Infrared TRIGGERS 'Reformist'

on the political spectrum i'd be far

left i'm a councilist and moreover a

left com

you can find me in the discord you can

find me on spotify at dillon blay

instagram at dillingblade underscore

um yeah generally speaking i'm taking a

super reformist approach and

an anti-vanguard approach tonight

all right

all right next up is oz welcome

hey what's up

better late than never um yeah so you

want to introduce yourself tell people

where you lie on the political spectrum

and where people can find you yeah i'm

haas um

i'm a marxist leninist

and uh i was interested in left

communism when i was 14 years old like

10 years ago so there's

a okay great um all right so here's what

we're gonna do each person can give an

opening statement can be as little as

one minute no longer than five about the

topic and your stance after that will

open up the floor to those watching if

you have any questions tag politically

provoked who your question is addressed

to we will jot them down and get to them

at the end we'll do closing statements

and final thoughts after the q a

so dylan

let's get going with their opening all

right

so today i'm here to discuss with my

opponent the practicality of reforms and

revolution i'll also be representing a

more bernsteinist reformist approach to

achieving socialism

i think personally the marxist leninist

approach to socialism bears no practical

value in the context of 21st century

america and many of the political

strategies that come with leninist

philosophy such as vanguardism are

obsolete especially now considering the

power exerted by the bourgeois

many historians agree that leninism has

the logical conclusion as well of

stalinism and although i'm not an

orthodox marxist my ideal outcome in my

opinion is the closest one one can get

to the marxist definition of communism

okay

um

yeah my position is basically that

um there's no such thing as marxism

without marxism leninism it's a complete

absurdity the only reason anyone cares

about marxism is because at one point in

history 25 of the world's population

lived under marxist leninist governments

and that is that those that's actually

the people who made marxism actually

relevant and mean something uh

hundreds of years

not hundreds but you know

a century and a half after marx died and

now the most powerful country on earth

with over a billion people

uh the ascendant power i should say the

soon to be most powerful country on

earth is led by a marxist leninist party

now there's a lot of claims

uh that are being made about

so-called leninist theories of

vanguardism

which doesn't make any sense to me as

someone who actually knows the history

uh

let you will not find these these

phrases in lenin's writings it was a

truism for all marxists in lenin's time

that the proletariat can only fulfill

its interests through an independent

party

um this was true for the european social

democrats at the time

it only stopped being true possibly uh

during the period of uh

the so-called left communists

which uh emerged around the time after

this first world war

as a reaction to the decay of western

social democracy

um finally

i would like to challenge dylan as to

where in marx's writings does marx

define communism

as a

you know a certain type of

society with x and y characteristics as

far as i know as someone who's actually

read marx himself

and not twitter leftists

mark said

by communism we mean the real movement

which sublates the present state of

things

he was pretty blunt about the fact that

there's no blueprint for communism

there's no

idealized vision for what a communist

society is supposed to be

um i mean this much is evident in both

marx and engles writings consistently so

i'm not really sure where he's getting

this idea of uh

you know an end goal of communism from

so i guess we're opening up the floor

here right

basically the definition i'm trying to

achieve is the you know i'm sure you've

heard this one countless times it's the

stateless classless money-less society

right

and in a sense i'd argue that i'm more

of a revisionist than anything so the

goal is to try and get to that

definition whether it was written by

marks or not i really don't give a shit

however that being said i think that's

the ideal outcome considering there is

value to statements like the workers

should own the means of production and

we should have a dictatorship of the

proletariat

so really what i'm trying to get at here

is that it doesn't matter to me what

marx wrote however whatever marx wrote

did lay down the groundwork for the

ideas that i'm basically espousing today

and how was that people misinterpreted

it or not okay how is that how did marx

lay the foundation for your ideas go

ahead

okay

so i guess you can look at like uh well

i think certain ideas perpetuate you

know uh

this very pro-working-class set of

ideologies right like when we look at

the labor theory of value something like

that is absolutely something that was

invented by the classical political

economist and not marx himself

right but marx disposed it and the thing

is is that when marx what do you mean

many argue that marx was the first

devastating critique of the labor theory

of value anticipating its eventual

abandonment through marginalism and

others i guess mark i'm not necessarily

a labor theory of value person as i'm

more of a subjective theory of value

type of person however that being said

the way in which this was written about

led to you know

whether it was misinterpreted or not

this is sort of how we got to where was

that can you elaborate about how it was

written so we can actually be clear

about why we're talking about marx

because we don't have to talk about marx

i mean i just want to know i mean

generally speaking i'm not really here

to talk about marx but i think that you

know in terms of like when you know you

see the communist manifesto and the

impact that's had on broader society

i think that you know which impact do

you have in mind do you have the impact

of um

leading to an outcome of the world's

you know largest countries being ruled

by communist parties effectively

transforming the world or are you

talking about like noam chomsky talking

about it in like no no i'm talking about

obviously like the bolsheviks and the

october revolution like the people who

made the whole thing relevant right yeah

so i don't disagree with you on that

front i agree in every context that

they're like socialist countries there's

nothing to disagree upon right here so

what i find so what i want to get at is

what i'd like to ask you is um

you're basically saying marxism leninism

has no applicability in 21st century

america whatsoever

um and you call yourself a council

communist and burns and all this so

you're basically talking about the

things that were never successful in

seizing power uh or affecting any

meaningful change or transformation for

their countries and you're basically

saying that the people who were

successful are actually the failures so

i'm interested to know why they're

failures in your mind yeah so my big

issues with things like revolutions

especially when we apply it today is

that it's impractical to apply something

like a revolution we look at the context

of the october revolution we're talking

about imperial russia under the tsar

right there's obviously not a lot of

infrastructure it's a monarchy the

people are getting fed up with it

there's of course broader socialist

movements like the mensheviks and all of

these other parties right that represent

you know sort of these communist ideals

and necessarily while that was practical

at the time i don't necessarily think

that can be applied to a country like

america today with the you know the most

over inflated military budget in the

world and the fact that i think the only

way that we're going to ever achieve

some type of actual socialism in america

is through reforms

okay um

so did marxist invent revolutions is

that what you're trying to say or no no

no so what did marx what did bolsheviks

and marx island is what do they since

you know i mean i guess you know right

what do they actually say about

revolutions and the relationship they

have to the process of uh arriving at

political power do marxist leninist

marxism leninism like i'm not sure if

you want to talk about like actually

what lenin wrote or yeah

i was more so referring to the practice

and the fact that

there was a revolution you know that did

take place in

i feel like this type of leninism and

which

there was a revolution but whose fault

was that

that there was a revolution was it

lenin's fault or did the revolution

happen before

lenin wrote his april thesis and the

october revolution following an actual

revolution that the bolsheviks had

nothing to do with

likewise for the chinese did they enact

uh some kind of revolution or was that

the republicans there were chinese

republicans who enacted the overthrow of

the qing dynasty the japanese who

invaded chinese soil i mean

marx marxist lenders don't really have a

reputation for voluntarily just

declaring that they want the revolution

and then acting upon that impulse

the whole point of marxism and marxism

leninism isn't to just put your foot in

the ground and say we need a revolution

it's more so

recognizing the objectivity of

revolutions and preparing a party

uh

making a party means sorry means that's

a weird word making it uh prepared and

tested and cognizant of the fact that

revolutions are things that happen

objectively the state does not come from

thin air the state has material premises

and it will be tested by those material

premises and in those such moments the

party must be prepared for a

revolutionary moment i don't know why

communists or whatever you want to call

them

should shoot themselves in the foot and

say no revolutions will never happen and

the state is eternal and it'll always

