TANKIE debates FASCIST???

all right don't mind that video

it's gonna be redone but i'm your lovely

host britney and this is your right wing

host todd how are you todd

doing great great how are you i'm doing

good i'm excited

all right yeah so we got an exciting

debate for you guys tonight um i didn't

realize how much hype there was for it

but

apparently this is gonna be um a very

good debate so

let's bring on our guest let's bring on

back

infrared how are you tonight good good

how are you

doing good so yeah you want to introduce

yourself tell people where you lie on

the political spectrum and where people

can find you

sure i'm haas from the infrared

collective we're a group of

international

marxist leninists um

you can find our youtube channel at the

uh the infrared show

the infrared youtube channel uh you can

find us at twitch at twitch.tv slash

infrared show okay thank you

all right and next it's zoltanius how

are you tonight

i'm doing good you can call me zolt for

short by the way that sounds good to me

so yeah you want to introduce yourself

um tell people where you lie on the

political spectrum

and where people can find you yeah so

i'm zoltanus

and i do political content and

it's kind of diverse in what i talk

about they can find me on

odyssey bit shoot youtube under zoltanis

i'm also

on telegram if people want to join my

telegram chat

on the political spectrum i would say

i'm a fascist but

i don't really identify as right wing so

all right um so i do have both of their

information all their links in the

description so if you guys want to go

check out their stuff you can find it

there

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 minutes about the

topic and your stance

after that we'll open up the floor after

the debate is over we'll go into the q a

you guys can tag politically provoked

who your question is addressed to

um after the q a we'll do closing

statements and final

thoughts so i think let's get started

with opening statements but before we do

that um

for results and if you want to give a

little back story on

your guys's history before you um start

the debate

i mean there's not much it's just that

some people like other carl wanted me to

have like a debate with uh infrared

because

it carl says he doesn't understand

fascism but i don't really care a lot i

like

a lot of the stuff that infrared does

when it comes to triggering bread tubers

it just uh really just only started

after i did

like a live stream with carl where we

kind of like reacted

to his uh video response to vosh on

socialism which i do agree that vox

doesn't understand socialism i just had

criticisms that were

directed at the video really all right

um okay

and then just as far as the rules um

let's limit the interruptions

and the personal attacks i know things

might get a little heated but um let's

try to keep it to a minimum

uh so yeah opening statements uh zoltan

you want to get started

uh sure so like my main central argument

is that praxis and implementations of

marxism have

largely been a betrayal of its actual

theory

if we look at marx angles and linen as

well as having to go back on things that

were said before coming to power

power to justify regimes namely stalin

with his original rejection of socialism

in one country

and the notion of commodity production

can exist within socialism which he

rejected originally

which he later pushed for after

formulating the

s-i-o-c alongside i think the guy's name

is

bakarin to al's left-wing opposition

and implementation of marxism has

largely ended up closer to fascism and i

would say this as a fascist because

they've adopted corporatist doctrines to

justify themselves

utilizing patriotism or nationalism to

various degrees with conservatism to

sustain themselves

which i just think that's practical if

we look at real world implementations

and i largely think it's because marxism

is unrealistic but i don't think a lot

of marxists

specifically marxist lindeninis

represent marx angles or linen correctly

that's the main foundation of my

argument

all right uh i suppose my stance would

be to

argue that there's a direct continuity

um

between marx angles lenin stalin

mao and various others that came after

and not only was there

a discernible direct continuity but that

each one of these people

reinvented the same essential insight

in a new form

okay so we can open up the floor now

okay so i would say like a

pretty good overview of what i'm

bringing up here is like on principles

of communism

uh by angles in 1847 and like i'm pretty

sure you've read it but

like the main idea is the proletariat

cannot exist with the bourgeoisie and

the bourgeoisie cannot exist

without the proletariats and if the

proletariat still exists

or commodity production there cannot be

uh socialism because it's still

capitalist and

people can go through that if they want

to but the basic gist

of what is there is that capitalism is

rooted in

production of commodities and

i do know that uh marx's analysis on

this is because of ideas of like

division of labor

would that be largely correct uh well

firstly i don't think there's any

contention

as to the contents of principles of

communism but i think you may have uh

read into it some kind of um definitive

statement about

uh scale in terms of time i think

there's maybe a misunderstanding that

what angles was actually saying is that

upon the seizure of power

commodity production as well as the

class antagonism would

instantaneously disappear but not only

do we not find evidence of angles saying

this

in principles of communism we find

direct evidence

of marx and engels arguing the exact

contrary

that socialism will not um

amount to an immediate uh

dissolution of uh the prior

form of society but merely represents

the proletariat's political

seizure of power now in the ultimate and

final sense it is true that the

proletariat

cannot coincide with the bourgeoisie but

the key word is in the ultimate

and final sense that doesn't mean that

instantaneously the class antagonism

disappears it means that

ultimately it does or in english words

the

governance over people ceases to exist

only the administration of things

