Keith Woods gets DEMOLISHED

ladies and gentlemen hello and welcome

to the kill stream i am your host ethan

ralph the owner and the editor-in-chief

of the raw for tour.com

there i am there's the three view

here comes a double view they're already

talking you can't hear them just yet

there's logo let me switch over so

usually we have the special layout with

the debate and me in the middle but

there's four people so i i didn't really

think that i didn't know if that would

work right um so we're going to switch

between the three of you and the double

view here all right now let me unmute

the tab

logo's coughing like i just wasn't going

to go right before you came over here

all right now

i'm not sure though all right now now we

can hear you hopefully it's not corona

um speaking of corona biden gave his

speech earlier we covered that at the

end of tequila sunrise if you want to

check that out

it'll be on killstream.tv later okay you

know what let's just jump right into it

uh i know everybody's got their own

scheduling and stuff like that so logo

you were talking we're going to do five

minute introductions here i dubbed it as

a as the fascism debate although it's a

little you know

yeah or more oh so am i up am i yeah i

figured why not before yeah yeah um i'm

pretty sure that what the debate's

supposed to be about i think there were

two subjects the first one would be

whether or not we would define uh china

under xi jinping as fascist i don't

think that really makes sense um as a

discussion topic because it's going to

come down to like just fucking arbitrary

definition games and for me to go with

like the communist party calls itself

communist it is communist it's called

the self-communist for like almost 100

years it's the oldest communist party

that's still in existence and governs

the state i don't see any reason not to

call them what they call themselves

seems pretty simple to me um and i think

it's like justifiable in all ways uh the

other one was regarding whether or not

capitalists funded fascists during world

war ii or like their movement leading up

to it i think capitalists personally

funded pretty much all sides because

capitalists tend to like to hedge their

bets so they uh they invest in pretty

much everything you know i mean this is

something donald trump would say right

where he's like if you're a capitalist

you fund all political parties because

you're going to need all of them at some

point so i don't really see

that also as like that interesting of a

debate considering like the communists

were also funded by some capitalists at

some times and it all goes down to

minutia so i'm more interested in having

a discussion with these guys because i

think that we

have similar ways of looking at things

in some respects but we have some other

disagreements which we'll probably get

into i think we could have a

productive discussion

um i don't really know debates debates

seem to me kind of um like spectacle and

like a farce and uh they don't seem to

produce much of value so that's my

opening statement i guess

all right well we'll just stick with

your assad and then we'll go to the

other go ahead and for hash you've never

been on the show logo actually has been

on the show uh a while back um why don't

you go ahead and put your shot out there

uh i'm haz i'm from the infrared

collective we run the infrared youtube

channel and we're at on twitch at

twitch.tv slash infrared show

we call ourselves a platform for marxism

leninism in the age of multi-polarity

and the post-covert world

and so specifically as it concerns this

debate i think the way i want to

approach this is pretty much from two

levels

one i think the discussion or the debate

about the character of china

has to rest upon a specific assumption

about the relationship between content

and form and appearance and essence now

marxism itself having grounded itself in

a specific

ontology or metaphysics

of the material is dialectic recognizes

there's a contradiction between content

and form there is no fixed doctrine

that premises the development of reality

and marxism is just an index of the

recognition of this fact

um if we assume that content and form

are one and the same then as a matter of

fact

we would have to concede that there is

no possible way we could call china

which is governed by a communist party

governed by people

ruled by people who call themselves

marxists and communists who describe the

system in which they live as a communist

this is the form we cannot say the

essence of this form is fascist

because this would imply there is a

contradiction between appearance and

essence but that same very contradiction

is the object of marxism itself and on

the other hand

if we are also not permitted to describe

fascism beyond what fascist

intellectuals have described of their

own

theory and ideas

and uh so-called doctrine then it

doesn't make sense that we would assume

there's a deeper essence to chinese

marxism beyond what's already on the

surface so i detect a contradiction in

these two facets of the debate between

whether fascism was in fact liberalism

uh in crisis and in an emergency mode

um which obviously contradicts what what

fascist intellectuals themselves said

about it and on the other hand the

question of whether china

is fascist despite chinese marxists and

intellectuals never describing

the overwhelming majority of chinese

intellectuals at least

never describing their own system and

their own

country as fascist so to me i think the

debate will have to revolve around

developing and addressing this specific

contradiction between form and content

all right mr woods keith woods go ahead

can you hear me sir

yes sir i was muted

uh yeah i'm not sure about that line of

argument i'm interested to hear where

has goes with that but i think uh we can

look at the history of fascism we can

look at what fascist theorists believed

and how they governed and we can

single out fascism as a class of

developmental nationalism with specific

characteristics

and i think when we look at china i

don't think it's good enough to say that

the you know the ccp still identifies as

communists that they still consider

themselves to be carrying on a lineage

that includes marks and lenin and mao

and so on i mean

you know the united states claims to be

the ultimate bastion of freedom and

liberty but i don't think anyone here is

is uh going to agree with that exactly

um

i think it's a i mean i think it's

important uh in terms of

you know where we're going i mean

everyone

on this i think we have large agreements

in terms of the direction of things i

mean i saw has the other day was kind of

defending a kind of

national populist position that i

wouldn't really disagree with so much

but i think uh the marxist baggage uh

kind of hinders things and i don't think

it's a good model to explain china's

success or to map on to other countries

that are attempting to kind of

uh navigate the sort of postcolonial

direction that i think has things were

going in as far as fascists being funded

by capitalists i mean you can say yeah

every site is funded by capitalists but

the historical record is quite clear on

this i mean there's some

books that amount to conspiracy theories

like conjuring hitler that try and piece

together stuff that isn't there but if

you look at the really respected

historians of this like henry ashby

turner

there's wide-ranging agreement that the

fascist movements were largely funded by

small business owners the unemployed um

uh people in rural areas there was no

real big business support to speak of

there was a couple of industrialists

that briefly supported hitler we can get

into that later one of them was later

put in deco concentration camp and

really i think they're going to repeat a

lot of um

marxist mythology about fascism that

came out of the communist common turn in

the 20s and 30s where communists were

rushing to explain what was going on

with their preconceived notions but most

of these series didn't look at empirical

facts at all

um so yeah i'll pass over to joel

go ahead joel joel davis by the way

first time on the show as well go ahead

sir

yeah so

from what i said before about uh well

you know we can't tell

marxist what marxism is because if we

say that uh you know

marxist can't tell fascists what fascism

is i feel like this is bs like this this

there's the truth

uh and that's just ideological nonsense

like uh the truth is the truth that

someone's gonna be right maybe both are

wrong but we can't both be right uh

because they're totally incompatible

positions so that's why this needs to be

a debate

um

uh

anyway so i think

there's probably no notion more integral

to marx's thought than the assertion

that you know material historical

analysis

is kind of integral to

theorizing the political right so like

for marx this means that the mode of

production

by which humanity generates the means of

its own survival

is the basis of all social and political

structure and i think this is correct

like when stated like this but i think

marxism's fundamental flaw

is its reduction of the

production of the means of life uh to

its economic aspect and as a consequence

it reduces the social and the political

to the economic and i think if you

reject this reduction you have to kind

of reject the marxist theoretical

reduction of the state to the role of a

mere enforcer of class domination in

response to antagonisms between between

economic classes and this ruptures like

the entire theory of marxism like you

like

you can't patch it together once you

make that that call so it's a big

question

the concrete material historical reality

of politics and economics uh you know

yes

obviously economics plays a role but it

also takes place within geography and

the institutional capacity of political

orders to secure themselves against

internal and external enemies is an

organizational question which transcends

me economic factors and is also material

historical and these conditions

forced both the bolsheviks and the ccp

to take actions which violated in my

view their marxist lending as

ideological prize and we can get into

that a bit later

um when we look at the russian and

chinese revolutions themselves we can

see in both cases that the revolutions

only occurred because they

seized opportunities that were induced

by politically destabilizing conflicts

between dominant economic and political

classes in both cases you have the

landed gentry and the monarchy uh

monarchies respectively and this

conflict was both cases a result not of

economic antagonism uh but the

geopolitical pressure that inducing a

kind of political antagonism between

organizational requirements of the

state's internal and external security

impacting the interests of the dominant

economic class and has provoked the

gentry in both cases to support

challenging and deposing the robin over

manchu dynasties respectively and this

return created power vacuums which the

bolsheviks and ccp respectively

capitalize upon now class obviously

played a role in these revolutions

there's

obviously uh

like negating class completely but they

are complex historical events that are

irreducible to the economic dynamics of

class and we see direct evidence for

this with states like japan or prussia

which transition from feudalism to

industrial capitalism without you know

requisite social revolutions nuking

their monarchies and communist parties

taking over so there's contingency in

history that needs to be explained

um and i bring all this up because the

first point of my argument is that china

might be ideologically marxist but it's

not material he's materially

historically marxist i would argue and

in fact nothing is because marxism fails

to accurately theorize material history

and the assertion that it is marxist is

pure abstraction pure ideology has no

relation to concrete reality

um and that kind of betrays the marxist

project fundamentally you know um and

the material historical reality of the

contemporary chinese state however i

think there's far closer resemblance to

fascism or national socialism this is

precisely because both these ideologies

rejected marxism economic reductionism

in favor of a geopolitical conception of

the state's responsibilities which

justify the very state-led pragmatic

developmentalist economic model that we

see in contemporary china as well as the

ccp's promotion of nationalist socialism

with chinese characteristics now china

is so successful in my view precisely

because marx was wrong about the state

states aren't reducible to class

antagonism and this is why states like

china and hitler's germany could

subordinate the economic sphere to a

national idea and politically administer

collaboration between economic classes

and we see this contradiction of marx

expressed in contemporary ccp ideology

with doctrines like the three represents

which is an emulation of mussolini's

heretical rejection of the marxist

doctrine of class struggle and so when

reddit marxists proclaim that you know

china isn't real marxism i think they're

right because there is no real marxism

in practice it's simply impossible to

practice a theory which is so

fundamentally flawed um but real

national socialism has been tried and

it's the most effective political system

modernity has ever produced and this is

why the ccp are the most successful

government on the planet right now in my

view

um

so yeah i'll start with that

all right now uh i'm gonna let you guys

just get right into it now one of the

features of the killstream debates is

the questioning of each other uh and

especially on the topic it's not my

forte necessarily uh although i know a

little bit about a little bit but uh you

guys were already into this subject

basically arguing amongst yourselves i

brought it to the kill stream uh so i

see no reason to to kind of stop that uh

and i'll just go ahead and start with

keith if you have any um like debate

points you want to start with here or

like uh critiques of the other side's

position that you would like to like

kind of begin the program with or or

joel y'all side you know it's a it's

kind of a tag team affair

well i just start with maybe getting

some agreement on definitions i guess

i'd ask uh infrared or logo what their

definition of socialism is because i

think this is going to come up a lot

later on when they

try to say that fascism was a form of

capitalism well

the way i see it is uh there isn't a

country in the world that isn't

socialist

right now like socialism sort of like a

word like democracy where pretty much

every single well i don't know are there

any states that don't

justify themselves on a democratic line

of some sort at this point um i think

socialism was like the result like

fundamentally it was like a global

revolution that happened at the end of

the 19th century and um i think like you

know america has been a socialist

country for just as long as everywhere

else so i i i think that socialism is

just like the state of things as they

are now

i think uh we actually the infrared

collective we produced a number of

videos on the question of the essence of

socialism

and the basic idea is that socialism

must be um

understood and defined within the

context of the loss of sociality this

common object that is the uh

object of common civilization statehood

culture and so on and so on some uh

common sociality which in

uh

basically the history following from

then and then we can trace for example

the modern financial institutions and so

on that really are uh

kind of the heart of 21st century

capitalism or whatever survives of it

they you can actually trace their

lineage back

uh to this historical period

so i think when we say for example i've

put up for this idea too that you know

we can also say america is socialist

one has to think dialectically we're not

necessarily saying that capitalism has

completely been uh eliminated and

capitalism is gone

but that capitalism has kind of reduced

its real basis

to the kind of

vestigial institutional and super

structural form of um

essentially already essentially

socialistic uh mode of production

yeah i mean like the thing is is that

like our modern financial system was

created by socialists like if we're

talking about like hedge funds managing

people's pensions and shit like that

like what we basically how everything

works in america that is uh that was

developed by socialists to be as like a

way of restraining um like capitalists

were basically like they were like

destroying people's pension funds and

things like this this was like a major

this was causing like major economic

crashes and shit throughout the 20th

century so like the development of like

bretton woods system and all that stuff

this is all done by people who called

themselves socialists i mean

yeah sure bro i mean these guys all

called themselves socialists yeah sure

but i mean there is some essentialism

there is some sense in which we can say

china's socialist in a way that

the u.s is and the u.s is a capitalist

country i mean i think yeah yeah i've

heard a definition from has before that

i'd agree with where i think has said

that socialism is the mode of production

directed toward the social end that's

maybe a little bit ambiguous but i think

we can agree that it still seems so

logical to me though it's like oh like

socialism

yeah like what do you mean like it's

like it's like it's like the definition

is so broad it's like meaningless well

the thing is is that i think that like

the use of a definition right is like

how much it brings like coherence or

clarity of the world so

something like uh every state in the

world right now is socialist i think

that does actually like transfer some

meaningful information and it does lay a

