

uh

the soviet people's

demand for more access to these goods

was not being fulfilled

they were demanding more goods yes

and the soviet union's not necessarily

the amount of resources existed for it

so it's about physical that sounds like

a malthusian argument

i hate to break it to you and caleb

maupin but the the world is finite and

the soviets actually had a finite so you

agree with they weren't invaded you

agree with god so you agree with

malthus and not marx

no

sorry that's bullshit you're putting

words in my mouth but that was the

mark said the fundamental driving force

of economies was not based on scarcity

of resources

but was based on specific modes of

production malthus was saying

that it was based on the scarcity of

resources so you're saying the

historical explanation that the

economy was based on scarcity

i said there was you're saying the

reason why they put in the world is

finite i agree

the world is finite but our ability to

um interact with the world is infinite

um

x amount of steel i mean part of me iron

ore does exist in the world and i i

don't know what you're saying will

interact with it so yeah i know because

you don't you're just not very creative

or aware of it no no i'm sorry you know

houses used to be built with mud and

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

exactly how is that supposed to make

more iron ore

well because you're making is your

idealism supposed to make more let me

finish i'll exp i can explain

if you say if you say asteroids i'm

fucking out the use for iron ore

can be replaced by something else with a

refined development of the forces of

production if it eventually ran we ran

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

run out of it in any decisive way

anytime soon

okay anytime soon but yes we will

eventually run out of it

by that time we will probably have

essentially not anything

we'll probably have ascended to the 17th

dimension or something like that's

nowhere near where we are now

okay we replace it with another metal

and then when that metal runs out

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

i'm not that's history i'm not arguing

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

that you're

i just don't think you have a

you just don't have

a correct understanding of history is

the problem you're trying to attribute

you're trying to attribute the soviet

union's inability to provide

uh consumer goods for its people on the

basis of limited resources that yeah

they had infinite resources so the

problem wasn't the system it was just

they didn't have resources

because they didn't go around invading

countries and stealing them like the

united states and the eu but they still

had

very extensive relations with many trade

relations with like the non-aligned

countries and yes but that doesn't that

doesn't care they they couldn't trade

the only the only trade restrictions

that they could possibly face

huh it's not the same thing as

imperialist plunder

yeah what's your point

so yeah it's not exactly the same thing

because they're not going to be able to

get as much for the same price because

they are giving a fair trade for it

where's the united states no actually

stealing we're essentially getting it

for next to nothing

by taking over countries and controlling

that's a really simplistic understanding

of no that's uh that's how exploitation

works

um

exploitation in the marxist sense or in

the sense of

like exploiting vulnerable positions

exploiting vulnerable positions of

countries

the united states was fleecing them

along with the other imperialist powers

whereas the soviet union

it's not really directly about resources

though

in some in some cases it was like uh

in the central

sorry in the um central american

countries like banana republics and so

yeah i could see what you're saying with

that

where they were just taking resources in

many african countries it's just a

matter of taking resources but the

bretton woods system was not just a

system to funnel resources from third

world countries

it was a complete global monetary system

yeah it was

yeah that was about giving trade

advantages to some countries over others

to develop industries it wasn't just

about like you can't just explain the

development of the forces of production

at this time

purely in the form of

the exploitation of resources

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

flow of global trade and things like

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

saying but china's opening up allowed it

to tap into these foreign markets and

access these technologies and develop

its own forces of production the soviet

union was in a way isolated

from the world market in this kind of

way that reinforces my point

yeah but it wasn't just because of

resources it was also because they

didn't have access to the

differentiations and the concentration

of capital or the forces of production

the methods of production

that were existing not just resources

there was plenty of resources the soviet

union had access to the issue is

technologies trade relations and things

like that there's a pretty great

relationship i would agree

you're saying this and also technologies

and forces of production i'm sorry they

were incompetent when it came to

technology is that

no they weren't they did extremely well

for what they

were able to do when it came to

technology but in terms of

like other countries could just trade

and rapidly share and great share

technology and build off of each other

so we didn't have to do all that alone

which is really tough

yeah that's tough

again that

like for example

you know

very few countries actually developed

these decisive technologies by

themselves i would agree

okay

i'm not seeing your point

my point is explaining all this in terms

of resources just doesn't work there was

a systemic problem

i would say it was mostly resources

you would say it was mostly resources

yeah that would be that it wasn't

okay it was it was a systemic problem of

the actual allocation and organization

and distribution of goods i'm not

denying that there was a problem so

there was a big systemic problem that

was the reason yeah we agreed that there

was a stomach problem but we don't agree

unnecessarily on what it was well here's

why because up until this point the

primary

driving force of the soviet union's

growth was developing the primary forces

of production once this task became

complete the soviet economy became began

to stagnate once department one company

because it didn't have an economy that

could adapt to a modern

uh consumer or post-modern economy

whatever you want to call it it didn't

have a system that could adapt to that

i would agree

on the basis that

it was never supposed to be like the

united states where it's just an

infinite amount of commodities

everywhere for everybody but that's not

what i'm saying i'm saying

it couldn't grow economically i'm saying

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

it's not designed to and it couldn't

satisfy the needs and wants of its

population no it it satisfied the needs

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

different well it came to a point where

even the needs could no longer be

satisfied like what

during the 80s there was just shortages

of needs just basic needs

yeah

i i did a video on that where a soviet

investigative show showed how they were

being deliberately wasted like he

literally had the video of it happening

yes and then then lost his job the next

day

i don't know what video you're talking

about but uh you would see it was the

soviet investigative journalism show

called 600 seconds

uh i i

can't pronounce his name anyway

in an investigation he found like trucks

and trucks of food that were thrown into

the woods

and he

video videotaped it did an expose on it

and then lost his job

there was a

there's a copy a copy of it on my

channel okay that's really mysterious

but

i still wouldn't say that this um

this renders

options

there probably was sabotage

but then again

it all comes together there was also a

pro a systemic crisis you know

yeah i don't deny that there was a

crisis

[Music]

are we done here

i guess

okay so i we can't come to an agreement

about

much anything but um

yeah i guess that was it

okay

see ya

okay bye