in regards to the dissolution of the

state for example

um uh yeah i believe what you're talking

about is what mark's called stat reason

which

translates to state machinery a lot of

people try to attribute that

a quote to linen that's more of a

mistranslation but it basically means a

state is a skeleton of its former self

where you just have labor vouchers and

it's just simply monitoring production

which isn't the way that we actually

would think of a

state and the real sense of like a

governing body

and i do know a lot of marxist londoners

try to say like historical materialism

because of the different uh progression

of the

production to reach socialism because it

still has social ends is usually like a

i would say it's more of a cope because

marx

outright calls that a political program

and a political program is something

that you would define as actually being

inherently reactionary

uh i'm not sure where you're coming from

there but

uh i will say that um marx and engels

are very clear about the fact

that the state uh will continue to exist

it will not simply be a skeleton of its

former self

and you can even read you can even

interpret marx's view

in the um 18th premiere about that the

state machinery will be smashed

not to mean that uh when the pro upon

seizure of power the proletariat will

no longer be in possession of a state

but that it will build

a new state from scratch and this is

precisely what happened uh

in the historical experience um

but marx and engels are very clear that

the state

uh will continue to persist and that the

manner of its dissolution

um the so-called withering away in no

way contradicts

as stalin pointed out the strengthening

of a proletarian

or socialistic state in fact this view

of stalin's is perfectly

dialectical it's one that there is no

reason to think

marx and angles according to their own

view of what the dialectic was

uh would disagree with so i know like in

state revolution

uh linen basically makes like the

distinction that socialism is a lower

phase of communism

and even in this lower phase where he

writes about it it would have like the

abolishment of things like commodity

production

which isn't something that stalin would

ever get rid of and even like in his

early years stalin called commodity

production

the and the inherent characteristic to

capitalist production because it's

related to the value form

and this isn't like definitions this is

more like the characteristics of the

systems definitions are retarded

but uh what would you say to that

there's no doubt

that commodity production dissolves with

the dissolution of capitalism the

question is

similar to the question of the state

what is the manner by which the

commodity form

uh undergoes i'd like to say it like

this the development

of its own dissolution and uh historical

experience shows that the commodity form

is not does not instantaneously

disappear among upon the political

seizure of power

but that in fact uh a new type of

repetition of the commodity form the

socialistic

commodity takes its place and the

socialist commodity as a matter of fact

corresponds

to the dissolution of the commodity form

itself if you read stalin's uh

economic problems in the ussr and you

read his uh

works on the socialist commodity it's

very clear

in what ways the socialist commodity

undermines the commodity form

for instance the socialist commodity and

therefore the socialist commodity form

is based on a determinate relationship

uh between state for example

enterprises in the state in general and

the coal causes

another form of ownership which is not

necessarily

a private ownership per se but it's

still not the same as state

ownership and the way this differs from

the commodity form under capitalism is

that the commodity form under

capitalism uh is the is

uh how should i say a blank check it can

be exchanged pretty much with anything

so long as

uh so long as uh this other thing uh

can be measured under the same form this

is not true for the socialist

commodity form so here we see a direct

example of the manner by which the

commodity form

undergoes the development of its

dissolution

uh yeah so i'll get the to my

explanation the commodity form in a

second

but uh i do know an anti-during this is

more of a paraphrase quote

uh from angles it says the proletariat

sees his political power

and turns the means of production and

first instance into state property

but in doing so it thus abolishes itself

as proletariat abolishes all class

distinctions and class antagonisms

and abolishes the state as state you

also have the linen

speech at the all-russian congress of

transport workers which i'm also

paraphrasing a quota a smaller quote

indeed the reign of the workers and

peasants will last forever we should

never have socialism for it implies the

abolition of classes and as long as

there are workers and peasants there

would be different classes and therefore

no full socialism you also have linen

and economics and politics and heir to

dictatorship but the proletariat where

it says socialism means abolition

classes

and is important to address

so the state is weathering away as far

as there's no longer any capitalists

and classes and consequently no class

can be suppressed that's usually

something

people try to say that linen justify is

like a bureaucratic state

but he refers to it in the same term

that marx

uses which is stat wheeze and state

function which is a skeleton

and i would argue that there had there

is no commodity production

under socialism and the critique of the

gotha program within cooperative society

based on common ownership in the means

of production

producers do not exchange their products

as little does the labor employed

on the products appear here as the value

of these products

you have a capital volume one chapter

three

uh where he talks about money at the

circulation of commodities

and like i don't i don't really feel

it's super necessary to read all those

it's basically quotes i do have a lot of

notes on this so people are interested

but even stalin echoes much of this and

the agrarian question

uh where says introducing socialism