groundwork for households so to be clear

communism would be the overcoming here's

the thing right i have made many

arguments before about the limitations

of definitions and the anglo-box and so

on so i have made a simple definition of

socialism if you're not satisfied with

the definition just ask for

clarification and i can uh elaborate

i'm kind of interested in um do you

consider china to be communist or is it

like because i mean from what i can tell

like the ccp seems to say well no we're

we're

we're searching this country we're on

our way to communism it might take a

hundred years

like how would you define communism how

do we know when it's here because yeah

do you take marx's definition or do you

do

i can answer this question um

so

there's two senses of the word communism

that are used by communist parties one

is a society that has

already been set as marx put it

on its basis of a communistic mode of

production

society so thoroughly transformed by the

process of communism

that it is an entirely like it is a mode

of production entirely distinct from the

old one it doesn't have the kind of

birth marks of the old mode of

production so to speak and then in the

other sense is communism as a world

historical force which is actually how

marx described it mark said by communism

we do not mean

an ideal with uh society will have to

conform itself to but the real movement

which sublates the present state of

things so in the sense of that marx put

it as the real movement yes china's

communist but in the sense of um how

chinese marxists conceive of you know

the different stages of socialism and

communist mode of production

society is so thoroughly transformed

by this process that's for example money

has become eliminated um

uh the kind of principle of from each

according to their ability to reach

according to their need prevails

uh super abundance um the

advanced development of the forces of

production to the point of um

the complete elimination of want and so

on and so on

that is uh

star trek

i i really hate that example

what i don't get cause like from reading

marks he seems

it's like obviously marx develops his

thought a lot throughout his career but

he has early on he has this concept of

species being this idea that like within

us we have this natural proclivity to do

whatever the fuck we want i want to play

guitar i want to go build a house i want

to fish i want to read a book and then

and then and then capitalism

forces us to do something like

repetitive

process like if we're like some

proletarian

it's like proletariat in a factory yeah

and this alienates us from

our kind of inherent uh like our inherit

nature to kind of actualize ourselves in

the world

um and the goal of communism would be

ultimately this kind of uh

like almost like utopic notion it seems

like of of self-actualization we get

from marcus early writing at least when

he's talking about alienation

just really quick two important things i

want to clarify actually it's marx's

humanism species being that we derive

the unique marxist view of socialism so

when we say motive production for social

ends

these social ends are the determinate

form of humanity so far as the

socialistic country or society is

concerned it's the specific type of

human being whose needs and wants must

be addressed at some kind of collective

level whose baseline

standard of living and dignity and sense

of uh ownership and stake in the economy

and so on and then the second thing um

regarding this what you're talking about

is marx's description of the division of

labor so marx's point is not that as

human beings we have the um

proclivity to be whimsical about the

things different things we do that as if

like our different mode of activity in

life is not rational it's just

completely based on arbitrary individual

whim and then from this

misinterpretation you get tendencies

like falc fully automated luxury

communism

communism means no one works we just do

what we want and so on but marx's point

is not so much about doing what whatever

we want just so much as it is about the

way in which the division of labor

interpolates us and forces us to be one

for example mark says i can fish in the

afternoon

i don't forget what he specifically says

work in the evening and then right in

the morning or something without and

this is the important part without ever

becoming a fisherman a writer

or a craftsman so marx's point is not

the like freedom to just do whatever you

want whimsically but

human activity no longer um

human activity developing

uh in a way that is in accordance with

the inherent and latent abilities of

human beings

which of course will differ across

different people different individuals

and so on and so on

but marx's underlying point is about the

division of labor it's about the way

labor

is given a fixed form the form of labor

becomes fixed and is no longer allowed

to uh

develop as human labor as such if that

makes

sense i don't know it just seems like uh

it seems kind of retarded to me because

i mean and this gets to what i was

saying in my original statement about

you know um

the material historical reality of

geopolitics material historical reality

of institutions and organization and the

political

um and

this idea that like economic relations

is like the driving force behind history

it just seems like a bs to me like if

you look take the example of the soviet

union

and you look at um like the russian

revolution you look at uh lenin in state

and revolution he's talking about well

you know we're going to abolish

bureaucratized militaries we're going to

have

we're going to have this uh you know the

workers are going to run the factories

they're going to have their own arms

we're not going to and then

but then the reality check and i think

lenin believes this

chomsky says lenin's bullshitting to get

in power and then he really had this

like nefarious plan i think he actually

believed this stuff

and then when

when the when they actually take power

then the cold hard reality of what it

means to run a state actually comes upon

them and then when this happens

they have to go to what they call war

communism so to speak where okay we've

got to bureaucratize everything create

this giant red army with millions and

millions of people some of which were

they literally forced peasants into the

army um to fight the

counter-revolution and then uh you know

then after they win the cat they

put down the kind of revolution they go

okay we can take the boot off the neck a

little bit of the peasants and the

working class now um and we can have you

know the new economic policy or whatever

and things start kind of normalizing

lennon dies stalin comes to power and

they go wait a second like we got our

ass handed to us in the first world war

if we don't sort our shit out the next

time we go to war with we should rain

we should rain it a little bit because

this is going in many many different

brands let me finish my point because

i'm going to land and then i want to

hear what you're going to say

so stalin comes to power and he's faced

with a choice that's

incredibly difficult choice which is i

can either abuse the fuck out of my

population but maybe when we go to war

with germany or or japan or whatever we

win

or i can not abuse my population and

then when we go to war we can get our

ass handed to us

and stalin takes the decision and i

don't envy style it he takes the

decision okay i'm going to abuse the

fuck out of my population i'm going to

go collectivize

the peasants farms i'm going to force

them into brutal working conditions i'm

going to militarize uh the

production and we're going to do this

crazy industrialization process and you

know what it worked they fucking beat

the nazis right

but the cost how many people went to

gulags how many people got shot like

millions of people died in order to

sacrifice to get that done and this to

me is reality this this uh fanciful bsn

marks about communism this is just

nonsense and when i say that

china is uh is communist i don't see it

i see i see china as a very competent

state

i

yeah the issue here though is that

we have made a lot of particular

concrete assumptions

on the basis of a very very broad

uh and i may say very reckless kind of

view of the the history you just

described so point by point i'll try to

just

address what you said based on what i

remembered the first thing i remember

you saying

before you said the thing about war

communism what did you say first

initially

that you think we're talking about

let's talk about linen state and

revolution

so that's where you began yeah yeah

lenin's state and the revolution

may have um

the

actual folding of history may have

i guess um

made his expectations more realistic but

the way you've described it is just

plenty not true so the expectation of

very

intellectuals and artistic classes and

cultural classes that oh yes we're going

to have the revolution we're going to be

very generous about abolishing higher

well i think most bolsheviks at the time

would consider this a kind of ultra left

deviation it's kind of a dizziness of

the success of the revolution the fact

of the matter is that the bolsheviks i

mean you have to understand the people

you're talking about these were hardened

people who understood the cold sobering

realities

of life more than anyone else at their

time they were in siberian camps they

were professional revolutionaries so

these are not uh soft snowflakes who are

just you know faced with harsh cruel

realities people the leading bolsheviks

people like lenin always understood

these realities to be harsh from the

very beginning so war communism was not

some drastic

lenin understood that the proletarian

dictatorship was the dictatorship of one

class against another this is before he

seized power they had no delusional

expectations that they were going to

seize power and immediately create um

a nice communist society and i think

you've misinterpreted the meaning of

marx's words here you made a lot of

assumptions about

you know like the process marx is

describing uh to arrive at this fund

that would arrive not too it's the very

important distinction that would arrive

i don't think i'm misunderstanding

anything i mean you haven't explained to

me how

yeah yeah that was the first thing you

said i'll get there i just want to talk

again about the stalin thing you

mentioned you said stalin was going to

treat his own population like shit

um although the collectivization

resulted in the catastrophic famine as

all forms of the modernization of

agriculture across the entire history of

humanity have and

compared to those that the ones that

happened in europe and the human costs

of european modernization all of the

deaths combined of china and the soviet

union are extremely modest

and in terms of their brutality and

violence and so on and so on so i don't

think we should bring this up and repeat

this kind of black legends

uh when it has no explanatory value the

fact of the matter is that

the path stalin pursued of socialism in

one country and the industrialization

first of all was not based on the

militarization of

agriculture this was trotsky's plan for

super industrialization uh stalin's plan

for the or not stalin's it wasn't his

specific plan but the promotion of the

collective farm as a model for the

industrialization of the economy so that

agriculture can finally support the

industrialization of the soviet union

this was not the militarization the

collective farms had a

good degree of autonomy compared to the

top-down state seoul causes and the

institutions that were directly

controlled by the state so this is just

patently not true now the question of

economic reductionism

um

is also a misinter and a

misunderstanding you are assuming that

marxism is a kind of metaphysics in

which we explain

the world before us in terms of some

kind of absolute essence and you think

that this essence is the economic

relations but the significance of

economic relations as it concerns marx

and angles is not as some kind of

fundamental substance of all reality

but as uh the s the deeper essence in a

sense of an essence that is not already

superimposed with a specific form so to

be clear by what that means marx and

engels acknowledge all of the spiritual

geopolitical

political and so on realities

they are not substituting those

realities for economic relations they

are just saying

what is the manner by which these

realities actually in real reality how

do they actually reproduce themselves

like how do they actually you can even

look at this from a kind of perspective

of aristotle as aristotelian metaphysics

like how are they actually being how are

they actually

reproducing their existence and all that

they have done is introduced this

question for the first time in the

examination of history where historians

as they noted had always ignored this

question how is it that human beings

really do

reproduce themselves in a given

historical epoch um we shouldn't and

they're saying we're not going to just

reduce this to the ideas and the things

that they have in the ways that they're

conceptualizing and conceiving this so

this is not a form of economic

reductionism whatsoever because it's

just a question of how are they actually

reproducing themselves not what

necessarily causes the question of

causation

is

with latent with the baggage of

anglo-saxon

metaphysics from the 17th century which

is about cause and effect some kind of

deeper primordial cause or kind of

spinoza and substance from which all

reality is just the result of the kind

of first cause that's not

it has nothing to do with the

dialectical materialism of marx and

angles or lenin stalin and mao for that

matter and if we understand their

fundamental ontology their fundamental

philosophical basis of marxism it

becomes very clear that from marx to

angles to lenin to stalin to mao to deng

and to ji there is a very clear and

consistent continuity it's just not a

continuity that can be defined on the

basis of a fixed doctrinal form but the

whole point of marketing i mean

i mean most separate themselves from

fascists by rejecting a command economy

and commitment to class struggle i mean

i don't see how dengden completely

overturned this you know china has

embraced class collaboration it's

embraced nationalism uh authoritarianism

uh you know they're they're they're

integrating like a racial conception of

nationalism into their conception of the

state i mean it's like it's like ship of

theseus like at which point does it stop

being communist or do we just have to

accept that because dang is a successor

to mao that yeah you know whatever he

determines is in the marxist lineage

although it just means nothing like

mussolini can trace himself back to marx

as well i mean you could trace

italians

what you say because it's a fair

question right why is it that we do not

see a clear and overt form of class

struggle uh with not only in the dengue

but even in the mao era right because

remember mao understood there's a

patriotic bourgeoisie there's a

patriotic petite

that the communist party is trying to

align itself with

so and then you can even go back to

stalin in the the era of the popular

front and then the people's democracies

after world war ii so the reason for

that is is because we cannot make

assumptions about the form that class

struggle is going to take

now

the point of my why should i believe

that this is still class struggle i mean

collaboration no no because

i'll explain because class struggle is

not just doesn't only take the form of

political conflict between different

political parties class struggle can

also take the form of the imminent

development of the society in such a way

that comes at the expense of certain

classes and benefits other classes yeah

that's what fascism did with economic

corporatism but uh i don't see how that

was in the history of fascism what do

you mean it was a gradual i mean china

went from

communism and gradually introduced you

know american reforms it's became more

market-oriented more billionaires more

private ownership italy started from a

more laissez-faire position and they

gradually transitioned they had a few

years of laza affair to kind of build up

the economy it was hugely successful uh

they won the fastest growth rates in the

europe in the 30s they switched to more

corporations

yeah sure i mean you know by the mid 30s

i understand 47

like italian capital right right the

stock exchange owned by the government

and by the time you get to 43 with the

italian social republic it's more

socialist than china is today it was

it's like 74 percent

everything went more than one yeah i can

address all three three of the points

you just reached so the first one um

is regarding to the question of um

the way in which it's the same in italy

but listen the key to understanding

china and then modern china lies in land

reform without understanding land reform

there's no meaning to chinese communism

and by land reform i mean the fact that

despite all the proletarianization that

accompany chinese modernization

all the chinese people still have some

kind of social security safety net in

the form of these small plots of

intensive agricultural plots that they

are given and granted by the state to

have exclusive um cultivation of and

then now with the g era because they

want to modernize agriculture more

they're starting to replace that with

giving everyone homes free basically uh

housing yeah i can respond to those

single unit apartments so

i just want to just this is just kind of

the first point yeah sponges again yeah

yeah yeah let me let me let's just i'll

do the two more i mean you've done like

most of the talking on this sort of

everyone yeah yeah yeah but there's well