just exist and it'll never encounter

institutional or structural crisis

like the ones we're seeing now in

america we should just sit back and let

biden and the liberals take care of this

and we should not seek to seize hegemony

over the war of how

the american people make sense of this

institutional crisis right so i think

it's more over an important thing that

the in a way we initially get our foot

through the doors with social reforms

like you look at politicians whether you

like them or not bernie sanders i mean

uh if we talk about like you know

medicare for all and we put that into

practice that's going to you know

remove some type of hierarchical

distinction between people who are in

the working class and people who are you

know the bourgeois

yeah maybe i'm focusing too much on

labels i'm a little bit confused you

call yourself a council communist but in

one of lenin's writings which is

left-wing communism and infantile

disorder

where he critiques uh the council

communists and other left communist uh

tendencies he actually lays out pretty

explicitly that

communists operating in the so-called

advanced western countries

they may have declared bourgeois

democracy dead in their head but it's

not actually dead for the masses this is

at almost ad verbatim what lenin said it

may be

uh abolished in your head but it's not

abolished in reality as far as the

masses are concerned so communists um

who in this case would be marxist

leninist because they're following the

teachings of lenin

have to be

have a patient attitude be cognizant of

the objective and material realities and

have to work

uh within

the existing form of politics which

means you have to work in parliament so

you have to work to get

so-called

reforms passed that actually comprise

the site

of political struggle the real one that

exists not the one that you think is is

the best one

i mean this this has been the consistent

communist policy throughout the history

of the 20th 20th century by communist i

mean like the the common turn and

um

the soviet-led and later

lesser extent chinese led communist

internationals

no one has ever

like

had this view of this adventuristic or

volunteeristic view where it's like yeah

we should just have a revolution and

ignore the current political realities

it's like if you're a

party you're building an independent

party you just say we want to overthrow

the government

i mean how can you just say you can't

just say that you know you're right you

won't have the support of anyone

um

you're not going to be working within

the existing political reality and uh

you know like marxist leninist would

call this a kind of adventuristic ultra

left an anarchist deviation

yeah so personally i'm obviously not

with them i was just more here to talk

about the context of which we can

actually lower discrepancies you know in

wealth between the bourgeois and the

proletarian right which i think is an

important thing to think about moreover

than objective revolutions that happen

and i think that if a revolution were to

happen because they do happen regarding

material conditions and societies that

exist and take place right

i think a society in which uh sort of

the you know the ruling class or the

bourgeois have less power and they can

exert less power on top of all these

people right like the proletarian in

which we tax them more and we use that

money to

sort of raise people out of poverty

because we are capable to distribute

these resources in a way that positive

benefits society

the problem is that

i'm not

against

obviously i'm not against weakening the

power of the ruling class

but you will not accomplish this i mean

you may as well that will that may as

well lead to a revolutionary crisis if

the state has its basis in a ruling

class

and you are seeking to undermine the

power of that ruling class

history shows that it is inevitable the

ruling class will resort to extra legal

and extra state means

to repress their opponents the state

does not have a real independent

existence outside of its basis in a

ruling class especially right now in

america we can locate this specific uh

ruling class and its various uh factions

right so i i completely agree with you

that the ruling class obviously resorts

to extra legal you know ways of keeping

the proletarian down however

like when you look at this and you see

the fact that we are taking resources

from them and we are lowering

discrepancies right because i'm trying

to provide opportunities to these

members of the working class through

getting them you know access to

healthcare education all of these things

so they can sort of

raise themselves up and out of poverty

right i don't want them you know if

we're if we were to have a revolution

which i see as more of a

sort of desperate last push as opposed

to a cause i just i want to ensure that

we have infrastructure in place and that

the only essentially the revolution that

we are having if we are to you know

sort of remove anyone from power it's

these

bourgeois capital owners because

necessarily i don't think that we need

to like um

get rid of

any types of like politicians more so

the people who stand in the way of the

revolution like outright

so in the history of marxism and marxist

leninist inherited this this was the

period of social democracy

there was a distinction that was made

between the minimal program and the

maximal program so the minimal program

are the things that you're talking about

right infrastructure

whatever happens to be the

point of political contention of today

medicare for all and then the maximal

program is like the

further out kind of seizure of power the

proletarian dictatorship that kind of

thing right

right now

um the pursuit of the minimal program is

the basis of how you operate in in

politics right but what marxists

anticipate and recognize is that if

you're actually successful in really

building a movement

uh which is capable of seeing through

these changes that threaten the power of

the ruling class

it is inevitable and this is why you

have to be prepared it is inevitable

um that you will lead to

a political crisis in which the ruling

class will make the necessity of

revolution or something of that matter

up at a certain point

uh inevitable

right now i guess we really kind of

agree on this then and don't we because

i i do agree with that of course the

ruling class is going to make it so it's

necessary at some point

you know when they start to stand in the

way because they realize that their

power is being essentially seized from

them or tried to be taken away from them

that we you know essentially

they have to fight back so at any point

the way we take the you know

sort of these people in positions of

power out of power

is through some type of final push

whether it's like

a revolution or anything like that

whatever means of well usually what

happens is that they resort to forms of

extra legal intervention that lead to a

breakdown of the legitimacy of the state

and the institute they resort to like

they use the state to do things that the

state itself considers illegal and extra

institutional and this basically

annihilates the state

this is more sort of an important factor

that i think is important to take in

consideration when i'm talking about

reforms which i think is

right but the the whole point of

marxists

need to create a party for as far as not

just marxist leninist but marxist in

general the whole point is to create a

party that is capable of weathering this

surviving this and preparing itself for

this eventual outcome of having an

alternative um

vision for statehood that that will

allow it to contend for hegemony

um the the theory of mar i mean this is

even before fascism right the idea of

the social democrats

was

um

the destruction of liberalism is

inevitable but

uh it will lead to some kind of horrible

tragedy in the short term

without being if it's not led by the

proletariat

uh

basically that's fascism right

fascism who i mean there was no lenin

that was forcing this fascism to happen

it happened

um

you know the the some kind of

fundamental change in liberalism is

inevitable right

i i agree with that but like are you i i

just want to understand what kind of

context you're coming at this from is

this like the tendency for the rate of

profit to fall or like it's it's a it's

okay yeah it's a combination of a number

of things so on the one hand you have

economic crisis that's a big one right

and with economic crisis comes a

breakdown of legitimacy of the state

you also have another thing marxists

would call um revolutions in the forces

of production

and according to marx's theory

um the content

the form of the state and the

institutions always lags behind the

content of

uh the forces of production

revolutionizing

so when this happens all of a sudden the

state and its institutions become

outdated with regard to

some kind of more fundamental historical

and technological change

and at that point

um it becomes a site of political

antagonism and so on and so on so

there's many factors it's not just the

you know specific economic crisis but

it's also

the inability for states

yeah

okay

wow i i'm just i don't know i was

surprised that you and i would agree on

this essentially i mean i think you and

i generally were both pretty well on the

same page for this end of things i i

don't know i just i i try to look

through you know some of your content on

youtube to see if i could find like a

concrete position on this

and it was difficult to find but i

didn't have much time to

sort of comb through that right

um

i mean we can move on to vanguard

parties right because there's something

i'm sure you and i have like an absolute

disagreement on okay sure

right

so my argument is that vanguard parties

when

used and this is this extends past

leninism like we look at the nazi

vanguard party

as well

um i think the transferal of power into