means abolishing commodity production

abolishing the money system

raising capitalism to its foundation and

socializing all the means of production

the socialist revolutionaries however

want to leave it

all this intact and to socialize only

the land which is absolutely impossible

if commodity production remains intact

the land too

will become a commodity and will come on

the market any day

the socialism the socialist

revolutionaries would be blown to the

sky

and he would actually contradict this

later on when he would encourage

small-scale

private land plots which accounted for a

majority of agricultural production the

soviet union

sorry i was a little long right there

sorry yeah well there's a lot to unpack

i will say

i'm somewhat confused and uh

i think there's a misunderstanding here

um there is no doubt

again to reiterate there is no doubt

that for marx engels and lenin

socialism corresponds to the dissolution

of the commodity form

and that the commodity form in the

ultimate sense is not compatible

with socialism the question is when

that's the operative point so when engel

says in anti-during that

you know the proletariat and seizing

state power thus abolishes itself

or he doesn't use the word abolish

actually but uh

this dissolves itself in the state he

doesn't

say that this happens instantaneously

nowhere do marx and angles or lenin say

it happens instantaneously they make it

very clear that this is some this is a

gradual process uh that doesn't uh

none of this stuff disappears overnight

furthermore with regards to the critique

of the gotha program

i think here you're confusing uh minimal

and maximal program the critique of

remarks the critique of the gotha

program involved

clarifying what socialism or communism

would mean in an ultimate and final

sense or in other words in the sense of

a

maximal program he wasn't laying down

some kind of principle that in no way

could commodities correspond uh to

socialism i mean marx himself understood

socialism as a process as a movement

not as an end goal or an ideal but he

did understand that this process

has consequences ultimate consequences

for

the transformation of society among

those consequences being the dissolution

of the commodity form

and the state itself but that doesn't

mean that this happens instantaneously

or that

just because a given uh socialistic

society does not

uh possess these characteristics

this means they're no longer socialist

the point is

in what direction is the socialist

society changing is it changing in a

direction

in this direction for example now

especially confusing is when you bring

up the point about the land question

because

first of all the context is that stalin

is addressing the socialist

revolutionary's inability to

address the state of um industry modern

industry

and for stalin modern industry will be

or stalin lending the boost fix in

general

will be nationalized by the state uh in

regards to the transformation of

um land into commodities

the operative point is that they become

commodities that can be freely bought

and sold and exchanged so the presence

of

quote unquote private plots is

completely irrelevant because those

private plots could not

be exchanged between peasants the

produce produced on them could be

exchanged in some kind of way but the

land itself

could not be so i don't see what's

actually relevant or i don't see how

stalin

would eventually come to contradict

himself when he stated that stalin did

never

say that no kind of commodity whatsoever

would exist

in the early stages or even in socialism

itself

he specifically spoke of how decisive

the socialization of land and industry

was to socials now what that looks like

does not mean complete nationalization

of everything

but it also doesn't mean that land can

be freely uh

bought and sold as a commodity this is

why i refer to the significance of a

socialist commodity form

it's not the same thing as the commodity

form under capitalism under capitalism

the commodity form entails the free

exchange of commodities

as a blank check this is not the

socialist commodity form because the

range of uh

the range of um exchange

is narrowly uh restricted

okay so what would you say would you say

like

money is it is necessary for value

takes like value form would you say that

uh certainly yes

okay uh i do know that like in volume

one chapter three

uh in capital marks as a division of

labor

it's a necessary condition for the

production of commodities but it does

not

follow conversely that the production of

commodities is a necessary condition for

the

division of labor uh only such products

can be commodities with regard to each

as a result of different kinds of labor

each being carried on independently for

the amount of private industrialists

and he continues on with the seizing of

the means of production by society

production of commodities is done away

with and simultaneously the mastery of

the product

over the producer anarchy in social

production has replaced systemic

definite

orphan organization and

i do know that there's actually stuff

from linen which i do

have in my uh document where he

basically says that the

that russia is incapable of carrying out

the the socialist revolution

but what they wanted russia to be was

more something symbolic or something

that could actually

help foster revolutions in western

countries which were actually

in a position to where they could have

the socialist revolution

and this is and joseph stalin talks

about that in the foundations of

leninism

uh i don't really feel it's super

necessary to quote

it but uh yeah i just want to know what

your opinion on that is um

well in regards to the uh relevant

passages you

quoted in capital again i'm confused i

don't actually see the relevance

whatsoever does mark say when this would

happen or does he say that

or does he imply that this ultimately

will be the case does he say that this

happens up

instantaneously upon a political seizure

of power

this is highly doubtful because as we

can see marx both marks and angles

say the exact contrary in other places

so it doesn't make sense to me to quote

these passages

from capital as some kind of evidence