it's important it's important to discuss

uh what you said about italy because

it's it's interesting because

in the inter-war years um

the

form of land ownership from 1900 to 1919

was gradually being taken away from

absentee landlords who owned you know 80

percent of the land in sicily 65 percent

of the land in calabria and um

elsewhere within italy i mean like we

have an overwhelming uh monopoly of

large landowners who owned all the land

with the rise of the fascist government

the popular uprisings which

were taking this land from the absentee

landlords who are using the land for

speculative purposes

to give to fund banks that gave loans to

industrialists the fascists crushed

these uprisings and returned all the

land to the landlords and the

fundamental uh ownership of the land in

italy did not change in the 1930s now

regarding the iri and the so-called

nationalizations

these were akin to bailouts of already

bankrupted companies and failed

capitalist enterprises which in a free

market economy would have just dissolved

and been replaced the government kept

these they propped them up the same

people who owned them were still in

effect running them it's just the

government was claiming it was

controlling and owning them in reality

they were transferring these industrial

um

companies under the control of finance

capital and it's for these reasons that

our government purchasing 74 of the

economy is being ruled out

bullshit

all right

i don't want any time one time

finish up what you're saying and then

let keith get in because i know he's

struggling

so just go ahead finish up though real

quick yeah just to joel really quick the

devil's in the details you have to

understand what is meant by this

ownership it's more an oversight over

you know allowing these former

capitalists and industrialists to retain

their position which they were not going

to because they went bankrupt so the

government bailed them out and called

this a form of a nationalization the

final thing about the italian social

republic really really quick two seconds

um

yeah this was mussolini's attempt to

pander to a population that was already

overwhelmingly disposed to socialism and

communism and they saw right through it

so it was a last-ditch effort by

mussolini to win over the trust of the

italian masses which he failed to do all

right now go ahead keith

okay well firstly on the land reform yes

when the fascist government took over it

was a massive land reform but again i

feel like you're just ignoring like

geopolitical realities you know the

fascists had this conception that there

are proletarian nations like italy and

germany that are kept underdeveloped by

anglo-american mercantile powers and

that it was necessary to develop

productive forces you know this is the

same kind of thinking as sunyat sounds

the same kind of thinking as the ccp now

and they put growth and

industrialization ahead of these reforms

you know mussolini did embrace the kind

of qualified laissez faire when he first

came to power specifically uh to develop

productive forces and it was successful

but it's not true that there was no land

reform and again you know

they were constrained in such a way that

they had to do this gradually

in terms of the nationalization in the

1930s it's not true that the governance

structure didn't change these companies

that were nationalized they introduced

the corporatist governance structure

labor and capital got equal

representation on boards that ran these

companies and when you get into the 40s

there actually is massive land reform

they institute a bill which is similar

to the one you were talking about in

china where uncultivated land and

absentee landlords this land was seized

and it was actually

dispersed among cooperatives and local

farmers so i mean this idea and then

this idea that well it was just to like

uh placate people at that point

well you can say that but mussolini

considered the italian social republic

the true essence of fascism and he

lamented that during his time in power

he'd been held back by conservatives he

had a king that constrained them i mean

the first fascist government was a

coalition government there was liberals

in there uh there was leftists so if

you're going to say that well the early

period where they embraced laissez faire

temporarily to develop productive forces

and they were in coalition with liberals

and he was concerned by the king that's

the true fascism but then when he had

like complete total rule in the 40s and

he starts nationalizing he starts doing

land reform he introduces uh radical

social welfare bills that control 74

percent of the economy well that's fake

fascism because he's just trying to

duplicate people

why would i buy that because the the

latter stage is actually what's

representative of early fascist thought

and you know all of the early fascists

that's the kind of way that they can see

fascism i mean mussolini appointed

nicola bambachi the former head of the

italian communist party as economics

minister in the italian social republic

uh you know you're going to say that

these people were just like

you've got to take into consideration

the geopolitical conditions of china as

well like china was an agrarian society

and so obviously land reform is going to

be the first thing that they do whereas

if you're talking about like a far more

industrialized

uh kind of nation like you know germany

or something under like hitler it's a

completely different set of priorities

it would have been suicidal to just do

this

i don't want to talk too much so i just

want to briefly address the two points

because i've been talking a lot but just

really quick um

land reform is the only basis proven by

history to have an independent path to

industrialization without seizing over

these colonies and in in waging wars of

aggression against your neighbors to

seize their resources land reform

specifically um is the key to

industrialization because it allows the

surpluses of agricultural production to

be directed for the specific purpose of

industrialization because countries like

italy and germany were never able to do

this

they had to mobilize their entire

economy and countries for the purposes

of war rather than internal industrial

development so that's the point about

land reform now secondly there wasn't

actually any major land reform that

distributed the land away from the

landowners in the 30s and the 20s now

regarding the land reform during the

republic

admittedly my knowledge

of land reform specifically that

happened then is a little bit limited

but what i do know about the italian

social republic is that the words and

the decrees by the government that were

happening in fiat the actual ruling

classes and the actual like way in which

the society was being governed in actual

reality were two completely different

realities that's not true they

of the biggest companies in italy they

had a hundred

thousand employees combined

on paper well that's sort of like when

we did two big bailouts and that's like

the idea that like we nationalized

lehman brothers or something no it's not

that you can say it's not like that

anything in any meaningful sense they

just allowed these nationalize the bank

of italy they looted the italian people

to allow these bankrupt companies to

have a lifeline when they otherwise in

the free market okay so in 1938 in italy

the state controlled 77 of iron

production okay

what do you mean by control

it was controlled by the ira

well what does that what do you mean

what does that control mean i think that

was in the details remember the control

is not a direct form of control like in

the soviet union okay so who's

controlling that you know when all of

this is is the ira

by the way the ira was an institution

that was maintained for the purposes of

steel production within italy long after

um

fascist i don't know about long it's

relative but it was continued through

the 50s and the 60s it actually remained

as an institution

and it was mainly a kind of financial

organ that didn't actually directly

control anything um

it just directed just um was an organ

that was directed for the purposes of

fulfilling a certain uh industrial

policy and industrial aid okay who was

it acted on behalf of if not the state

yeah it was the iri was acting on behalf

of the state okay well how is that any

different from china china has like

private banks but they own most of the

shares that's the same thing as the ira

italy had the state body that controlled

most of the shares of these companies

and nationalized some of them but the

difference is that all of the chinese

companies that exist now have been

emerged and developed from the ground up

from the soil of the chinese

different places

the others

the difference though is that if these

companies are coming and emerging from

the soil of the chinese people that

means the state it was overseeing not

only what these companies are doing but

where they their actual development it

was actually responsible for where they

came from and their emergence in the

first place so it's not the same thing

and the second thing that's important to

understand here

is the fact that the reason marxists say

that fascism was the emergency organ of

industrial and finance capitalists

wasn't because we believed that they

directly controlled fascists or even you

know funded the majority of uh

fascist resources but precisely because

these

social formations and these economic

structures which would have otherwise

not existed and would have been wiped

out as a result of this crisis in 29

they were allowed to retain a lifeline

because of fascism whereas in in china

for example why should i believe that

germany and italy were supposedly on the

precipice of a communist revolution why

didn't happen in england or i don't i

don't think they were on the precipice

of a communist revolution i don't

believe they were okay so what was going

to happen in 1929 that didn't happen in

britain or france or spain britain i'll

tell you britain france and spain all

and the united states all embarked on

quasi corporatist and um socialistic

policies to save their economies as well

um so i don't know what you're really

asking

fascism so fascism goes socialist it's

uh

you know it's it's in the aid of

capitalism because there surely would

have been like a greater proper

socialist revolution

no it's not that there would have been a

socialist revolution but there would

have probably been an economic

restructuring of the economy in some

kind of way like new companies would

have emerged at the expense of old ones

and new order would have emerged at the

expense who cares if it's a new company

or it's just an old one if the state has

taken it over and introducing a

corporatist governance structure and

giving labor equal representation and

direct in the direction of the company i

mean it's like okay fine so these

capitalists in china they developed

while the ccp was in charge and you know

if jack mass steps out of line they'll

throw them in jail well what's the

difference i mean yeah germany had

already existing capital the difference

i'll explain it to you it's very simple

actually the difference is precisely the

fact that the fascist countries are too

corporatist and in a kind of um

political sense of the word they did not

have the sufficient degree of control

over these companies to be able to

completely wholesale reform and open up

economies eliminate industries

completely reform and change everything

about their economy from the bottom up

the chinese state now does have the

power to do that because it gets this

after all the reforms

right now in the g era it's a

fundamental restructuring and i'm saying

the reason why the chinese state is able

to do this is because it gets its

mandate directly from the small scale

land holding or apartments only whatever

the chinese people that is where it gets

its mandate that is its sole authority

the the sea era is being characterized

by this complete transformation of the

various industries and sectoral uh in

interest and so on of the chinese

economy that is coming at the expense of

there's no corporatism here between

class collaboration classes are being

eliminated wholesale because of the

government's five-year plans and

policies and they can't do anything

about it the government doesn't have to

compromise with any classes it doesn't

have to negotiate with them it will

pursue an industrial policy and it will

pursue it

solely according to the interests of the

chinese we're completely left out of the

decision-making policies that's not

extremely what i just said though that's

not relevant

about about about germany et cetera like

a lot of that stuff like really um like

why did ford like have to create a like

sub spin-off brand for uh nazi germany

that was due to american policies it was

not that like germans had no problem

with ford running plants with uh

american kind like out of america in

germany america okay so that proves that

capitalists were directing the national

socialists

i'm saying that the change was not

determined from within their society it

was determined within hours so let's see

which which country has more wall street

dollars in it national socialist germany

or fucking china

i think trying to buy like billions and

billions of millions the reason is that

70 of the chinese economy is privatized

at this point it's like in terms of like

actually capitalists are private

um what do you mean by private though

that there's someone called a capitalist

who invests in the company and gets uh

surplus value like uh in in response for

their investment you know i do i don't

even fucking marxist yeah but that

doesn't even really describe capitalist

countries anymore so it's it's really

not true

what do you mean it's not true are you

telling me that aren't people called

investors in china who invest in

stock in china that make money off that

stock

um are you talking are you talking

according to mocks

you're talking about uh financial

derivatives and speculation it is

heavily restricted we're talking about

that i'm talking about buying stock i'm

buying stock buying trading stock

i think for individuals it's actually

restricted within china you can't just

speculate on the stock market

yeah it's like an institutional thing

you have to like basically that's like

your job it's like that's your job in

the state yeah you can't just do that so

i don't know what is what is that

yeah but you okay so you can't do a free

so they basically protect a certain

class of capitalists and only let them

do it they're statements no they're

they're literally like okay

but no but it comes with the trade-off

right it comes with a trade-off because

your your billions all of that money if

you're jack ma you don't have yeah

you're not you don't control the

capitalist has in america so let me

explain it

let's say you're a billionaire within

china right billionaire is going to be

your net worth it's going to be your

total holdings in china you are not free

to just liquidate that wealth and do

what you want with it it's your wealth

is being controlled oh you got a fucking

nice car nice house sexy wife yeah

you're living in a living room

listen

with civil servants

i'm not the fucking communist in this

conversation problem

italy had a reform that foreigners

couldn't let's ask an italian companies

that's fine but let's go back to marx

here mar and marx's critique of the

gotha program what you're describing is

inequality some people have nice cars

and nice houses and some people don't i

don't know what i'm describing what i'm

describing is the capitalist mode of

production that's what i'm doing no no

you're describing the cultural phenomena

of inequality but marx himself is there

surplus value or not but mark's let's we

can talk about cerber's value later but

marx himself described within the

critique of the gotha program that in a

socialist society inequality will still

prevail and lenin described the same

thing because

your you will be compensated on the

basis of your work right

according to your work but people have

different degrees of being able to do

different kinds of work because of

contingencies so that's how chinese

marxists will explain it some people for

contingent reasons uh it's almost like

an american capitalist talking point you

hear like they work harder they worked

harder and they got more money right

it's different from just being a

capitalist per se because a capitalist

presupposes the institution of private

property first and then the profits

later it's not based on your labor

so yeah i understand that it's

technocratically very difficult yeah i

would argue that it's collectively

all of this applies to national

socialist germany i mean they brought in

a wage leveling law that restructured

wages so that it was based on the effort

of the worker rather than i think that

that's 97 of wages that's for wages

though that's not for the industrial

capitalist and financial capitalist

class that was still

it is yeah the germany's economy yeah

they lowered their wages they were they

literally nationalized the whole for

like like so much of the bank they're

not getting you're not getting wrong

wages they're not a wage earning class

primarily they're a class that earns

their money through profit these chinese

billionaires are not a wage earning

class either

i i didn't say they were

yeah well exactly so what's the fucking

difference

well the point he brought up wasn't

specifically relevant because the

underlying point i'm trying to say here

is that there's no corporatism there's

no negotiating with any segment of the

ccp does not share power with any class

or segment of chinese society it is

solely accountable to the chinese people