the hands of revolutionaries just

creates

a newer bourgeois class

okay

what transfer are you referring to

so essentially if you have a vanguard

party that comes in and has a revolution

against the state and they come and

seize the power in the state and we

essentially we have these oligarchic

sort of because i i think that that the

revolutionaries themselves when they

come into power

they still have control over the

resources the state previously had

disposal of and of course since there's

i don't necessarily think there's a

dictatorship of the proletarian in the

sense that there's not really a direct

democracy and or the fact that these

vanguards can use the resources against

the people to oppress them

moreover a changing of power into

different hands

okay this is quite a sweeping claim so

the reason i asked you why is there a

transfer of power first before we get

into the other stuff is

the idea that there's a transfer of

power to the party assumes that there is

some kind of

spontaneous

sovereignty of the people that the party

steals but actually there is no

expression of sovereignty of any people

of any class of any collective

outside a specific organ of

representation and reflection

and this is what a party is

the issue that you're describing finally

for the second issue and we actually can

look at history to see if this is

actually what happened or not

what you're describing is corruption

that's what it would be called

corruption so basically people are using

the state they're using their position

of power

uh to fulfill personal

pathological ends right you know right

so do not think that that's like

almost inevitable with a vanguard party

considering

you set up these conditions that allow

a small class or small group of people

to be the ones to immediately have these

assets

okay the issue is and exercise authority

over people which is my big issue with

the whole concept of a vanguard party

right do you want to let me know i'm not

going to deny the practicality of it in

the context of china under mao right

you want to learn

even under dang right like if

hold your horses please do you want to

let me finish here

yeah sure okay

so what you're describing is corruption

because

even though the

it's really awkward to say like the

resources are in the hands of the party

but how is it like directly is there a

form of direct control or is it more

indirect through enterprises and organs

like does the party directly have the i

mean you have to we'd have to get into

like information theory and talk about

the details of soviet planning

throughout the various stages of its

existence but no the party did not

have like direct control over everything

to the point where individuals can just

be openly corrupt

now the problem of corruption

is an inevitability of any state it's

not unique to the form of a party it is

any state on planet earth is going to

have a problem with corruption

we do find in history is that actually

communist states are uniquely disposed

with the ability to eliminate corruption

uh more even more so than bourgeois

democratic states because in bourgeois

democratic states

corruption even discounting the ones

that exist secretly

is legal you know it's legal in the form

of open bribery of politicians by

special interests in order to fulfill

their goals and you know politicians

using their special personal connections

and so on and so on so

um

the issue of corruption

i need to just say something really

quickly yeah do you not think that

in the immediate aftermath of there

being a revolution which often leads to

a period of crisis and lack of

infrastructure systems and social safety

nets so that people can rely on these uh

leaving these sort of decisions in the

hands of a select few people where they

can make these decisions especially

considering immediately we put all the

power in the hands of these people

because but you haven't that's the thing

you you haven't so you said we put our

hands in the power of the people but

there is no we again any collective mass

people

any

country right it doesn't have a

spontaneous form of unreflexive

sovereignty its expression of

sovereignty will be mediated in the form

of some kind of representative organ

okay so there is no we

giving them power

right so do you think giving control to

that representative organ can allow the

representative organ to oppress people

if you are that representative organ is

controlled by a small group of people

and of course this doesn't give the

actual working class for literally i

don't know if you

have a hearing problem and you can't

hear me but i'll repeat it again

when you say we are handing control who

is we what control did you have before

you handed it to them who are you to

hand them control what what are you who

are you are you an orphan you're

essentially a worker leaving it in the

reigns of these revolutionaries and yeah

you may have had a sin who the

revolutionaries are but how they act

after you

how how they act so now you're talking

about the transfer of power occurs is

you're talking about workers now so what

you mean to say is

workers hand the control over to the

party right

right

so what form of control did workers have

before they so-called handed it over to

the party

not much i mean

not sure we're talking about things

they had none at all because in order to

have control you have to have

organization and organization is the

beginning of a form that stands apart

and is

intelligibly distinct from the

unreflexive flux of

spontaneous masses

so other than a philosophical difference

what what differentiates the vanguards

from the previous people who

you know because if the revolution

there's an immediate transfer of the the

vanguard represents the interests

of the people so i'm a vanguard and i

just say all right i've gotten myself

into this position by manipulating and

conning my way around and doing all this

stuff is that how they got into their

position i think that's what i think

that's a rank

revision of history is that how the

vanguard so-called vanguard got into its

position that's not true when in what

circumstance was it true that the

vanguard party got into the position of

power through the use of machiavellian

cunning and manipulation that's just not

true right so do you not think that

that's not very possible because this is

a damn real thing that could happen with

like

okay

politicians routinely and you like if

you want to talk about machiavellianism

like hell i mean even look at like

stalin that was his favorite book like

the prince

okay we can talk about stalin in a

second because i actually do want to

talk about stalin um in a second but

i think what you're not really

recognizing when you're over inflating

the significance of corruption is that

politics is actually an objective

intelligibly distinct sphere

uh from the sphere of civil society and

its various private individual interests

there is an objective sphere of politics

now if a so-called vanguard is just

going to completely ignore and forget

about its original mission and just

become immediately corrupt it probably

won't have it probably won't be able to

maintain power for very long that's the

simple truth um states

right so what kind of checks and

balances come into play to hold the

vanguard party accountable

the notion

we're talking about a lot of things at

once so checks and balances is a form of

what marxists would call bourgeois

formalism and i'll explain why so in the

case of checks and balances you try to

make the objective and material premises

of state rule

you try to formalize those right because

the state is not all powerful that's

just objectively true no state is all

powerful it is literally impossible

states have a material premise they have

a material premise

in a certain class or they have a

material premise in general in the

people and the people over whom they

rule and preside over without this a

state could not last right as putin said

no state can survive without the

legitimacy coming from the people

and one difference they can coerce well

let me finish half of the state dylan

dylan let me finish my point because

it's really important

okay

what marxist would reproach with saying

is that you don't actually need to

formalize these material premises

because they're active actively

suspended in reality if you study the

history of communist states

and even today's communist china

you will see how the communist party is

very receptive and very cognizant of the

feedback that it's getting on the ground

from the people

and there's a dynamic relationship

between the two so when you ask the

question what are the checks and

balances the checks and balances come

from the public itself over whom their

residing power communist party is not

all-powerful it is not all-knowing and

it is not omnipotent it gains its

legitimacy in its

logistical and

operative uh

mechanisms from a dialectic relationship

with the people

right so you don't think a party could

basically come in and you know allocate

resources in a certain way shape or form

to say the military to keep the military

over like ruling and you know

essentially

kind of coercing people into doing jobs

and with the threat of death or things

like that because people are going to be

essentially if it becomes a work or die

dichotomy then they're probably going to

choose work in in that case

first of all

um

it's not a work or diet dichotomy it's a

in a circumstance of war

which is the civil war it's a work or

diet dichotomy not because you're going

to get shot if you don't work because if

you don't work no one's going to be able

to eat

right food doesn't come from the sky so

if you don't work how are we going to

feed ourselves and clothe ourselves and

shelter ourselves right someone has to

do this this work

uh in a period of crisis when you're

pressed directly to those conditions

um

[Music]