now what is their culture well let me

ask libertarian workers vanguard i mean

that's fascism i'm gonna ask a question

it's the reason why it's a proletarian

dictatorship is because the proletariat

is only meaningful within this wider

context of the people as the whole the

proletariat the reason why it's a

proletarian dictatorship is because the

proletariat is the class that emerged

that was uprooted from its means of

subsistence and its means of production

and the proletarian dictatorship is

specifically attuned to allowing the

chinese people to endure revolutions in

the forces of production which will

inevitably uproot them from their

original means of production the small

holding agriculture is being uprooted

and she is responding to that instead of

throwing these people on the street and

leaving them with nothing like in a

capitalist society they're getting free

stuff all right let me ask a question

let me ask you a question i'm gonna let

you talk some more i'm asking you a

question so you'll still get to talk uh

now you mentioned earlier that there is

a continuity uh between going all the

way back to marx uh to g uh the guy you

just mentioned uh what what is that

continuity uh

if you want to get super specific

i think that's pretty i don't want to

ramble but i would describe it to

simplify it concretely it's the

dialectic between form and content so

for marx this originally takes the form

of the kind of the whole structure

apparatus or whatever you want to call

it the project of german idealism

culminating in hegel's

system for marx

the real content of this system the real

truth of the insight of hegel lies in

the material reality of the proletariat

so this is the first way in which marx

uh initiates his kind of discovery real

human and in the case of foyerbach

foyerbach has an imagined humanity right

he's a humanist but his human is

idealized mark says no this is humanity

is no idle abstraction of the

imagination humanity is the real and

determinate humanity specifically as it

takes the form of the proletary then

lenin comes and lenin uh is dealing with

the institution of uh european social

democracy and he's trying to bring this

into russia and lenin discovers that the

real essence of this institution of the

party form cannot actually be found in

the ready-made forms legislated by the

party itself but must be you must delve

deeper and deeper into the ground into

the soil of the russian peasantry right

so it's this and then you can keep going

with stalin it's stalin doesn't actually

call himself an innovator of marxism he

just says he's the most faithful servant

of lenin and stalin's collectivization

and his wager upon the russian middle

peasants is an extension of lenin's

fundamental discovery and then mao

continues this by

almost eliminating the significance of

the industrial proletariat altogether

and recognizing that the fundamental

class differentiations are to be found

in the chinese people specifically the

chinese peasant more generally so then

mao is this more kind of populist

contribution then with deng xiaoping

deng xiaopin is the final nail in the

colfin

to the soviet

leg the legacy of the soviet inspired

system of central planning which

actually mao was always in tension

within contradicting from the very

beginning

um so there's kind of an echo so with

deng xiaoping's reform and opening

reform and opening up the real

innovation and insight of maoism which

is uh striving away from this kind of

top-down centralized or overly

centralized kind of

institutionalized bureaucratic soviet

system where everything is just planned

to a system that actually develops

socialism from the soil of the chinese

people themselves and now with the xi

era after the development of the forces

of production we are now opening into a

new era of an authentic communist

morality so the question remains now

that we have

developed the forces of production what

is the aesthetic cultural uh so on and

so on what values will define the

orientation of the development of the

forces of production and this kind of

spiritual uh orientation is what defines

the g

uh you know because you guys are like

you love hegel and you love marx and uh

it's just the way you describe that it's

almost like uh i'm listening to giovanni

gentile or some shit you know because uh

you know with hegel you know you've got

this move from the concrete subject to

the to the abstract object

uh and then marx flips out of his head

with this materialism right you know you

have the concrete object you move to the

the the kind of abstract subject to the

concrete yeah yeah and so that's you

know

but hegel in the philosophy of right i

mean i i don't like hegel's metaphysics

that much but the philosophy right i

find profound where you have this kind

of distinction between

this like classical distinction that

goes all the way back to ancient greek

philosophy like in a western political

thought really between the this polarity

between anarchy and tyranny

you know you know on the one hand you

have this notion of like you know the

free conscience

um

the self-actualization of the individual

uh but if you just kind of

you know you uh what's the dude's name

max stoner is like you know just going

all all in on that you just become

well the other direction is uh you have

this notion of like you know the the

collective good the

the legal and moral principles of the

political

uh but if you completely negate like the

individual's role then you're a tyrant

um

and you know hegel says okay we've got

to find some kind of sublation of this

dichotomy we've got to

we've got to kind of synthesize these

things together and so it becomes the

kind of voluntary identification with

uh you know of the individual with

the collective good now hegel is a

libtard so

the point is um

this notion of like uh

this notion of uh

the identification as would have been

understood in hegel's day

is within this bourgeois liberal context

whereas when you get to the 20th century

obviously we live in mass society uh the

effects of mass production um the the

there's a completely different kind of

conception of civil society at this

point we don't have this kind of elite

bourgeois civil discourse

um

now we have like this mass-produced kind

of inundation of um

ideological kind of imposition by this

this kind of mass media system

and this is the context out of which

fascism

uh you know

communism and uh you know progressivism

they all kind of rise in this early 20th

century uh it's so-called mass democracy

um

and in this context

gentile comes along as a respecter of

marx and hegel and he says okay so in

order to like achieve this synthesis

between

you know the individual and the

collective

there needs to be an identification with

a kind of spiritual mission of the state

and you can see you know mussolini talk

about that the conception of the state

ultimately is religious in fascism that

that there is a there is a kind of and

and this is not done in a way that just

completely negates

marks either but it's this kind of

synthesis of the idea that

the

the like the subject it's not just an

individual unto himself as the in the

kind of classical enlightenment

conception but instead the subject kind

of actively constructs himself in his

self-actualization within

the uh

within like his relation to the

spiritual idea of the state now this is

why i respect i can kind of respect the

chinese uh you know in a profound way

because you can see that there's this

kind of authenticity that they're trying

to strive towards of

um

which is why i also respect the

cessation of this kind of class struggle

nonsense and just striving toward this

uh concept of uh you know the national

idea as ultimately the kind of uh basis

for its legitimacy but like to me this

this there's so much i don't understand

how you guys can just sit there and not

see like there's a massive amount of

convergence between

what was going on in in italy uh with uh

these fascist intellectuals in the early

20th century and the development in in

chinese thought the last few decades

yeah there's little subtle differences

could have been things could have gone

differently but the thing is right is

like in actual material history like who

did the fascists like decide that their

ally was did they decide to ally with

the soviet union and the forces of

communism because if they had they

probably would have been able to i i

think i can actually

here germany was not in the same

position that china was in like we all

talked about land reform and how like

when mao first comes to power the

soviets send over this is what we did

with stalin you guys should try this you

know command economy they tried for a

bit and go this this is fucked we're not

doing this yeah i can't because the

chinese didn't have to do it because

they weren't in the same geopolitical

stress that the russians were in and

also the germans the germans knew

if we don't the kind of lebenstrom kind

of concept in national social ideology

it's a geopolitical concept uh that

predates national socialist ideology by

decades and it's and basically the idea

the germans knew if we don't expand this

state militarily into the east

you know uh and and gain new territory

we're going to get cucked by america

we're going to get we're going to get

couldn't do land

because they didn't do land reform

they

they had to go from zero to 100 like

that right

like that

with the soviet union peacefully then

both of their developmental needs could

have been reached without those

tragedies germany's technical expertise

could have helped develop the soviet

union and the soviet union's resources

could have fulfilled the needs of

the german industrialization so

they didn't but i just wanted to go back

japanese didn't declare war it didn't

bomb pearl harbor but like uh

invaded russia from the other side

here's here's an important distinction

though that we have to draw i think

between because you mentioned gen 2 and

stuff just want to talk briefly about

that i think the most important

distinction here is that for marx the

issue is not so much the contradiction

between the individual and the

collective the issue is really this is

the crux of the contradiction between

the state and the civil society marx's

entire point is that hegel's civil

society is an imagined civil society

that does not fundamentally and like

kegel's idea is basically here you have

the state and it must reconcile itself

and be harmonious with its origins and

its real foundations in the civil

society as marx pointed out though the

two actually do enter into contradiction

with each other in such a way that the

state becomes annihilated in civil

society and this was actually the fate

of prussian

constitutional monarchy it's our

monarchy itself is that it was

annihilated because of what was going on

in the imminent development of civil

society the distinction with fascism

though that's relevant here is that

despite what you might think and what

we're taught by cold war propaganda

communist states are not total states

and what i mean by that is that these

are states that are cognizant of their

own imminent limitation their own

inability to permanently conquer their

origins and their material basis in

civil society and that's why i say the

only contract that's the the ccp is

going to negotiate with is the chinese

people because in contrast to the kind

of mussolini idea that the state and the

people are one and they're actually the

same thing

china recognizes and the soviet union

also recognized in its own way that the

state and the people are not actually

always already the same thing there is a

contradiction between them and the state

must acknowledge its own

limitation in this regard this is why

for example with stalin's

collectivization

the the coal causes are not state-owned

property they are actually collective

farms owned and property of the

collective farm

there stalin must acknowledge and stalin

writes this in his economic problems of

the ussr which is this is why we have a

socialist commodity this is why we need

prices this is why commodities persist

because we cannot just go to the

peasants and just

loot and steal all of their land and

their resources it belongs to them we

the state cannot make it state property

because this would amount to a form of

robbery

this is pure

this is ideology

ideology because the

the reality in russia was the i mean

obviously like for many

for many centuries the uh peasantry of

russia was under the boot of uh you know

the gentry

but otherwise collectively owned for

most of the russian the russian

peasantry owned the land collectively

yeah they were liberated by um you know

the tsar already like in many cases uh

in many cases like at least partially

but then once you get the degeneration

of

um the russian political system

you know in world war one where

everything goes to shit once uh you know

prior to the bolshevik seizing power

the the peasants basically were

basically liberated at this point they

completely uh

you're talking about felipe reforms

uh the weeping reforms which yeah yeah

yeah but like

not even talking about reforms at this

point like by the time that when the

bolsheviks first sees power they don't

even have control of the rural areas

like they you know it was a proletarian

revolution right so they had control of

the uh urban areas

um but they had very limited control of

of the uh of the rural areas and

basically the rural areas were like lore

unto themselves they were in many cases

they didn't they didn't need they didn't

really have any good enough incentive to

participate in the soviet uh i mean yeah

the post revolution was possible because

the bolsheviks promised land reform and

the soldiers no no no this is bullshit

this is absolutely bullshit it was it

was a proletarian revolution the

peasants reluctantly went along with it

because they were like oh fuck uh

we don't want the aristocracy coming

back well the only reason the bolsheviks

succeeded is because they didn't promise

and initiate a program of land reform

which the soldiers and sailors and those

people who did come from peasant

families and backgrounds were very

responsive to and uh recipients and as a

result of the bolshevik revolution large

noble and

proprietary estates were divided and

given to the peasants pretty sure the

peasants were kind of happy being left

alone not stalin showing up with a bunch

of dudes from the cities right

guns in people's faces

in their own land most of them most of

them had the land in common in some kind

of way already when it was redistributed

but the second thing is as a result of

the stolipin reforms there was a form of

individual specific individual land

ownership and this gave rise to the

kulak but it was an artificial invention

of the stolipin reforms that was not an

organic feature or character of the

russian peasantry or the russian people

and that's the that's why the kulaks

posed such an issue for oh yeah so

sending a bunch of like dudes in from

the city with uh fancy uniforms to like

uh

like uh start running these farms like

bureaucratically it might like be like

this like managerial class come in and

like oppress them and like take all that

shit

violent thing that happened it was

extremely oppressive extremely violent

but it's totally it's totally i

wouldn't say

joel but all i'm going to insist upon is

a crucial difference that this is the

foundation of all modern industrial and

modernity in general to begin with and

this violence will either happen in your

own con i mean hopefully now we're at a

state we don't need this anymore because

the

differences in the concentration of

capital we have china now which can help

develop countries so they don't have to

go through this but this is the this is

the the hidden origin of modernity

itself if it's not going to be your own

country it's going to be someone else

i said at the beginning i didn't

criticize stalin i said stalin was

presented with pretty much an impossible

choice all right now let me put a pin in

this let me let keith get in there

because i'll let you guys go along and i

know he wanted to talk like that

something like because logo dropped in

this thing oh well the you know the

fascists they chose to like allow you

with the capitalist powers and they went

after the soviet union i mean i think

everything logos dropped in so far it's

just like straight up wrong like it's

just like basic bitch like communist

myths

what's wrong about that well it's not

wrong about like the the fact that the

fascists presented themselves

specifically as anti-communist like yeah

i'm going to i'm going to explain

well okay so hitler throughout the 20s

and 30s he

and you know most fascists don't get

this either but he always presented

anglo-american jewish capitalism as the

primary threat and the first time the

first mention from hitler of

anti-semitism is the the geimlich letter

and there's no mention of communism in

it he's talking about the jews directing

international capitalism and them

identifying more than jews and their

nation state and when he starts to

mention communism he talks about it as

the phenomenon that's directed from wall

street and he never mentions communism

as a primary threat accepting kind of

public speeches and propaganda

but he sees it as a way for

international finance capital to weaken

nations now in terms of like the

invasion of russia a lot of the national

socialists

in the 1930s before they got elected

wanted to go ahead with this uh position

of moving forward with an alliance of

russia and focus on focus on the west

hitler's reason for rejecting this was

purely like geopolitical he

you know you're talking about land

reform but i mean

there was a different conception of like

development at that time and hitler has

very much had this conception of kind of

space and race and you know his

experience of sort of fighting german

descended soldiers

in us uniforms in world war one really

influenced this and hitler believed that

if a european power didn't emerge with

the kind of scale of the united states

that no one would be able to take on the

hegemony of the emerging north american

powers he called it so hitler struck

east but it was very much with this

long-term thinking that germany would

either become a great power the

magnitude of the us that could challenge

uh capitalist gemini over the world or

to be destroyed and he says this in

speeches throughout the 20s and 30s he

contrasts um you know he compared

germany he said that the fate of germany

would be like india or ireland that

would be one of these dispossessed

colonial nations

and

you know his thinking was very much that

you know it was uh expansion

or destruction i mean there's a quote

from

brendan there's a lot of americans who

said the same thing though okay so

brandon sims says

this is like a popular biography that

came out in hitler recently it's a

pretty respected story and the crucial

point is that hitler did not primarily

justify the quest for lebanstram with

the inherent inferiority of the slav

population there is an ideological war

against bolshevism or even as a first

step towards the annihilation of jews in

europe his aim drought was not world

domination but simple national survival

hitler may have spoken privately of his

hopes for world hegemony but this was

probably buster it's more likely that at

least at this stage hitler did not

envisage world domination by germany as

opposed to the world power status

necessary for survival and you also have

his second book which he didn't actually

publish because it gave away too much of

his geopolitical thinking but throughout

the second book when he's talking about

expanded east the primary threat road is

the anglo-american the anglo-saxon

capitalist powers they call them and

again the line of thinking is that

either germany is going to get enough

space at east to industrialize

sufficiently to challenge the united

states uh or it's going to perish so i

mean just like reading ideology into

this i mean fascists do this as well

like oh is this great crusade against

communism like

i mean it's just like juveniles

but okay so what if but like do you

think like what okay so you're saying

fundamentally like so they weren't

primarily anti-capitalists they were

primarily anti-communists but they just

considered communism to be essentially

like another hand of the capitalists

right

no they were just saying propaganda to

justify their geopolitical interests

which was

they didn't give up

with the anti-communist stuff i mean the

choice was okay like it's us

like either either we expand oh we don't

have any issue the issue is that there's

two things right hitler was very clear

that he wanted to divide the world with

the british empire he admired the

british empire and he was not uh against

the british empire per se now i guess he

did talk about anglo-american jewish

capitalists or whatever but the fact is

that hitler expanded east uh primarily

because he was wanted to make the signal

to the western powers that hey i'm just

going to go take on the soviet union if

you leave me alone it really doesn't

concern you right and he thought that he

would get away with invading poland

doing all these things and breaking

treaties with england and these other

countries because he thought that they

would just not mind him confronting the

soviet union going eastward so

i mean i don't know what his long-term

imagined long-term goal necessarily is

like oh he wants to compete with america

or whatever but concretely like

specifically as it's relevant to the

situation there

hitler was making signals to the

anglo-american ruling classes whether

they're jewish or otherwise it doesn't

really concern me

that he was going to be their champion

against the soviet union

well yeah he wanted to avoid a world war

with britain but i mean he still saw he

still saw capitalism as the primary

threat and he was trying to create a

powerful enough state to take that on i

mean in germany's interest to go to war

with britain because britain had nothing

to offer germany like

i know i don't think germany wanted to

go to war with britain but i think um

yeah i think that germany wanted to get

away with

um invading the east and they thought

they would just get away with this but

the people it's not about ideology it's

not about like oh fascism is inherently

this and uh it's about the whole

geopolitical reality of uh the situation

much like stalin's behavior much like uh

mao's behavior they were able to make

different decisions because they had

different

it was in the interest of the german

economy as within the specific political

order of the nazis were ruling that yes

they needed more resources and they

needed more space to appease the german

population which was not being given a

land reform internally but the reason

for that was because the nazis um you

can either say that they were

acting on behalf of or they had to

compromise with

the german monopolists and landowners

the fact stands that this was why they

had to

there was an internal kind of social

tension within germany that they had to

mitigate by promising the german people

that they're going to get their plot of

land and their homestead

in the east this is also why they failed

because because they were beholden to

this class this class didn't give a shit

about the nazis in the first place

they're not being hold on to the class

that means no no no listen listen listen

i'm making a pizza hitler no no no no no

no no no no no no no no no let's let me

finish

can i finish my point i'm talking about

just cold geopolitical realities here

okay so you really are hitler's yes i am

i'm about to if you let me okay so

killers all of these monopolists the

landowners basically the ancient regime

like the fucking hereditary

aristocracy of germany at the time they

supported hitler to a

point but as soon as it like as soon as

there was going to be any attempt at

land reform in that sense that is when

they collaborated extremely hand in

glove with

british capitalists and the like german

secret intelligence service was

literally all double agents for uh

i'm saying he didn't no i'm saying

because he didn't do the land reform

early enough if he did that if he was

doing land reform early enough then

maybe he would have stood a chance at

all

who were who were the manager

capitalists supporting hitler prior to

his election

henry ford

what was the financial

so which election are you referring to

okay anytime prior to him taking power

what was the major after 32 he met with

uh industrialists and they supported him

in the next election

there was no election after what i mean

after 32

there there was an election in 32 i

believe and then

you mean in 32 okay yeah

yeah all right so this is from henry

ashby turner who's a yale historian who

wrote like the most authoritative book

on this he says big business support was

virtually

zero prior to the election of 1933. it

reached a high point in the spring of 32

followed by a decline in trudy autumn

that continued until hitler's

appointment as chancellor

but at the high point in 1932 the nsdf

seemed unstoppable so at that point like

the capitalists are trying to get a

winning team but it's not about whether

or not they financially supported them

but i'm saying is that when he had to

make up his they didn't support the

world

prior to 32 i don't think that the

majority of the ruling class in germany

was behind the nazis in behind they were

massively opposed to them

well that's

one of the biggest capitalists in

germany supported the stenzervald which

was this essay revolt that was trying to

take out hitler yeah yeah

that's fine but here's what's important

the nazis would not have been able to

seize and retain power if they did not

act on behalf of the interests of the

german ruling class they did not come at

the into power my theory of uh why

wasn't there support for them then

what's that why wasn't there support

from them then from the ruling class

well because initially they were kind of

like a street gang right but then they

came to a point where they were going to

they wanted to get elected and cease

power so they made a deal with the

industrial said hey we're going to be

the kind of anarchist thugs that are

going to keep things in line and keep

things uh no they're vastly inhibited

the nazis actually took a more

anti-capitalist line in 30 years hold on

thirty-two

speech to the group of german

industrialists saying hey we're the best

bet to save you guys and allow you guys

to keep your um position he almost said

this stuff at verbatim in 32.

yeah and in 1933 so turner says uh and

champion the prerogatives of uh the

parliament and the interests of workers

as part of an offensive designed to

discredit papin's presidential what they

call cabinet of barons

the nsda peace were

yeah they had prop they were rhetoric in

words okay so but where's the material

support for the nazis i mean you're

saying like the kind of you know

i don't think they had substance

necessarily substantive material support

among the german people to actually

seize power they seized first they were

kind of a organization that was filled

with many lumpin elements and d-class

elements and

middle class type of elements and they

were kind of a rag attack group of thugs

basically right and then they were um

when the time came they were allowed to

have power by the german capitalist so

they never actually had a substantive

base in the german people at all it's

just they were anarchists more or less

who were allowed they were unleashed on

german society what does that mean they

never had substantive support i mean

they won the election without support

for major industrialists with most

industrialist support in the republic

at what point did they win the election

without the support of the

industrialists 1933

no by 33 they already had the

industrialists behind them no they

didn't yes okay who who was supporting

them all of them all the major germans

that's not true that's not true there

was one there was one industrialist that

was openly pro-nazi openly yeah that's

talking about openly okay so how can you

well what are you gonna do to prove it

do you have anything

yeah let me try to

hillary clinton is giving speeches to

major industrialists do you think

there's any material support there or is

that just a coincidence then there was

also the secret meeting and 20th of

february 1933. uh hit the hitler and 20

to 25 industrialists

um

the

yeah he reached out to try and get

support from industrials but never

materialized in time no he received you

okay so what so once he's like fully in

and he's and he's like

equivalent of around 10 million um

what is today in today's terms 10 he was

two million reichsmarks at the time

um were contributed at the meeting so

they were using the report from who um

let me see

uh

let's go this was all stuff from the

next emphatic on this that like they

raised a lot of money from small

donations and they're really good at

collecting a lot of smoking that was

before that was before

no it's the same right up to then

no it was before

turner says only through gross

distortion can big business be afforded

a crucial or even major role in the

downfall of the republic he's absolutely

emphatic on this

yeah but he's he couldn't possibly be

talking about what everyone i mean

you're not giving me anything you're

like oh they had a meeting here and

there i mean yeah the parity like

existed for one so i i can actually show

you guys that had nothing to do with

their millions of members

it was just like these like three

capitalists that gave them a few more

far more ig farbin 400 000 reichsmarks

you have a guy named dir i a

two hundred thousand you have carl

herman hundred fifty thousand automobile

austerlag berlin hundred thousand uh

carl herman berlin uh deutsche i can't

pronounce this shit hundred fifty

thousand pretty much a lot of people are

giving the money here you know it's it's

not just one or two people i know where

you're getting this from because turner

says that there's only two major

industrialists that supported the nazis

predator election citizen and von borsig

and citizen ended up looking which

elections are publicly

you're probably talking about before the

election of 3032.

no he's talking about the before getting

into power like i said give you the

quote again only true growth

uh distortion can big business be

afforded a crucial or even major role in

the downfall of the republic

so he's talking about before 32

no the downfall of the republic when

hitler gets into power listen to the

consolidation of hillary clinton

previously received

how does turner address

um

the

hitler's speech to the industry club in

1932. like how does he address these

kind of things

yeah turner

of course like hitler was trying to

reach out to influential people you know

like he

you're saying

yeah one of his friends went to america

to meet henry ford but he'd never commit

anything financially you know they were

in touch with like the

white russian immigrants and yeah they

yeah they tried to reach out to

industries uh von borsig who was one of

the only support one of the two

industrialists that supported him tried

to get

before they got power he tried to raise

support in berlin and uh you know he was

an anomaly he gave up after a few months

and he doesn't seem to have supported

them materially at all apart getting

into power even if he got some cash on

the side he telling me in like you know

like 1937

one of these industrialists piss hitler

off that he couldn't do something about

it like uh

you know like the dude consolidated his

power sometimes you gotta play you gotta

play a little chess you know what i mean

uh before getting into power

um i'm looking at a source right now

okay

so to like sort of i don't feel like my

part was addressed so i'll kind of

expand okay hold on

the same

just go right after me right total

contributions for one of the reichstag

election campaigns of 32 and

approximately 200 000 to 300 000 marks

of this you reported no more than

um

okay so 10 to 15 percent had gone to the

nazis and this was in 32.

um

well i gave you a quote that there is

when did they go afterward

uh

in like the spring of 32 right up to

getting like this was in rhetoric this

wasn't actually what was going on behind

the scenes

watch me what was happening behind the

scenes they got less support from big

business before the 1933 election i'll

give you another quote from turner quite

contrary to the widespread impression

that hitler gained power in january 33

with strong backing from big business

his appointment to the chancellorship

came just when relations between his

movement and the business community had

reached the lowest point since the

nscip's election gains in 1930 had

forced it upon the attention of the

politically engaged men of big business

well it's the lowest point but relative

to what because

basically he played the game he got in

position and then once he was had a run

at power he just started giving the

middle finger okay

get the material support i'm going to

read more

my point my point was that he um unlike

the communists right the communists

tended to uh depose the former order and

replace it entirely with their own new

order right so like this is this is why

there was like tons of like purges and

things because you had a ton of like

fucking intelligence agents and

industrials and industrial assets and

fucking capitalists all over the place

from all over the world really in that

country who were uh trying to you know

get what they could out of the this new

developing country um

in germany uh hillard didn't do that he

didn't get rid of these people he didn't

replace

them yeah if they violated the national

interest

fritz tisson was the biggest supporter

of the nazis

this is page 68 of the same the book

henry turner big business in the rise of

hitler he says but more important once

he was in office hitler demonstrated

that he was always reassured them not a

socialist he therefore had no difficulty

in extracting large sums from big

business starting with the campaign for

the reichstag election of march 1933

these contributions unquestionably aided

hitler significantly

um

but they created him in the

consolidation of his power and this is

true i have a quote from turner where he

says big business support was virtually

zero

significantly to the consolidation of

hitler's power in 33.

well if he says that that contradicts

the entire rest of the book

he says he says particularly

the election

why can't you why can't you name

something he said

so he's not saying that okay so when he

comes to power then they get on board

yeah of course they didn't put him in

power though but to consolidate his

power yeah so he gets into power and

they're like okay we better support you

you have to understand turner which is

he gonna pay the man

one of the historians and there's other

historians who disagree with him he's

one of the historians who are trying to

come from the angle that this big

business was not responsible for the

nazis that's his thesis that's what he's

working with and even if we agree with

that

your argument is just like what you said

about what you said about business not

supporting him in the elections is just

wrong

no you what you said doesn't contradict

it it said that he had no support for

the election and then they had them

consolidated

i agree

with you

but by 33.