now second of all this stuff about

allocating resources to the military

well in the later stages of the soviet

union's existence after world war ii

a huge proportion of its resources and

so on were allocated to the military but

does this represent a form of corruption

or does this represent the soviet union

trying to secure itself against the real

and imminent danger posed by a

aggressive

um

west and america who had revitalized

their own military industrial complex

clearly anticipating some kind of war

if you can't protect your state you will

be squashed and eliminated so how are

you supposed to protect

your

sovereignty

and your uh own state

right

you would rather advocate that

soviet peoples and other peoples living

in communist countries they should just

allow foreigners to completely seize

their country and see as they do fit

with their country

not really that's not necessarily if you

don't have a very powerful military

that's what's going to happen

right so you can have a powerful

military which is obviously the way that

you know bolsheviks after world war ii

went about it right

i mean china as well they have a very

powerful military

but essentially to sort of avert the

kind of crisis that come with allocating

so many resources directly to the

military instead of actually like

because there's going to be

discrepancies from a point of where the

military gets all these resources the

resources that are going to be given to

the people are lesser so essentially

what i'm trying to advocate for here is

through reforms essentially

i think america which is what the

leading power in the world right now

right yeah and we can't be there

is completely bankrupt because you used

an example of the soviet union's need

to have a powerful military

as an example for why reforms are

necessary but in order to argue that you

have to argue that in the context of

the events of the collapse of the

russian empire your path your special

path

would have been preferable or more

possible even than uh the bolshevik way

so the thing is i'm not necessarily

trying to argue this in the context of

bolshevik you know then then you can

kind of argue though for

modern day america right i want to talk

about contextualizing but you the

reasoning you're giving for why it is in

modern day america we need so-called

reformism is because you're saying

a powerful military will be necessary

well a powerful military at the time was

still oppressed by the you know well

more expansive and powerful west

so i think that the only way one can

really achieve true socialism from here

is have the dominant power in the world

essentially reformed to socialism in

some capacity that was the prevailing

view

um

among marx angles and marxists for and

the bolsheviks themselves

until the facts of history proved

otherwise

the fact of the matter is that um

you cannot gamble on

the fact of the matter is that it was a

misinterpretation

of that was really coming from the

baggage of hegelian idealism that

revolutions will begin

from the advanced countries well as

we're seeing this theory has already

been disproven china

was

centuries behind america when the

communist party seized power and now

china is genuinely catching up and

remaking the world

the theory is being disproven right

before our eyes

that america

uh

success and victory of socialism depends

upon

a revolution in the most powerful

country because america will not be the

most powerful country forever right so

my big issue is that

america using the resources at its

disposal because you and i agreed

earlier

that the strongest power in the world is

going to you know push back if it is

threatened right so i think you and i

agreed on that

so when america essentially it's going

to become a battle of china and america

which i'd argue it's already started

becoming

and and the big concern is that the

superpower that is america is going to

repress china if china you know is

leading the socialist movement yeah

there's they're under a constant threat

china has

a long-term strategy that is not

dependent upon what we in america do

we uh so-called communists in america

need china china does not need us we are

the ones who have to learn from china

the most successful

right so china's going to become

threatened at an eventual point by

america whether it's in and i'm not

talking about it living in america they

already are under threat by america and

the liberal sort of democratic

establishment is the one you know

threatening china they've been trying to

misinform and spread it misinformation

about china to get people to turn their

backs in the west on the ideals of china

and eventually it's going to become

threatened enough that china is going to

get serious pushback from america and

america is going to

i'd argue go for some kind of war with

china i agree but the leaders of china

are anticipating this and preparing for

it and if you ask me the odds do not

look good as far as uh

america's prospects at being successful

in this endeavor

so that's that's a big fundamental

concern for me though is that the most

powerful

democracy or not like liberal democratic

bourgeois country with these resources

that it has you know available to it is

going to come in and essentially stop

the entire movement

and it's capable of that in this very

moment and if

you know china becomes more and more of

a threat that's what it's going to come

to and i'd argue that

militaries you know in the west are

going to form alliances and find ways to

oppress china so

i'm not sure what this point is about i

agree that uh communists should work to

do the best they can to win in america i

agree with that

in order to prevent war and so on and so

on i'm just making the point that

china is not waiting for us so right so

i'm trying to say that the best method

of going about achieving global

communism and socialism without actually

having an immediate threat or presenting

threats to

um like well everyone's basically lives

of everyone are jeopardized when you

know america starts going well you have

to go to war we'll we offer these

incentives to the military and the

people who fight in these battles right

so i'd argue which i've tried been

trying to argue this whole time that the

reforms that one can make in america to

get to a point where we become the sort

of you know the proletarians in america

and canada and all throughout north

america and then you know basically

established strong infrastructure

western democracies and western nations

which have their issues rooted in

liberal democracy however there's

opportunities available in which you

know

the global communists can seize even if

it's minor positions of power

which

i mean it might not be like it might not

necessarily make a difference in the

long run however

any effort in you know preventing the

loss of life and casualties caused by

essentially revolutions is

what i'm arguing from this ultra

reformist approach and then eventually

like it's basically a brand of like

centrist marxism i'm sure you've heard

that term thrown around right

that i'm in between i tether in between

reform and revolution however i'm

leaning reform because i think that's an

important approach to setting up

the conditions in which the proletarian

can lose you know have the least

casualties suffer for the least you know

grave dangerous and you know

uh

right

and essentially set up

a better

i guess you'd say overall world

considering now communists and chinese

like chinese and american communists and

socialists are the ones who are you know

at the forefront

are you done

yeah

okay

i think the issue here and i tried to

point this out to you before

is that you're treating politics like a

strategy game where you have control and

you actually can choose what outcome it

is

revolutions are very unpleasant things

that's the truth there's nothing

pleasant about revolutions i agree

right so wouldn't you say then the most

immediate thing we can do is try to

control for all the variables possible

because

i think the best thing you can do right

now is stop interrupting me because

i think you're just kind of

embarrassing yourself

how am i embarrassing myself

well because

you're you're not letting me

i don't know i'm i'm trying to explain

it to you but you just keep interrupting

me right so i've responded to i'm trying

to just i just did it again

no he just finished his statement there

in which i didn't finish anything you

just interrupted me you made a statement

and i'm responding to that statement how

do you know that that was my statement

because you stopped talking can you just

shut up for a second

christ

politics

is not a strategy game

we may agree that revolutions are

unpleasant but that does not address the

question of whether they're an

inevitable fact of reality

if and we all we have to do to

understand that they're an inevitable

fact of reality is recognize the fact

that no state

is eternal no state is divine no state

is omnipotent states come from dust and

unto dust they shall return

states have a material basis

that cannot be controlled premised or

legislated by the forms

uh

that are within the power of the state

itself to establish in other words

the basis of state power

is something the state itself cannot

legislate formally or establish

so if we recognize this fact

that revolutions aren't inevitable

however unpleasant they are

this is like if you're a hunter

and you're in a jungle

and

well do you like lions and do you like

tigers probably not they're pretty

unpleasant but if you're really gonna

provide for your family in this jungle

and be a fucking man you better prepare

yourself for those lions and those

tigers and you better

mold yourself in the image of a warrior

who can fight lions and tigers and be

cognizant and accept that reality

likewise a revolutionary

isn't somebody who goes around

uh advocating for revolution because

they want to enjoy the chaos and turmoil

of a revolution a revolutionary is just

someone who prepares for the inevitable

fact and who's

sobering up to the cold hard truths of

this world it's like growing up but

moreover what confuses me is that i

thought that on the question of this

business of revolution the matter was

settled these were your words not mine

i thought now we're moving on to the

question of the vanguard party but it

seems like you're all over the place

talking about china and america and

militaries and i just don't know what

topic we're on

right so my big issue with that is that