do you want me to quote again big

business support was virtually zero

prior to the election of 1933 that's

from turner in his conclusion

but after 1933 it changes he's in power

they yeah the capitalist when he's in

power they're like shit hitler's in

power you know we better not they were

instrumental in consolidating that power

is the point

all right now didn't want to do wanting

to throw in a concentration camp like

you did to this by the way we're gonna

take some no because this power was not

consolidated by then

he wasn't even consolidated at that

point that's what you're not

understanding here they didn't have to

help him consolidate like this

they couldn't have worked to get rid of

hitler and by the way i'm just going off

of your source i'm not even going uh

from sources that okay well if you want

to accept that source you'll have to

accept this conclusion that big business

advertising

countries nazis come into power and

that's what i'm contested i'm not

contestant they supported them when they

came power i'm saying the communist idea

that this was something that did not

listen to this is so much more boring

listen man there's a really interesting

point do you want to hear an interesting

point okay this is like this argument

did they fund them at this point does

this matter okay all right do you know

how okay so all of a sudden

historical reality yes this is material

historical intelligence agencies are the

most important thing for a country okay

so how are you going to do like the

anglo-intelligence was secretly pulling

the strings it wasn't secret that's

where the term double agent comes from

literally why do you think that the

british had all of nazi communications

throughout the entirety of the war

decrypted the entire time so if they

were controlling germany why did germany

go to war with britain and start like

bombing british cities

uh the british actually they actually

fucked up super hard when they were

trying to bomb london because the

british had so infiltrated german

intelligence that they fed them wrong

answered like they told them that their

missiles were landing in the wrong place

they had all of their sources telling

them this so they actually directed the

v2 rockets to miss london from london

the entire yeah yeah i know yeah they

had like good intelligence on germany

why did that have why was that possible

to happen in this state like why were

the people the intelligence agents not

loyal to hitler

hold on i have a question for keith so

in the spring of 1932 uh krupp and ig

farben build the nazi party out of

bankruptcy is this true or not

that's the first i've heard but i didn't

encounter

your source said that in the spring of

1932 that uh industrial supporter the

support by big businesses was at a high

and then later in 32 it went down so it

would be consistent with what you quoted

from your own source

yeah but he also said he also says only

true gross distortion can big business

be afforded a major role in the downfall

that's his narrative that's his specific

narrative as a historian he's not the

only historian it's not the only

narrative so let's just go like that

there's another one there's another book

called who finance hitler that's the

same conclusion

okay there's a lot of

you have tongues understand that

ideologically speaking it is in your

interest to find sources that support

your ideological position so these are

not that's like the authoritative book

on this he's like one of the most

suspected stories of 20th century i'll

give you who financed hitler by suzanne

poole either the my question is my

question is what is the fucking point of

defending these loser regimes that

fucking failed when there's actually

like winning regimes that you say you

see like some elements of things that

you would want in for instance

always lose so how the fuck are they

fascists or unless you're saying that

they're going to lose because we're i

mean joe biden's calling them fascists

now what does that mean with our

national security chief like why what's

the point of that like what are you

accomplishing by defending fascism what

is the point like they're lo they lost

it it's a failed it failed it's not well

this is the accomplishment is just like

that

this like this like distinction

is pretty murky like it's not like as uh

it's it's not a very hard and fast

distinction when you look at uh

historical contingency you can explain

the differences between these regimes

rather than looking at it through the

lens of ideology

it's it's it's uh it's

intelligence

why did the german intelligence services

collaborate with the british

is there like some kind of like you know

big structural reason for that i mean

that seems like some kind of contingent

historical kind of

like it's just contingent i mean that

didn't happen in other cases i mean the

german it's not it didn't happen the

other way around the world

no i'm saying i'm asking you what is

your explanation for that

are they being aware of like major

collaboration between dean oh you aren't

well i know i know about the british

intelligence services at the time

because it's actually extremely

important yeah i

they know great advances in like

intercepting german communication but no

they flipped they had they had great

advantages in human intelligence so if

england was the right entire why did

germany go to war with britain in a war

that bankrupt britain and like ended the

british empire

um i mean that's a really long

complicated question we can talk about

it in stages because

i'm sure you've got a super big brand

answer that would take forever i mean i

mean you should listen to you should

listen to some of the stuff we put out

on the suit cast because we go really

deep into this shit because it's fucking

really complicated like i don't know

it's not that simple i'm too transphobic

for the suitcase unfortunately

whatever guys but i'm saying

you actually can't explain

you're hermeneutic of this can explain

why the british intelligence agencies

were able to flip all of these people in

the german intelligence agencies and the

reason why is because a lot of people in

the german intelligence agencies came

from that landed class that landed like

old regime class and a lot of them had

really great relations because again

like the hereditary aristocracy is not a

national phenomenon it's a global

phenomenon

all of these people i think like we're

pretty fine with it i mean at least i am

fine with acknowledging that hitler was

not like the greatest statement

statesman of all time he was no caesar

he was no stalin you know what i mean

you could put that lightly but yeah yeah

yeah he was like shocked yeah yeah he

wasn't he he was a you know he was a

good public speaker or whatever he was a

charismatic individual but like yeah he

wasn't as he wasn't like a strategic

genius

like some of these other figures it was

really

pretty much all fascists were really

shitty actually

i think they're in mussolini like kind

of like there's

some decent evidence definitely with

mussolini and some evidence with hitler

they kind of started out as feds and

then they just like their psyop just was

too successful and then they were like

sweet like let's just keep doing this

you know i'm like

yeah that's and and because they're

never came from the people they were

immediately taken out by the people who

put them into power in the first place

so that's why immediately well there was

a war in between the costs like millions

of lives i mean or the british empire

what that was was an opportunity

i mean the british empire was bankrupt

by the war

yeah but what destroyed the british

empire specifically was um the triumph

of the soviet union and the ability for

the soviet union to help yeah which is

the result of war

yeah supposedly which supposedly

if you have a dialectic perspective

these are the ironies of history that

you know you can act on behalf of your

own interests and this can that same at

the same time be the source of your very

own uh

demise of these things it's almost like

when american fascists like go out to

have like a rally in their own interests

and then what it does is it's like the

worst scandal for them of all time like

in recent years

britain directed the whole thing because

there were a lot of spies that were like

turn quotes and they orchestrated like

the entirety of the war and for germany

to go to war with britain and like take

loads of british lives and bankruptcy

and the soviet union wins and that would

destroy the british empire so

a few things about the soviet union

throughout the course of the war so by

the time that it became clear so the

real position of um the allies when

germany invaded the soviet union was

let's just have hands off and see what's

going to happen because they were really

betting that maybe germany is going to

eliminate the soviet union they were

completely fine with that now when the

soviets proved that by their own

admission we're still at war with

germany yeah but but but at the same

time they were conducting secret

negotiations with the germans about

coming to uh troops no they

turned down like ten peace offers from

hitler but they were still actually that

was a british

that would be possible uh consistently

and then curiously immediately in the

aftermath of the war you have the

development of operation unthinkable

which was a plan that by 1956 or 57 i

forget which state they were actually

going to engage in a pre-emptive nuclear

strike killing 80 million um

uh civilians in the soviet union

effectively um accomplished

churchill wanted to drop nukes on soviet

union right after the second world war

yeah so did bertrand russell yeah so if

you just wanted to nuke china and nixon

said no so you know i think i think

it's like you have to be very careful

about this idea that just because they

are the allies that means that they are

serving each other's interests because

i don't believe that i mean of course

yeah britain and america and the soviet

union yeah it's not like yeah it's like

isis right russia and america are both

fighting

we know america funds them behind the

scenes but they both suggest

but i'm not disagreeing

britain was like pulling the strings to

destroy its empire for some greater this

is like i think i don't know

america was the reason listen listen

okay so america and britain were

competing the real war in world war ii

is between america and britain frankly

it's like sounds really counterintuitive

when you get down to it that's really

what it was all about because like the

other countries didn't have a fucking

chance man like it's not even like it's

not even close

the germans are like 20 miles moscow

that makes sense you know i'll explain

how this can be you understood instead

of thinking britain as a monolith of an

interest you have to understand there's

a struggle going on within britain which

is between the kind of old ancient

regime the monarchy and these kind of

people this old money kind of uh classes

and then you have i guess this new kind

of national petty bourgeoisie and this

new and bourgeoisie within britain and

the the latter one i think is more

aligned with america the former one is

secretly

uh somehow connected to the nazis i

don't know all the details of it but

there are really weird things like for

the real family have you seen the

footage of the british royal family the

kids they're doing the the hitler salute

in the 30s the middle of the 30s

like multiple peace offers from germany

where they're going to like take their

armies out because those aren't

that the idea of an anglo-german piece

as i said was a specific plot of the

british intelligence agencies because

they wanted hitler to not like do put as

much effort into that side of the front

believing that there would be a

possibility

and that's when we in fucking that's

when they invaded

germany's credibility as far as honoring

treaties and peace treaties is concerned

was thrown out the window in in many

several instances so they already

appeased hitler um but giving him czech

slovakia he went back on his treaties

with them when he invaded you've already

said that hitler was like no threat to

britain like

in their national interest to like

destroy their empire over no they wanted

to rebuild they wanted to reconstruct

the global economy right yeah there is

really a contradiction here the british

empire by this time is on its way out

because of america so you have

reactionary classes within britain who

represent the reaction of the british

empire against this new development

and the nazis

they could have maintained it longer

without the second world war it

bankrupted them

to take the last they wanted

to say that it was not in the interests

of all of britain that to re to be this

force of reaction in the face of this

dissolving uh empire this empire that is

clearly uh on on its way out on the

decline this new u.s led world order

which is based on formally speaking we

know that's not the reality kind of like

national self-determination and

sovereignty in the league of nations and

things like that this was upsetting the

former european colonial order

after world war one the whole order was

pretty much

threatened

that's why for example the american

response to the italian invasion of

ethiopia was so

one of such like shock and repulsion for

that reason they just the american-led

global order in the american vision for

world order was not like directly this

form of colonization and this direct

form of uh

the old it represented the old way of

things which is why churchill churchill

hated stalin whereas fdr and stalin got

along pretty swimmingly so you can see a

lot of like america actually supported

the ussr and china at the time right

like we were over there helping like

this is why mao has like such a positive

view of america at the time and this is

like so counterintuitive to the way

people understand the cold war and shit

like this later but really the they were

like like mao was like directly inspired

by like george washington and i wanted

to get to this from way long ago but you

said the three represents came from

mussolini but that's false it is origins

are in abraham lincoln's gettysburg

address

yeah i feel like we're getting a bit

sidetracked with this stuff

it's not sidetracked this is a history

that almost no one talks about or knows

about because who the fuck like who's it

useful for it's not really that useful

but i find it personally very

interesting because i do think that um

china like they've taken a lot from

america and uh in in a lot of ways they

resemble the old american order far more

than um our current order does can i

just ask like just back to china i mean

this is like the basic question like if

china is moving more towards nationalism

more towards racialism more towards

having these uh various classes more

towards the american system why am i but

why should we believe that like

eventually they're just going to like

abolish the state no no i think this is

the communism

isn't working i think it's important to

talk about chinese nationalism and

there's a crucial difference here so

german and italian nationalism relevant

to fascism was based on the nation state

which was from the 19th century french

revolution and so on that's where it

came from the chinese nationalism i

don't know if you can call it

nationalism in the same sense because

there is such a thing as han nationalism

within china and han nationalism is

actually hostile to the communist party

chinese nationalism is about the

thousands of years old polity

culminating in the qing dynasty which is

multi-ethnic and in the european sense

of the word multinational it's

multicultural and multilingual and

multi-religious and so on and so on but

it's still a central unified

civilization so china's not a

nation-state it's a civilization state

so when people are referring to chinese

nationalism they're referring to the

enthusiasm and the veneration and

chinese patriotism

yeah it's more kind of

patriotism i have an academic paper you

can take this for

whatever but i mean they study this

question it's called racial nationalism

and china's external behavior it says

the effort to build racial nationalism

is deepening in developing it the regime

has moved beyond state-centered

a racialized version of nation-centered

patriotism

this is our propaganda they're against

that because this china nationalism was

a trend and it was hostile to the

communist party and this is of defense

of the american-led international order

which is using like j sakai sedler

colonial stuff to call

it's basically what you guys are doing

the opposition the opposition to the

american order is

age of nationalism the age of

nationalism is over there's no

concern

amazon is like diversifying the

workplace to reduce here's how here's

how it phrased things right i get what

you're trying to say there's clearly a

dichotomy between american unipolar

globalism and

countries nations and civilizations

attempting to go their own way and

have some kind of self-determination and

sovereignty that is a very clear

distinction and i understand that but

you just have to be careful to

understand that

nationalism doesn't mean the same thing

as it meant in the 19th century and then

the 20s relevant to fascism in germany

because

um the countries

marxism or socialism or all these words

well i don't i don't know

yeah you really do because um yeah

there's nowhere in marxism or marxism

leninism according to which the reality

of nations is not acknowledged or um

it's the idea they're meant to dissipate

for uh global problems no well no not

necessarily no i mean if they no that's

not true the whole point is that you

can't make the nation an idol because

nations change now granted they don't

change voluntarily they change at a

scale of hundreds or maybe yeah the

americans you can recognize that the

nation said it's an expression of this

ethnic tribalism that's an extension of

family

the nation's state you know the result

of modernity it doesn't actually reflect

the underlying like actual reality you

can have like ethnic tribalism reflected

in a nation's state if you read engels

work on the matter because you're

talking about tribes and stuff engels

points out how the development of the

state emerges from

family tribe gens and so on so he traces

that specific development but

it's not something you can you can't

universalize tribes across the history

of

um humanity it's kind of nonsensical

yeah but i mean your project is like to

dismantle these barriers no

absolutely not no

socialism in one country proves that

marxism was never that's true it's

he said that this idea that you could

have proper socialism by focusing on

land reform and class collaboration on

industrial production that was not the

content of this objective socialistic

no which is just like what china is

doing now you're honoring us

marxism in relation to different nations

and civilizations is that through the

imminent development of each nation and

each civilization on its own terms and

based on its own character um

the

this is the basis of the universal

humanity relevant to communism now

trotskyism adopts the view that is

inherited from liberalism and anarchism

and actually

more controversial i will claim

trotskyism has a similarity with fascism

in a sense in its conception of

universality the trotsky's view is a

more top-down view of universalism which

does amount to liquidationism and the

dissolution of nations and class coming

at the expenses this is why neocons are

trafficking yeah as early as marx we see

that the the idea in marx's critique of

the gothic program the idea is that

the cl the content is the class struggle

but the form is national so the idea for

social realism under the soviet union in

stalin is that it's socialist and

content national yeah but it's

ultimately meant to be like a temporary

form you know eventually

you're not meant to lose sight of the

global aspect no

i terms the this this is like straight

from america i mean america's advocating

for free trade

the issue with this idea is that it

doesn't have a dialectical form so this

idea of like a universal global

community that has no content like what

does that look like what what is its

determinate quality right this is the

competition

this is the americas fantasy no this is

the tropsiest fantasy of uh

of what kegel would call bad infinity

it's undialectical and it has nothing to

do with marx lenin stalin it's

understandable that you would take this

to be the case because a lot of western

marxists say this and shit but western

marxists are all trotskyists yeah and

they're mostly liberals they're

primarily liberals they're not fucking

real and that's why

they would actually agree with you and

then you're right china is fascist like

you actually are closer in this

sense when it comes to the real

experience of marxism there has been a

mistranslation to the west and that in

the west my thesis is that to understand

the deviation from marx

what had what's the deviation

the deviation from marx was the western

marxist i mean he advocated free trade

for smaller nations so like to

accelerate

marx was a thinker of ironies and he

pointed out the irony of the fact that

free trade specifically in the case of

india would hasten the collapse of uh

capitalism so this is one of his irony

yeah advocated in a lot of cases but not

in every case in other cases for

example absolute sense when it came to

the decline of the free trade system

which was emerging because of people

like lincoln it's very clear which side

marx took that lincoln's protectionism

was more history yeah like he didn't

advocate free trade for ireland for

example because he thought that they

could industrially develop by

uh separating from britain but again

like the end goal is that eventually you

develop productive forces to such a

capacity that you know the

contradictions inherent in capitalism

that you're moving to a global

proletarian revolution i mean this is

like the first time i've ever heard this

from america

that's just the essence it has no form

so

our nation says like our nation's going

to exist like in communism because you

know according to the development of

their own imminent laws and reality so

class struggle is content it's not form

it doesn't say anything about what the

form is gonna be

how are you gonna have a stateless

society if nation status still exists or

i mean are you denying that like

classless stateless society is like

that's like the whole thing of communism

the state the yeah but you have to

understand how the state dissolves and

what that means so the state dissolving

doesn't mean like all distinctions and

intelligible differences and

differentiations disappear it means that

their no government no longer rules over

the people at their expense like as a

kind of alien interest from the people

it just becomes the administration of

things and that people as marx put it

find their unity in the development of

the scientific and aesthetic um

cultivation and sense but basically the

idea is that the things that unify

people remain but they become sublated

in other common points of unity like for

example why does everything is

everything

encounter like a pose you don't call it

nationalism if you're gonna like

associate that with like romantic

nationalism but like oppose ethnic

tribalism

because ethnic tribalism i i guess as

far as i know what this means is there

invention of modernity it's not

something that tribalism is an invention

of modernity well no no i come from a

tribalistic kind of

my family comes from a tribalistic

society like have you read the old

testament like the jews yeah i

understand i come from a tribalistic

culture so i understand but it's not

this uh idealized version of ethnic

tribes and this eternal law like

tribes should be understood

from maybe a sociological psychoanalytic

sense they're a real thing

but

they're like

the right of these people i don't see

tribal in america i know tribes in

lebanon and so on where my family comes

from so i understand tribes but i live

in america i don't see tribes here what

tribes are you talking about

well i mean ethnic groups it's like an

extent they're not tribes they're they

may like you in prison they might stick

together as a point like unify with each

other but they don't function as tribes

so yeah obviously basically i mean you

think like ethnic nationalism is some

kind of false consciousness developed by

modernity

i mean you know

ethnic nationalism uh yeah

ethno-nationalism is inherently a result

of liberal modernity that's why in

russia and it's in its current state

it's west fairly instead let me ask you

a question

how come the ethno-nationalists in

russia are allied with the liberals

i already see your point well because

they represent the same form of the

decaying western modernity and the

subjectivity proper to western i mean

there's a lot of nationalists that are

attached to like you know

like there's nothing more like human

than tribalism pre-delivering nothing

inherent to

a racial identity that forces it into

like a particular

ideology like this i don't see how that

makes sense of humanity

yeah say for example you have a country

that um is like ethnically homogeneous

like uh say japan for example

uh or something

um

now if they were to have some kind of

socialist

reforms oh or what have you

why would they all of a sudden stop

being ethnically homogeneous like that

wouldn't make any fucking sense right so

i mean um i don't know why they would i

don't know i don't know i mean like it's

yeah so they so

the reason why japan is ethnically

homogeneous is because

the japanese people correspond to a

specific civilization in a specific

history but if you look at how they came

to be you see that it's a mishmash

between different groups and kind of

ethnogenesis is a thing obviously

all ethnicities are produced somehow

in the future like hundreds of years

from now uh races or i don't know what

you mean people who look alike i guess

is what you mean they would change

according to the imminent laws governing

the development races

ethnicity and race

i i just literally know what's what i

want to preserve ecological diversity

like i want to preserve irish people

like why like why people are wildlife in

this sense no no no no i agree with you

there is something about irish people

that other people do not have they have

something other people don't they have a

unique character what is liberty

yeah

that doesn't mean one has to be an

ethno-nationalist just means you have to

be true to the essence of what you are

and the essence of which you are is not

well i mean if your country is like

getting flooded with like uh

so when it comes to the issue of

immigration and so on this is an issue

of the sovereign state so ireland's part

of the eu and it follows the eu's laws

uh it's not

you know um

it's as simple as that but the thing is

is that uh immigration is probably going

to be an inevitability in this

unprecedented uh

interconnected world and so on the thing

is not the choice is not between

maintaining so but there's no reason why

it has to be doesn't have to be like you

you like why kind of if i just gave you

an example

no no no because because uh i agree

mass immigration has been a disaster in

europe it's been a disaster but i think

the reason it's a disaster is not

because of inherent

uh ethno or racial realities it's

because there are clearly different

cultural and civilizational qualities

this is a pretty inherent

like uh i'm part of this

group there's a clear civilizational and

cultural uh difference

under liberalism this is what i'm trying

to say under liberalism there is no

acknowledgement of this difference in

liberalism everyone is the same and yet

these differences persist under

communism it's always been the

experience

for even if

this can be acknowledged and some kind

of authentic encounter and dialogue and

exchange can be possible okay but even

if these like cultural differences are a

product of liberalism and dissipated

whatever what if i still like

liberalism does not acknowledge these

differences i'm not saying liberalism

created them i'm saying liberalism okay

yeah i agree to acknowledge them but

another way of not ignoring why are you

opposed like if we acknowledge these

differences to like people choosing to

because this is the point of the kind of

new chinese view of a bilateral and

multilateral cooperation win-win

agreement because you can at the same

time acknowledge you are different and

then also

on the basis of acknowledging this

mutual understanding we are different

and we're not the same you can still

have a mutual contact and a mutual

dialogue and a mutual exchange where you

can um

you don't have to have a neurotic view

that you must what if we don't want to

can we

i'm like we're going to live separately

and like only my family live in my house

like i can still be friends with other

people

maybe through the course of this

dialectic this imminent development and

this is true for the history of all

civilization especially countries like

china

maybe it will happen that a fusion can

happen and that somehow

maybe we don't want that why does that

have to be like for some people but at

that point when you you don't know even

know what that would be like though

because right now in liberalism okay but

i do i don't want to like risk it i

don't want to try it like i'm happy with

like you know my trust

listen listen then you are just raising

your background as an idol for its own

sake regardless of its content because

no like you put your family before other

people and you know i agree with you i

agree with you but but here's the thing

you don't have incest right

you have your family and then

uh like people that aren't irish but

they have like a weird kind of

pseudo-irish accent

and hold on i'm

this confusion and alienation or

whatever is a result of liberalism

because liberalism does not ignore the

president

the result of liberalism the fact that

they're there in the first place

you're like you're also scared to assert

like ethnic nationalism so you're just

like trying to get no

i'm trying to say this is what i'm

trying to say at that point you are not

as you don't actually care about the

essence or the content of what irish

people really are because that content

as far as form is concerned is undecided

maybe through the development of this

content the form can change right but if

you elevate it or remember

you are just creating a mythology of the

abstract cartesian subject of the

liberal subject you are betraying the uh

you're going to like extreme lens to say

that like people can't like choose to

live together without like millions of

migrants like coming

listen here's the thing this issue of

immigration again i said the same thing

in liberalism no differences are

acknowledged so there's a clear

confusion that uh i'm used to a certain

culture i'm used to certain ways of

living and now i am confronted with

other people who have a very different

way of living okay but dude

to

live in space like do groups have a

right to self-segregate

groups what do you mean countries have a

right to self-determination groups like

ethnic groups you know like if the irish

want to live amongst irish people and

not encounter uh these people for

whatever great reasons you saying i mean

like are you okay with that

i am not okay with creating a

supranational body that's going to force

certain policies on a certain country

so if a country pursues this path of

development that it wants to be

isolationist like what do you want me to

say do you think i think america should

intervene and uh

attack them no of course not but so

racism for instance i can still from a

distance not forcing my view on them say

that i disagree with this uh

this uh path that's

the beauty of self-determination is they

don't give a fuck what you think because

it's not you it's not your country

okay so in ireland

in ireland how like how so what do you

think if you were to run like a

plebiscite right now regarding

immigration how would that go do you

think that the majority of irish people

actually agree with you

uh well the last time we had a vote on

birthright citizenship it was the most

popular referendum ever it was like 92

percent voted against birthright

citizenship and anytime there's polls

taken on attitudes to immigration in

europe it's massively against the policy

there's always a majority but i don't

think european but here's what i my

analysis i don't think european people

do this because they have some notion of

ethnic purity i just think they're

shocked and confused uh because of this

encounter with uh people who have yeah

but that's not true why do you want to

like just

the reason is because they live under a

liberal system that does not afford them

like if if it's like if a group of

somalis live next to a group of finnish

people like they're okay like it's not

because of liberalism that's just like

incompatibility yeah

we are not allowed to acknowledge that

we are different

that's something

so like that's precisely it we're

we're different but then what's the

implication of that acknowledgement the

implication is maybe i don't want to

live next door

i mean the acknowledgment is since we

are different and this is our baseline

some kind of common uh encounter some

kind of authentic encounter becomes

possible because both are secure in

their own uh what about like we all live

authentically

just going back to somalia

in people through like this

kind of racialist pathology is

completely pathology

like normal healthy human beings

do we have people say we elevate the

form of our culture for its own sake uh

we will never ever encounter anyone else

this is because

we're like let's get some sub-saharan

africans this is incestual pathology of

modernity freud will describe this

clearly as a form of incestual pathology

yeah of course

is based on mutual encounter and mutual

development between different peoples

from different that doesn't mean we need

to be forced to live together

what do you mean forced to live together

you're not forced to live together now

yes it is mass immigration is against

the democratic will in pretty much every

country okay so who's who's pushing mass

immigration uh the ruling class the

capitalist are they communists are they

the communists no i'm an anti-capitalist

they're capitalist elites this is a new

form of neocolonialism where

colonialism you take the old world into

the new world for cheap labor

because you're run by liberals

sovereign country self-determination

leaves the eu

now it's a democratic state it's going

to curb immigration it's not going to

have this mass immigration fine but

ireland now cannot benefit from the

exploitation of the countries that

people are coming from remember if

there's no intervention

i don't know i don't want it exploited

of neo-colonial process

yeah so ireland has to somehow integrate

itself in the world order in the world

economy otherwise

ireland without messing with the ground

countries can have like an integrated

world order without mass immigration

yeah but

you know

the population of any country in the

world listen you are supposed to be in

ireland must address the

countries of africa and their specific

developmental uh situation if that

involves exchange of specialists from

ireland teach africans with their

education how to

uh so on teach them engineering and so

on and then africans come to ireland to

take advantage of um being able to send

money back home for like

mass immigration all i'm saying is that

it is pathological to think

that there is a lot of conservation of

purity the most human expression no kind

of uh

humans are tribal like

it has nothing to do with the tribes

nothing

i mean that's what like the ethnos is

it's just

it's not mass immigration is not a

communist policy mass immigration is not

a country no i'm not arguing with that

i'm not like

i know

i know but i think it's important to

note this right because because this

wasn't a democratic thing right as

you're saying it's not something people

adopted this is something that has been

forced down on two people it for the in

a lot of cases um but that isn't the

result of like communists like this is

the result of liberals

you have to fucking have

a actual republic but at the same time

yeah you have to hold you back

holding you back from that are not the

immigrants themselves those are not the

people who are keeping you from changing

these policies right so when you

apologize and you know but when you

apologize and you say if we expel them

if we expelled these immigrants then

suddenly everything would be fine and

then we would uh

hold on when you dehumanize immigrants

and speak about this

just go be human back in your own

country humanize them give me an example

because of this kind of language uh i'm

hearing from joel and so on you don't