it seems to deny the fact that politics

has in fact been a strategy game

historically it's all about who

conceives power and immediate positions

of it which is why i don't understand

what like what angle you're coming at

this from because revolutionaries can

prepare themselves obviously for to

fight this big war and fight these

revolutions and you know seize power

however it would probably be in the

revolutionary's best interest their you

know the faction in which they're trying

to

lead to you know success to have the

least casualties and suffer the most

this is going to get the most people on

board with your movement

and you know ensure the success of your

movement essentially again politics has

an element of strategy to it and i don't

know why that's not being factored in

here because okay

this is why politics is not a strategy

game

in the case of a strategy game you are

an impersonal uh omnipotent actor

you are confined by a certain level of

rules but your

your camera's hoisted up into the sky

you're like a god looking down

and you get to choose what happens you

get to choose the outcomes that happen

right but in real life you actually

don't get to choose what reality is

reality has an objectivity

that you have to surrender and submit to

otherwise

you will fold and be crushed by it

you will just be eliminated

the bolsheviks prevailed because in the

context of the czars russia they speak

it was a speed run right if you want to

talk about video games it was a speed

run they speed run the process by which

the most tough

resilient

wise smart people

were the ones that endured and

eventually seized power because the

people who had your mentality in zara's

russia they would just die in siberia

and then they'd fold and then that's it

they didn't have a they didn't stand a

chance because they weren't tough enough

to accept the cold hard truths of the

reality

and so one can accept the cold hard

truths of reality and still play

politics as though it were a game

people are subjugated constantly to the

laws and the conditions that surround

our state

if you don't think that people function

out of an individual mindset with this

imperative for survival and all of these

other factors because if someone has the

ability to exert power over other people

they can remove the resources necessary

for this person's survival they're

essentially coercing them to defend

something that they may not want to

defend

so on top of this all they have to

factor in their own survival rate and

all these other things i think they're

not guardians

i don't know what you're talking about

are you saying that

what are you saying

so i'm saying that politics essentially

especially as people who live in the

western world

if we're trying to factor you know in a

way for americans and communists to

seize power over here or find a way to

power over here it is going to have to

work within the framework of liberal

democracy because we don't have the

resources available to us to essentially

find some way to

lead some kind of uprising or movement

like the movement is so incredibly small

that there's going to have to be a level

of this politics game played in order to

essentially be successful

okay

i don't see how that shows that politics

is a game it's not a game it's

absolutely a game if i'm a

like democratic socialist or whatever

who gets elected into public office and

i find ways to make people agree with me

i've got to play these games like okay

here you go i've you know

i've bended my knee and i've given

medicare for all and i've given all

these policies and all these reforms to

make people want to agree with me so the

game i'm playing here is that when i

essentially offer these policies to the

people it's not just in an effort to

increase their quality of life but it's

to make them agree with me

here's the problem here's the problem is

that communists are not bending their

knees

uh you can be bending your knees that's

fine

um ben this is what when i'm saying this

because

when you talk about politics you just

kind of sound like like mussolini like

you're not actually participating in the

class struggle you're just cynically

kind of

in a detached

way kind of just operating in it in

order to fulfill some kind of final ends

this isn't

a communist position even as far as the

relation between the minimum and maximal

program is

lenin is very clear about the fact

that it's it's not just the fact that

you have to use the system it's that you

don't have your own system you can pull

out of your ass you're in reality you're

participating in this reality it's not a

game this is a reality it is a real

sight of struggle and you have to be

cognizant of that fact and participate

in it because that's where the reality

is it's not a question of

what is the final goal or what is the

final ends

um it's a question of that

right so the material conditions

surrounding the fact that i'm trying to

make the world a better place for

everyone to work in class especially

when i play my little politics game

which i've said and you can say this

that i'm being cynical that i'm doing

this you know machiavellian thing or

whatever but i'm acting like when i

legislate and choose to be you know some

kind of legislator i'm acting in sort of

altruistically in the best interest of

the people yeah that's that's my way

that was the the bourgeois socialists of

the communist manifesto the fabians who

thought that they were elevated above

all struggle and that they were

empathetically acting like daenerys

targaryen as a benevolent kind of

aristocrat uh for the right so i don't

need to act like a benevolent aristocrat

i can come from like a very grassroots

position and still help people through

playing the game of politics

if that's what leads to better outcomes

conditions

but there's people who think like you

like aoc and aoc just sits on her ass

and can't do anything when she's in

power so

i mean maybe you can do it go do it

don't let me stop you you know hey i'm

going to try and do it that's

essentially the plan and yeah i think

aoc and her okay and

and is there is there gonna be like are

you gonna have like um

a measurement of like okay now i realize

i failed and i don't know what i was

talking about like how many years will

it take for you to realize that you're

wrong like

if you fail i mean i'm gonna have to

like actually experience this firsthand

yeah you want to talk about experiencing

objective reality then i'm going to have

to go through the paces of essentially

leading my

little conquest of socialism or whatever

this is but i don't think that through

playing the game of politics you can

deny the very real

um

benefits in the western world that

someone like bernie sanders has provided

to the movement

yeah but i think we would disagree about

why you know and then the second thing

is do you watch game of thrones

no

are you sure

yeah i think you're getting a lot of

things from game of thrones

nope

i just heard about friends

i've never watched an episode of game of

thrones okay

well

i i think we've gotten off topic and

you're talking about your idea of what

you want to do and i don't know why it's

relevant do what you want to do don't

let me stop you i don't know

but

um

i don't see how you put forward a

convincing argument for why

uh communists should not strive to have

independent parties

so i don't have an issue with communists

having independent parties like that's

not my problem with the vanguard my

problem is with

the relationship between the proletarian

and some of the vanguards

and i think what is that relationship

we need to reduce the amount of harm

felt by the working class

and this is you know you're saying oh

you need to prepare yourself for this

fucking revolution all this shit right

my thing is it's if this is avoidable in

any way shape or form we can try to

avoid it and we can move in a direction

where we can you know reduce the harm

that's essentially the goal here and of

course there's going to be suffering of

course there's going to be strife and

i've accepted that that is a just a fact

like you said of objective reality

however that being considered

any way to reduce or minimize the harm

and of course minimize the loss of

people who actively participate in the

movement because if there's blood shed

that means you're losing valuable

members of the part of the party of the

movement so i think you're basically

arguing play politics and get away from

that

okay i don't think this is a discussion

about the philosophy of harm reduction

which i don't agree with anyway

but

so you're speaking for yourself i don't

share your philosophy that the whole

goal is to reduce suffering it sounds

like a western buddhist like

you know

hippy shit that i have nothing to do

with

but all right when i'm

i'm trying to reel us back into a

discussion about why

we shouldn't why i should not strive

for an independent party you mentioned

that you do you have an issue with the

relationship

vanguards have with the proletariat

and i just don't know what you're

talking about when you say things like

that

so the thing is throughout this whole

conversation you've been saying all this

stuff that has to do with oh you know

states will wither in the dust but

states will put up resistance and when

the state puts up resistance this can

lead to destroying the working class as

well and the people who live within this

country which is why i've been talking

about playing politics this whole time

this machiavellian approach well yeah it

might seem like sinister but the the end

goal is supposed to be altruistic

that that makes for like a good tv show

but

i'm sure it does but still what i'm

trying to say is that

okay you so what you're saying is that

uh i my argument was that parties should

prepare themselves for an eventual

revolutionary situation and you said no

they should not do this because

never said that don't put words into my

mouth well i i i'm not

okay that's not the what i said what i

said

wait wait wait wait what i said was that

the working class can prepare itself for

of course revolution and remain

resilient and strong

and avoid you know succumbing to

whatever happens you know because a

revolution obviously is inevitable we've

agreed upon this however you don't think

that the harm that comes with a

revolution should be avoided if they can

be like there's steps one can take

that's the opportunity sure that

problems that come with revolutions are

less so

then how will you

denial of that is

[Music]