have time for me

why disrespect why not be human i

haven't dehumanized them i think that

they would be better off in their

countries

they would say the same man

there's no need to disrespect

what they come

yeah i don't blame the individual

immigrants yeah joel

america now

against the characterization and no

decisions aren't you in america now like

you're australian why are you doing

fucking in my country get the fuck out

of here what are you doing here

is that

what okay

i'm like the same i'm the same

as you me and joel are again i don't

give a shit oh god taking the holidays

you're not an american

you don't actually appreciate you don't

appreciate america have you read the

book i'm sorry i thought this was

america i don't give a fuck

read a book called ethnos and sociology

by alexander duke and he will make it

very very clear ethnocenter

is like dugan is like on race

if

a somali becomes orthodox christian

they're russian and they know what i

mean

yes this is what happened

was african pushkin was an african uh

from african slaves african slave came

to russia became russian and there are

aristocratic poetry lineages within

russia descending from this uh

african guy and he became awesome

and then also the tatars and the turks

and all sorts mongols all sorts of

syncreticism is what defines the modern

russians the best the best the best

people

from the group

for thousands of years they've been

quite happy like with their own for

thousands of years it's only been a

continual encounter between different i

don't know man like the pashtuns have

been around a while the jews have been

around a while

all of those people are mixed in with

others

so like we should just like mix like the

whole world together you don't have to

go out of your way

it happens naturally why oppose it it's

not natural that's what i'm saying the

people like the naturals

that's like saying burying someone not

in your family isn't natural

it's not like saying that at all that

makes no sense you're the one that's

trying to force your natural thing

before liberalism this was the norm

that's what i'm trying to say

well i know man i mean doesn't the

existence of like lots of ethnic groups

show that like we've been becoming like

more diversified in terms of like

splitting off yes but this also

corresponds to mutual encounter between

different peoples it's one in the same

dialectic it's not

this the diversification i mean what is

the irish made up of what is irish made

up of irish

you've got fucking people with iberian

heritage you've got the uh the old and

like the old like um norsemen that were

like the way that it's being done now

there's no possibility of ethnogenesis

like this is like that's like a slow

organic process like if you look at

america today like

you have you guys are just defending

this because you're scared like this is

not natural

this is a modern neocolonial capitalist

position

in modern capitalism is one which

conceives ethnos and nationality as pure

forms

which have no dialectic

no all this happens is like racist

racist instructions

it's being specific because i don't

there is no white people like white

people is not a distinct category

we're talking about ethnicity and now

you're talking about race listen

liberalism whatever

is precisely what requires the formal

purity of the subject you are the

liberal

doesn't make any fucking sense

my ancestors for like thousands of years

were like liberals because they had a

sense of your answers are mixed with

other people's the story of irish

nationalism and like irish republicanism

is a very very old school you're irish

no there was yeah

is

my ancestors

uh gave birth to yours the phoenicians

you know that's like a theory right

okay but like what is like i don't get

like this isn't some like big btfo like

groups of mixed history okay like

i'm not saying force anything i'm just

saying if it happens naturally why be

scared

it's not happening naturally and i'm

saying people's groups should have the

right to resist it but you're like just

a priori against people no one go out

you go out and you you meet a nice you

meet a nice like middle eastern girl

who's uh came to came to ireland

yeah yeah you're gonna you're gonna stop

that for your racial purity really yeah

i want my kids to look like me what's

wrong with dad so so you you really like

this girl she's great right and then

you're gonna you're gonna turn her down

because you're gonna say i'm sorry but i

care about my race more than yeah this

is like

a genuine connection with someone the

kids look like me no no let me be fair

because i like people from my background

too most of the time right but if i meet

someone who's not from my background and

still

satisfies the essence of what i look for

someone then i'm not going to turn them

down just because they're from a

different background it's but if i only

turn them down just because they're a

different background

i'm betraying the essence of what i am

in the name of some adulteress uh

i want my kids to look like me

more but you know what you're not having

kids

i prefer my kids to look like me too but

here's the thing i am also at the mercy

of destiny at faith i'm not god i can't

say

i know

what i am exactly i don't know exactly

who i am and what i am that's something

suspended

i mean do you see the lens you're going

to like when me and joel are just like

yeah groups should be allowed to just

like have their own like living spaces

and like you know not have to deal with

other groups and like you're going like

to the lengths of like so you don't want

to take northern ireland back because

this is the eastern fine this is the

issue right why not leave all-stars

sovereignty and self-determination i

don't want anyone to be forced military

to do anything right but i can still

critique this position as from a human

and moral so on perspective without

forcing anything i can still

argue with it and say this is a false

path this is a false path all right well

is it a moral if someone wants their

children to look like them and just like

chooses not to miscegenate

well

from a cultural perspective

if you want people to look like you just

fuck your siblings

yeah

this is a terrible argument the optimal

like uh like uh amount of

drift

because the essence of what you truly

are is suspended in reality you have no

formal certainty over what that will

look like none

i don't know i can pretty much choose

where i'm at

that's what i'm trying well i know if i

have a kid with a black person uh my

child is going to be less genetically

similar to me than like some random

irish person i mean on the street so

what

so i want my children to be genetically

similar to me like this this is a weird

like this is like a weird bill gates

what's weird

this is like the most natural

no one has that no one sounds like

no one has more empathy for people are

genetically similar

and so on primordial realities it's

complete vulgarity

genetic what do you mean genetic genetic

means what

listen man your great grandfather would

have been like yeah i'll marry a spanish

catholic girl but no way would i marry a

protestant like this isn't how people

thought in history at all my

grandparents were saying

would marry a spanish catholic girl too

like

yeah exactly but

but so what so like isn't that a

non-genetics all right you know i don't

know

it's so different it's so fucking stupid

because what you're really saying is

that you're like obsessed with like this

eugenics notion that like your genes are

superior to other genes to keep them

pure it's just stupid but well not how

you're anyone in your family

we have been very modern

well we've been going for two hours and

a half you want me to run in what's up

let me

we can wrap it up let me run in the

callers real quick just on a lightning

round type deal because they have been

waiting a while if that's okay with

everybody this is a good shot by the way

yeah and i just let it go completely

basically just hands off

i was kind of open house would lose this

shit and i could see him

no has was like really well behaved yeah

i think it's because he he respects us

maybe there's like a 10 oh that's kind

of kind of cool human to me i'll act

human back that's what i always say all

right

all right let's let's run these guys i'm

human

uh mouse go ahead you're on the kill

stream

oh hey um i really really like the show

a lot i thought you guys talked about a

lot of interesting things um i do have a

few questions for um keith and joel

though um it seems to me like

most uh at least at the beginning or in

the middle of the debate there's a big

um the main point of contention was

whether or not um hitler

had uh rose to power because of the um

industrialist support

um

i mean keith pretty much it seemed to me

like he was seeding that hitler was

going out of his way at the very least

to get the support of these people and

he's

in my opinion seeded that at least after

hitler rose to power he had an ambiguous

support from

from these industrialists so how can he

like in good faith say that the fascist

position is somehow anti-capitalist when

he you know

speaks about a class collaboration in a

positive way

no i don't think they went out of the

way they got little support and they

turned leftward in 32 up to the 33

election

i mean yeah there's like a you know the

party existed for like 15 longer years

before they got into power of course

they're gonna like go looking for

funding somewhere but it was largely

unsuccessful

yeah but them being unsuccessful is not

like you see how that's not really yeah

but the reason they were unsuccessful

because they didn't like cook on

policies and just become like

pro-capitalist republicans or something

they like they're unsuccessful because

the industrialists could see that

they're interested in wine

so you think that the and what about

after they got empowered you do you

think that they will

just like leftist

basically is that like your point

because that's what it sounds like well

they subjugated capital to the interests

of what they considered the social good

so they were socialists

so you're saying you you aren't you like

are 100 sure that hitler fundamentally

was not like

he didn't see any ground you don't think

that's true i think he'll i think

hillary was making i mean maybe like you

know you could criticize this move or

that move

but

he was playing the cards that he was

dealt and the cards he was dealt were

very different he didn't come to power

through some social revolution that like

completely

upended the entire class structure with

this giant bureaucratic apparatus and

the way that you know mao come to power

you know what i mean like he's in a very

different situation and that was my

point from the very beginning which was

uh that i think you need to take into

consideration these uh other

material historical circumstances when

analyzing these different states and

understanding the states as

states as these autonomous entities that

exist in a complex structural strategic

environment

and marxism is

it's not like junk to me like there's

there's interesting insights in marx and

in the marxist tradition

but uh i think you need to add some

extra elements in there to really like

beef up your analysis to be able to make

sense of these things and when you do

you can kind of see

there's a lot there's a lot in common

between the national socialist fascists

and some of these

communist states in terms of some of the

goals that they had and what they were

dealing with but they were coming at it

from very different angles they they uh

they had very different ways of coming

to power different strategic situations

um

etc and so when you take those into

consideration i think ultimately if

mussolini or hitler could have cocked

the capitalists like if they had if they

didn't go to war and everything fell

apart and they had some time to like

develop the party and

i think they would have head in that

direction um where it would have ended

up looking

more and more like uh

similar to

not necessarily how china is today or

something but it would have looked more

and more like this kind of

a kind of like uh

bureaucracy that

basically subordinated capital entirely

to the state hitler hitler said to

generals in the wolf player in 1944 that

he wanted to establish racial unity in

germany by overcoming the capitalist

order and working for the construction

of a new classless society

that's the quote yeah i mean he did like

you look at some of like the like the

reforms uh to the economic system in bo

under both mussolini and hitler and you

can see they're heading in that

direction they're heading in a socialist

direction

no one can argue against that and and so

you know it's like you've got a risk

you've got to respect uh

process you can't expect people to just

when you when you come to power you

can't just like arbitrarily just do

whatever the fuck you want like that's

not how shit works in reality and that's

why i was um that's why i don't come

here to say like fuck stalin fuck lennon

fuck mal i actually respect all these

figures because i understand

they were making decisions that made

sense based upon the situations that

they were in and so this debate was not

so much uh where team fascist your team

communist and we're arguing about how

guys are better than your guys but it

was more

nuanced than that at least for me i

wanted to argue instead uh to like to

kind of uh get outside of these

ideological teams and uh

develop uh like a more nuanced analysis

of this stuff and i would say and i

think um

marxists have a tendency to be

very uncharitable towards fascist and i

think part of the reason why they do

that is probably just like smart because

they don't want to associate with

fascists because they have such a bad

reputation

uh because uh but

um you know it is what it is but i think

it's a good i think it's productive

discourse to have because um

you know looking at these states i think

tells us a lot about uh that's how you

really understand the 20th century

really and also it's

like the situation that we're in now in

the west like in the anglo-sphere in

particular

like we need to look to these states as

models for

like some signs of how the fuck we

progress because clearly you know

this kind of

gay liberal bs like sucks so

uh these

like you you can at least you know we're

not going to copy out and the lesson

that you should take is you can't copy

and paste from any of these other states

you have to respect your particular

circumstances all right i see a super

chat here first world ism says what's

even the disagreement in essence i kind

of talked about this a minute ago joel

did though reds browns

versus dark reds neither respect

people's liberties and principle of

private property china's incompetent

state quote yeah at amusing st and

abusing people and western government

now follow their example sad

uh

man your audience is full of liberals

ralph

uh let's see epstein didn't said rescued

from the af high school gang bullying

early and ralph amell let's fucking go

that's right we did start a little early

tonight neon noir says uh as you are

well i won't say what he said uh but he

insulted your um physiognomy there and

then he said you sit on twitch

collecting shekels all day you're a

communist thrown through

he said okay uh bd says uh have stopped

coping with the ml crap join us shout

out to new frontier hail keith hail joel

hell victory

um

let's see

prolific

something or another i won't you guys

not feel how cringey and larpy this is

like

it's a joke just like

uh it's not a joke though i've seen

tweets from you from like three years

ago where you're going about how great

national socialism is dude so like i

mean

i think that was only a year too old

ralph i hate to do but like i really do

i have a show i got to be going on soon

but so like it's cool all right just let

me run through i've got most of those uh

danny says if you can see this comment

wink at the camera okay there you go um

and then there's a couple more that i

won't read uh josh neal real quick let

me go through callers just real quick

there's only two more after this go

ahead get your point in real

quick if you can hear me

josh neal mr neil

uh silent josh neal silent partner in

tonight's episode i appreciate you

listening though all right now let's try

another one

big daddy matt go ahead

what's up guys what's up man go ahead

lightning round go

all right yeah i just wanted to say uh

that uh watching this uh watching keith

and joel destroy these two uh

losers was like watching an epic ira

bombing compilation

all right

i'm telling you do you you don't feel

like the cringe larpiness of this

you seriously find this like really

compelling and authentic all right i

don't know

i don't feel that way do you feel that

way i feel like we think we understand

really

yeah

can you believe that

yeah

yeah which one's talking right now

let's just let the audience decide all

right big daddy man thank you sir i

appreciate you getting that

all right good

what in the world all right hollywood

lightning round go

uh i just wanted to give a shout out to

keith and i know that has um you always

talk about how you win the base i just

wanted to know uh do you think he won

this debate as well thanks

all right thank you yeah i think on the

substantive points um i do feel

confident that i got my points across

and

yeah

so yeah uh frastestia go ahead last

caller

well i'll probably do a little bit of

kill stream after this last caller for

these guys go ahead

oh he's another

silent guy um all right you know what

i'll try josh neal josh neal did you get

it fixed real quick

uh oh i heard something but it wasn't

your voice that's the unfortunate part

all right synar sorry

thank you keith woods thank you joel

davis

uh thank you guys as well thank you uh

logo daedalus

um do you guys have anything else you

want to say here at the end

no i had fun it was cool to talk to us

for the first time

my logo was here as well

all right yeah overall i think it was a

productive discussion uh thankfully it

didn't get ugly you know which is nice

uh yeah i enjoyed myself i had a good

time so

yeah well i had a good time as well and

i want to thank all you gentlemen for

coming on and uh and i appreciate you

coming on the kill stream hope to have

you back and uh stay safe this weekend

this upcoming weekend

okay for sure alright see you later all

right peace out guys