okay then how how will you ensure that

in those steps

so there are precautions we can take

which is what i've been advocating

i'm giving you an example right now okay

i'm going to give you an example

the bourgeois

has the monopoly on capital and by pro

proxy the monopoly on resources

so if the bourgeois puts up a resistance

to this working-class movement basically

what they're able to do by putting up a

resistance to the working-class movement

is they're able to inflict more harm to

these you know

probably the proletarian by inflicting

harm on the proletarian we're losing

essentially this sort of insured success

so when i take precautions in advance

through reforms you know through higher

taxes through sort of leveling the

disparities between the owning class and

the proletarian they are able to put up

less resistance this is a way i can

factor into my whole battle plan which

is if i want a socialist end goal right

by removing

capital

my question is

you talk like you're you talk like

you're a god who's omnipotent can you

have all of this so i don't think i'm

not meditating however i want you to

like logically

come to this conclusion with me do you

think a working or a bourgeois class

with

access to less resources

is going to put up as good of a fight as

a bourgeois class with a monopoly on

power

i mean it has in history

the bourgeoisie did not prevail in the

soviet russia

right so do you think that

if the bourgeoisie in russia

had less power would have been an easier

time for the bolsheviks to come into

power there would have been less life

loss you don't think that no

so you don't think that if the bourgeois

had less power

there is no there is no less power the

bourgeoisie has power or it doesn't if

the bourgeoisie does have power however

there is ways of determining which level

of

power the world wants to deserve to

other people by the resources available

to them such as

all right you don't think that the fact

that the bourgeois has this all of this

capital that makes it coercive and makes

people need to come in to work at this

facility i think you're very naive about

politics you're thinking of it like a

strategy game where there's like

resource meters and you just have to

lower them so there's not resource

meters but when it

logically that having more resources me

in obviously someone else having access

to less resources because no matter how

you slice it if the resources come out

of this pool the big pool and go into

the little pool there's going to be less

necessity for this owning class to sort

of manipulate and exploit this you know

i think i think you don't understand

that when you start seizing resource

resources it's really weird how you're

wording these things

from the bourgeois class

you are making an act even if you're

okay even if you seize

a grain from the work ruling class

you're making a symbolic declaration of

war it's there's it's not something

where there's like a spectrum of how

much you can lower it the minute you

lower it a little bit that's where

you've begun a war right and that's how

the class struggle

it's not how i mean i'm just

assuming that you're framing of it in

terms of like raising resources or

lowering do you think that higher taxes

are essentially a

active war against the bourgeois and the

ruling class no often times they're an

active war against the people because

raising taxes usually just raises taxes

also on working people and normal people

and raising taxes on the rich

is really a cope

um

i think i think i can simplify this

discussion actually maybe i can get to

like the root of what your position is

it kind of sounds like you're like a

malthusian who thinks that classes form

on the basis of a war for finite

resources but according to marxists

there there is no eternally finite

resources what there is is uh a given

mode of production and the threshold of

any given society's wealth is going to

be determined by the level of

development of its productive forces

so the real goal for communists is not

to seize resources from the ruling class

as much as it is to develop the forces

of production

in a manner that puts

the found wealth in the hands of the

people as opposed to this working uh

ruling class

i completely agree with you on this

actually like i think that's a good

thing and i think we're able to do this

if we like subsidize worker cooperatives

and things like that in america but

i don't see why i don't see why that is

i mean uh

development of the forces of production

just doesn't mean

you fund

certain enterprises because you find

them more virtuous or better or more

socialistic they're the ones actively

getting resources these finite you know

material resources into the hands of the

working class this is just what you you

just said this

finite rules are if the working class

essentially hasn't seen i don't agree

with your mouth i don't agree with your

mouth fujian position that it's a war

over finite resources i just don't

okay so

you don't think that essentially the

bourgeois class who's able to exert

pressure onto the working class which

they've done time and time again right

this is work demonstrated through

history and i think i think you in a

really bizarre

um almost psychotic way

it's like you think that

the economic sphere and the political

sphere are the same thing and that like

the these are the exact same thing and

that the bourgeoisie has economic

warfare against the the truth is is that

politics and economics the sight of

those things are discontinuous so what's

happening politically in terms of

so for example a political party which

represents the proletariat

um

is going to be dealt with by political

means okay the primary form of the class

warfare the political class war is not

going to be

this battle over resources it's going to

be like for example laws passed by

states repressive measures

um media campaigns info wars things like

that cultural wars it's not really going

to be this thing where it's like you

know oh it's a matter of who has the

most resources to win the strategy game

it's just not how real life works

right so that agrees with my position

then because politics they are you just

made it sound like politics are attached

to the economy

the bourgeois has access to these

resources they have available to them

can we stop using the words

these active what you said there these

active media campaigns and things like

that and the lobbying is a very real

thing that happens right to appeal the

special interests

this is what the republicans

are doing

can we please stop using the word

resources it's super weird it makes it

seem like it's minecraft or something do

you you just mean money okay you're just

talking about money right

well a party an independent party needs

money but there is nothing holding back

a party from getting the necessary

amount of money to kick i mean you

realize that even the democrats are

adopting the strategy of small donations

small donations are really the source of

how you get political resources

um

he combined small donations i mean you

have to understand something even all of

this money that these oligarchs and

corporate people have

that pales in comparison to the combined

strength of the consumer strength of the

masses

because they get their money from as you

should know the cons the consumers the

masses right that's where they get their

resources and power from in the first

place

so i really need to say this because

this is super important and this goes in

hand with my point

the reason that these consumers are

paying all this money to these ruling

people is because they have something

they have like i said resources because

money's value is only determined by how

people are going to give it up to get

things again like i said resources

that's the important thing to talk about

here and i don't know why it's not it's

not yes it absolutely is the fact that

you would just you know not value

resources in the way that they're

distributed in society is absurd to me

this is the reason for the reason why

you approach the politics resources are

used to control societies and they can

be no no it's not no it's not so

absolutely the primary the primary form

in which private entities exerts

so-called control over so-called

resources is not actually by owning each

and every individual piece of raw

material and commodities it's through

brands it's through trademarks and logos

and it's through um

corporate enterprises and things like

that and those in turn direct the

production of certain commodities and in

a certain direction

not on the basis of reproducing the

power of the bourgeoisie politically but

on the basis of accumulating profit

these are enterprises whose goal is to

be profitable for investors specifically

for

shareholders right in the case of

corporate so there's a discontent when

they want to deal with maintaining their

power politically that's a different

thing okay so you're making it seem like

we're living in like some kind of like

minecraft uh

minecraft multiplayer pvp battle where

it's like oh who has the most resource

it's like it's not how it works dude

wait but the money is used to keep it so

that they are above the

working class that's what they do

by paying off politicians it happens all

the time exactly so they do it through

funding think tanks institutions

lobbying and um funding media that's

what they do right right they have a new

resource which is money because money is

a resource and they're using it

to lobby and gain control this is where

they get they get this disassociate them

and not understand the strong

correlation

that money is just the surpluses that

are coming from their profits just

spare money they have to spend on that

the primary goal that they have with the

soldiers they keep making more profit

which gives them more power over the

working class no they do not care about

power over the working class they just

care about profit it's nothing personal

kid it's just business i know it's not

anything personal however when they have

this they they're still taking from

these people like i don't understand

where the fundamental disagreement is i

don't care what jeff bezos's intent is

what he's doing through him trying to

make as much profit possible you know

he's doing all those things making

conditions for his workers less bearable

other shit this is just a consequence

if his philosophy is only motivated by

profit then he's still going to find a

way to make it maximize his profit

it's actually not just profit

primarily for someone like jeff bezos

for these new platforms

it's not even really pro profit's just a

measurement of their success it's really

about maintaining

the platform maintaining amazon making

amazon making sure amazon can grow

making sure amazon can invest in other

things and make more things like it's

not really so much

i mean like personal power is not really

a big factor in this whole thing

and i think the consequence of him

keeping amazon afloat is it means he's

gonna have to squash his competition

he's gonna have to squash all these

other people yeah

if someone publishes a threat which

competition obviously does competition

being able to be started by everyone

else in a given society if they're able

to you know he's gonna have to squash

them in order to keep his platform

afloat which means he's causing a direct

consequential harm to the working class

jeff bezos is trying to

[Music]

work in the interests of the amazon

corporation

and part of that interest of the amazon

corporation is keeping itself sustained

when it keeps itself sustained it's

going to have to resort to all the

measures possible to keep itself alive

because like i said

this functions with the business too

because a business is run by people and

survival is an imperative

you ramble so much can you just stop

rambling and get well i'm rambling and

everything i'm saying is coherent and

makes sense so whether i'm rambling or

not doesn't matter

i don't i i i cannot discern a point

from what you're saying what is your

point

so my point since we led this

conversation in this direction

is that you're all like oh politics and

economics are completely different

things they're separated from each other

keep talking over me dude you know what

i'd love to keep talking over you

because the shit you're saying makes no

sense and has no value you found mad as

hell so i'm not mad as hell yeah first

of all

no i'm just right as hell that's all

there is to it and and the way you prove

your right is by making it so that you

talk over your opponent so they can't

reveal what a dumb ass rambling idiot

you are

well then i'm doing a damn good job of

it

yeah anyway dylan what i said actually

was not that you're alleging that

politics and economics have a

relationship something i never denied

i am accusing you of thinking that

they're the same thing that they operate

on the same plane in the same level but

what i'm trying to say is that they

operate on different

intelligibly different levels

the correlation is so strong though and

this is the point i'm making they might

as well be the same thing the way that

they're tied into each other and how

they're used they're not the same thing

no if you want to talk about objective

reality right then you'll understand

that the political power that certain

people have

also factors in with their economic

standings the correlation is that strong

but that doesn't mean that jeff bezos

exists to have political power

i never said he did just the fact that

he does because the conditions that

surround his life so okay let me just

reign this in and simplify your argument

as far as i can hear it what you're

saying is that the goal is to impoverish

the ruling class as much as possible

because that way the ruling class

won't be able to use its spare

chump change in order to

direct politics the issue with that is

that you're not taking into account the

fact that

the most most of the capital right that

the ruling class uses is not for

purposes of um

using it as a political resource but for

the economy so you're basically saying

let's bankrupt the economy as a whole

so that they can't use they won't have

enough if they don't have let me just

put it this way if the ruling class does

not have enough money to bribe the

politicians they don't even have enough

money to exist in the first place

uh that's

a really absurd way of characterizing my

argument the goal isn't to bankrupt the

ruling class the goal is to try and make

it so they're unable to exert power over

the proletarian

and by power they can have money they

can have money but we can set it up we

can set society up in such a way

that people are able to have relative

levels of power to each other

through making it so people are able to

get an education be able to set

themselves up for positions where they

can you know

become like bezos become like gates

whoever they can look look i i don't i

don't uh

necessarily disagree with that as far as

a minimal program is concerned but the

two points of contention i'm unpersuaded

by first that the means by doing this

can be outside of an independent party

and that second

um the only

that second

you know uh

i guess what is your really what really

is your point about this reformism like

oh the only reason a revolution would

happen is because we weren't we didn't

take the necessary precautions to ensure

the smooth success that's not been the

point though the point is we can reform

it no no we can reform and reform until

we get to a point because a revolution

is inevitable like you and i agreed upon

at the beginning of this conversation

let's talk about potatoes

did you agree with jimmy doors forced to

vote

no

it's a childish way of playing politics

sure

you are talking you are sitting here

making all of these audacious claims

about

your desire to have reforms and reforms

and reforms

and

for free no one even paid you

you sitting

here and opposing

probably like the simplest way to

actually make medicare for all may be

possible

just medicare for all in the middle of a

fucking pandemic

you can't even

reform your way into medicare for all in

the middle of a fucking pandemic

how are you sitting here talking about

all your little audacious plans for

reform

so like i said the conditions

surrounding which people can do you

think that like one or two people who

support medicare for all on a party are

going to just be able to push it and get

it passed because this is like this

really really stupid way of looking at

things like but but all of these

democratic congress people are on record

saying that they support medicare for

all and that moreover and that's them

playing politics to get your vote

that's exactly what i don't know why

don't you just hold them to it why don't

you just hold them to it because there

are things surrounding like oh you know

all their like do you want republicans

to get into power

uh you're going to laugh you're going to

laugh mr reformist is making excuses for

why you're going to there's no fucking

streets

you're gonna do all these reforms you

have the fucking balls to challenge the

democrats about medicine yeah because

the establishment hold enough power over

the people to make it so they can't push

the reforms it's that simple why can't

why can't why are you shooting because

this republican seizing power these

fucking conservative liberal hacks are

going to come in and take over that's

not true

that's a very real threat

that's not even fucking true you're

talking

this is fucking proof of why

revolutionaries are better than his

reformists reformists pussy out and cave

in even when it comes to questions

even when it comes to the simplest most

reasonable reform nothing radical

medicare for all during a fucking

pandemic you bitch out

ignorant naive

i support all those things yeah and i

support medicare for all but him acting

like he's just a fucking reliever

of framing it this is a politically

inconsiderate stupid way of fighting

you're not even a reformist you're

literally just a reactionary

a reactionary to what what have i

reacted to other than your stupidity to

the american reformist progressive cause

to get medicare for all during a fucking

pandemic

yeah so the thing is is do you think

that we're able to that

yeah and if you can't you could kick

start a movement to literally overthrow

everyone i all the sitting congress

people in the democratic party next

midterms i mean they tried that on

january 6th that didn't go damn well did

it

what

never fucking mind do you think that

it's that easy to throw together a

little party and have your little

married dance through congress and throw

aoc out of her little chair

like you can unseat the people who

opposed it even though they were on

record saying they supported it yeah

yeah

deciding oh shit the republicans are the

ones who are going to see power if i

don't keep this in power

dude biden won the fucking election you

can chill about the republicans now

can't you that's what you were saying

harm reduction

they said they were going to push biden

left and all they did was become to the

right of biden himself biden pushed them

right

in here i know you want to talk to your

child objectively objectively you are

though how am i to the right of biden

because the only because i i bet you if

biden was like sufficiently pressured

he would probably like do medicare for

all if he was like

pressure biting into it however jimmy

dore's real grassroots you can't even

pressure the fucking congressional

democrats to do it

do you think you can just wave your cock

around and have a magical medicare for

all up here by saying we're not going to

vote you back in

do you think jimmy gore has the platform

to sway elections

no alone he does oh good there you go

you gave us an answer

i'm so happy hey you want to keep

screaming dumbass remember to let me

explain why

i i mean screaming seems like a bible

alone couldn't do it but if all of the

influencers on the fucking internet all

of the other big ones were on board they

probably fucking could the problem is

that dumb asses like you were shooting

people shooting yourself in the fucking

foot saying now we can't do it you guys

are the ones who fucked up the whole

fucking thing for no fucking reason i

don't get it

you're moving with some fake movement

you have this little immaterial bullshit

you threw together and hoped and prayed

gonna be the emperor of america daenerys

dylan targaryen you're gonna be the

savior of america altruistically

benefiting the working class from the

reigns of

peter powers from game of thrones that's

what you're going to be making oh i'm

i'm machiavellian playing the game for

the working class go do it dude go do it

you fucking pussy go fucking dude

go do it and i'm going to fucking laugh

at you when you fail and you are gonna

fail i promise and your fucking movement

has failed too you have nine thousand

followers on twitch do you really think

you're gonna have to end and a few

months ago i had half of that so i'm

rising and i'm growing and i'm not gonna

stop growing i had 200 viewers a few

months ago now i'm at 600 700 on the

fucking regular i'm right here

you're going to do a great job

do not use my twitch and youtube career

as an example of failure dude because

that's the most successful fucking shit

you've ever seen on the fucking internet

what a horrible fucking attempt

600 followers are gonna go win an

election right now

600 viewers and i'm gonna do way more

than you ever will in your whole fucking

life little boy i promise you what that

much promise you that much i promise you

that much i vow that much i vow on my

ancestors grave that i will have way

more of an impact on this world than you

ever will please keep me wrong you

remembered as the guy who screamed at

children on the internet i'm so happy

we'll see whose legacy endures and lives

on dylan

all right

microphone too like i don't know what

you did to it you hit something

or did something and it's been i didn't

want to say anything but it's been

sounding weird since i don't know what

you did

me neither

want to get another q a yeah let's do it

all right

um all right so let's pull up some of

those super chats that we have

uh from ukulele dylan i'm on your side

but can you stop deep throating your mic

i can't understand a word you're saying

okay i think that's something that he

did to his mic actually um you'll you'll

notice it when you watch it back down

like there was a point where you

actually touched your mic or something

and it like i don't know if you

unplugged something or did something oh

yeah no i accidentally unplugged it yeah

so it's making it sounds like like

echoey or something um all right so from

marcus this is sargov

uh dylan keeps

misusing material conditions to mean

standard of living that's not what that

means kid read mark something

that's a stupid fucking statement

material conditions don't have to be

standard of living they just have to be

the objective things we like using that

word around here that surround someone's

life so it doesn't mean standard of

living it can mean where they were born

where they grew up what school they went

to it's all this fucking shit it all

matters that would that would be

actually personal background not

necessarily material conditions yeah

personal background the conditions that

surround their upbringing i'm happy you

came to that conclusion

i'm willing to bet you don't know

anything about what material conditions

actually means

um okay so

oh god

i'm from p1

uh thanks for the super chat the reason

reform failed is because as dorr

correctly pointed out the justice

democrats did not withhold their vote

from pelosi and her seat simple

okay

um let me see what we got here and the

ones that i can pull up

um from full metal i think specific

question for haws do we need the

vanguard party to end these west wing

i think uh we need like a netflix

vanguard party so we can um

dictate the future seasons of house of

cards and make sure that people won't be

inspired by it in the way this goes look

it's not just

if i don't watch fucking tv

somebody asked to chat i remember

writing that one down if asking if dylan

has seen house of cards i think that was

from i don't watch tv i really don't

yeah

no no no you can go through my netflix

right now the last thing i watched was

the office

okay

um who hasn't seen game of thrones

that's terrible i can't report

the fuck out of here

all right so from bob dude thanks for

the super chat uh why does haas think

that politics and money are

discontinuous um

it's such a silly statement i can

wait i can he clarify and have dylan

respond

yeah because if you read marks money is

to make more money and

some of that money is used to influence

the outcome of political

ends so there's a discontinuous

relationship they're related obviously

but it's not one continuity there's a

discontinuity between them it's as

simple as that

should i respond to that sure if you

want to so my big issue with that line

of thinking though is that if we want to

look at reality we see the effect having

money has on the world around us and to

act okay it doesn't matter

it doesn't uh that's not a response to

what i said though

okay well i mean like if you want to

talk about what mark said that doesn't

really matter

what matters to me

okay i'm happy it matters too what

matters to you is what kevin spacey said

in house of cards and i like mark devin

spacey is a is a fun little man

from fennel he said what's the true

definition of socialism it seems that

socialists cannot agree on a universal

definition just curious

um um you want me to respond yeah

uh a mode of production

uh whose mode fulfills social and common

ends

there's only one definition i care about

and that's getting the means of

production in the hands of the working

we know we know what chomsky taught you

it's okay

chomsky was right then bass chomsky

no he's actually full of shit

um all right so let's see what we have

jotted down oh wait we got another one

um

thanks for the super chat you'd climb um

when has revolution ever worked in the

first world living standards continue to

rise due to reform two percent of gdp

went towards social spending in nineteen

hundred now forty percent why can't we

keep performing to one hundred percent

um because literally no one would argue

that the welfare states model of um

spending money you know to like keep

disabled people and old people and

unemployed people afloat is a viable way

to sustain an economy of scale so that's

why you can't and the second thing is

that

you couldn't even maintain the welfare

state that happened after world war ii

it was rolled back in the 1970s even in

the scandinavian countries after the

soviet union collapsed because there was

no more any there was no longer any

pressure to maintain those things

okay

um

okay from maxwell uh thanks to the super

chat uh question to dylan

how do you plan to reform the labor

aristocracy

i don't know i really don't i haven't

thought about that one

okay i'll write the bullet on that i'd

like to find a way and when i figure it

out

all right so

so from java bolt question for haas

you said you don't care about harm

reduction if this is true why do you

care about socialism if the level

if the level of harm is the same in a

capitalist socialist

is this

if the level of harm is the same in a

capitalist

socialist is the same

what is socialism offering then

capitalism isn't this one that writes

very well

um

first and foremost it's a philosophical

disagreement with something that has its

origins and british utilitarianism

uh i don't come from this background of

utilitarianism i don't view

reality as a lever with which to

maximize or minimize

this or that variable it's not just

about harm it's any variable

to me

uh socialism is about

um something in reality it's about

articulating and participating in

reality in a certain way that's what it

is to me

okay

um

from real pluto

uh question for dylan what if any

marxist works have you read works i'm

guessing books like books

okay yeah

okay um i mean i'd have to pull up a

list it's quite a few

i mean i was tom brittany before i got

on stream i reread one of my favorites

which is socialism scientific utopian or

maybe it's the other way around i am

tired

um i started auntie during

um

i read

left-wing communism and infantile

disorder

um

i've read imperialism the highest stage

of capitalism

the communist manifesto

there's quite a few things i've read

actually i mean like you want me to i

don't really feel like

going you know

um unrelated coma would like to know

what has was eating

uh i was eating

uh ethiopian chicken

on rice not on ninja bread

and the reason i had rice is because i

don't know

first base thing that was said all night

by you

um so from

baby toss bandit serious question i'm

pretty politically illiterate so i could

be dumb but is china actually run like a

socialist communist country i know they

have the communist party

but the name alone

doesn't mean much right

so china is a socialist country and i

like

yeah i mean china is essentially being

run in this sort of

fashion to where they're trying to at

least get to communism by means of

socialism and market reforms they're

they're have a gradual process to which

they're trying to get there with

um

let's see what else we got here

so from

red devils advocate

okay once they want to know what was

your most embarrassing moment

i don't know if that's like just in

general or

um

but we could just move on you guys uh

when your dad caught me with your mom

okay

i feel like we walked into that um

okay

so um

black lennon question for dylan wait i

think i no i think we already read that

one okay

um from western artifact to haws one of

your comrades claims freedom of speech

is stupid is this your position seems

like if you're going to trust a worker

to run the government they should be

able to talk

um

what are my comrades i don't know what

you're talking about at least in the

current context of big tech

i am for the maximal amount of political

speech possible i will never

be behind any form of uh political

censorship

on these big tech platforms

um let's see what else we got here from

cute root ask them what happened after

stalin's death

if hazat doesn't believe commies play

much what do you say machibland

so since we have a dumb ass in the chat

what i actually said

um i guess people needed to explain to

them was that this is not how communists

can seize power from the perspective of

a bourgeois state

um there are various intrigues and plots

that happened in communist states

uh but i know we get it dude you watch

the movie the death of stalin you know i

know that's where you got it from too i

know that's where you got that from too

and uh congratulations you're so smart

for watching that movie

but yeah

okay

um

from you climb

a social spending dropped for 60 to 40

due to neoliberalism um and now it's on

the rise again the overall trend is up a

small dip doesn't change that yeah well

it's almost like uh you're making a meme

uh the more social spending a country

has as a percentage of his gdp the more

socialist it is actually that's not true

um

a lot of things can be spent in the name

of social spending that have nothing to

do with socialism at all

but good job dude

okay

uh let's see i think we're

kind of almost done but

um let me pull up some of these i guess

you know what i think

i think we could probably end up there

um all right so if you guys want to do

thoughts a

can do that

uh dylan you want to go first

i mean sure i guess my closing statement

was we kind of got way the fuck off

topic

doesn't really matter i'm sure it was

still good content and uh yeah well

i have a lot of fundamental

disagreements with what my opponent said

in regards to politics and economics

being

all like

discontinuous and all of this other

stuff

i mean

i don't know i guess i didn't really

convince him but i hope i convinced the

audience i didn't really come with a

closing statement because i didn't think

we'd be here

okay

um all right so

oh

yeah it's a shame we didn't actually get

to like argue about the topics at hand

like about parties and

revolutions

um

but um it's interesting that he thinks

that capitalists um primarily exist to

hold political power and not to make

profit

which is interesting but

[Music]

loving the mischaracterization of my

argument

if they're not discontinuous then

they're the same thing

they're not

all right well argument wasn't that they

only exist to make profit well you

already had your closing statement