that

the ussr could not possibly be socialist

because commodities existed commodities

existed but only in so far

as they participated in the development

of their own eventual dissolution

uh and this is the perfectly dialectical

view that is 100 percent consistent with

what we know

about what marx and angles said on the

matter

now uh in regards to lenin's view about

um significance of the russian

revolution

it's true that initially lenin believed

and the other bolsheviks believed that

the russia would not be capable of

establishing socialism on its own

but when it became clear that the

revolution was not going to spread to

western europe

lenin posed the following question uh

i'm not it's i'm not saying it's

adverbatum so i'm paraphrasing it a

little bit but it's more along

uh more or less along these lines

uh what if the fundamental

foundations of civilization and lenin

when he speaks of civilization he means

modernization modernity what if the

fundamental prerequisites of

civilization

can be built not following the european

path

but in an entirely uh new way what if we

can build these

from scratch and this was the path

that uh lenin resolved to pursue

and that's why lenin would say things

like communism is

electricity plus sorry communism is

soviet power plus the electrification of

the whole country

it became clear to the bolsheviks the

revolution was not going to spread to

western europe and that wasn't going to

save them

so they elected to um

they elected to uh maintain

fidelity actually to what originally

distinguished

at the bolshevik way from the very

beginning from the very beginning with

the splits from the mensheviks and other

trends which was

a recognition that um the essence

of marxism of revolution of socialism

must be rediscovered anew and in

accordance with the

national circumstances unique in

particular to

uh russia and the russian empire at

large

okay so like stalin does say

in foundations of leninism that for the

final victory of socialism for the

organization of socialist production

the efforts of one country particularly

of a peasant

country like russia are insufficient for

the efforts of the proletarians of

several advanced countries are required

you also have a farewell letter to the

swiss workers

single-handed the russian proletariat

cannot bring about the socialist

revolution to victoria's conclusion

but it can give the russian revolution a

mighty sweep that would create the most

favorable conditions for a socialist

revolution

it would in a sense start it then

you have the era of the dictatorship of

the proletariat

by linen peasant farming continues to be

petty commodity production here we have

an extremely broad and very sound

deep-rooted basis

for capitalism the basis of which

capitalism persists or rises a new and a

bitter struggle against communism and

on state corporation indeed the power of

this state over all large scale means

production political power

in the hands of the proletariats the

alliance of the proletariats with the

many millions of small and very small

peasants the assured proletariat

leadership of the peasantry et cetera

is that not all that is necessary to

build a complete socialist country out

of cooperatives

which out of a cooperative alone

so is this not at all necessary to build

a complete social society

is still not the building of a socialist

society but it is necessary and

sufficient for it

so it does sound like it is like he's

considering it like a train

it's trying to achieve go towards

socialism but it's not still

socialism you can say they're

ideologically socialists but they're

in practice the historical economic

system that was put in place

is not socialism and

that there's many things that we can go

through on this but i do think it's

necessary to ask this

uh if if these things are

like uh what what was all the context

that that all these quotes are said then

if they're basically like out of date

sure yeah it's very simple actually um i

think again

we are coming back to the same and

original problem that i brought up

before

um the distinction you are drawing

between

the eventual and final consequences of

socialism for society and

socialism itself

is an undialectical distinction

socialism is not an end state socialism

is a process

it's a process that does have a final

or perm or uh discernible

uh consequences for society but when

those consequences are realized

uh no one knows it could be a hundred

years it could be 500 years it could be

a thousand years no one said anything

about

when it would alt as you uh put it ad

verbatim or as you were quoting ad

verbatim

the final and victorious conclusion we

have to be very careful here and

recognize

uh these operative words they are not

talking about something that happens

instantaneously uh or overnight

uh it must be thought of as a process

and

furthermore i also noted that you

brought up

lenin in the era of dictatorship of the

proletariat

that capitalism is being reproduced

through

petty peasant farming in the countryside

that is not the point of contention that

was the whole point

of the call causes which you quoted at

verbatim

lenin uh fully endorsed as the very

solution to this problem

so i don't actually see what we're

talking about here i don't see how these

quotations

you've uh you have mentioned i don't see

how these

uh in some way and negate the view that

the ussr was so so was it

the final conclusion the final possible

conclusion

socialism has for the soviet union or

the world at large no of course not but

it's not a dialectical

uh it's not dialectical whatsoever to

think in terms of final conclusions you

think in terms of processes and you

think in terms of

orientations and developments you don't

think of end states that are um

begin and end somewhere in some kind of

uh arbitrary way

uh there's that's why marx himself said

that communism for us

is not an ideal to which reality will

have to conform itself but a real

movement the premises of which

are now in existence marx understood

communism

as an objective force in reality so for

the ussr to be a socialist society

doesn't

mean that it's a society

um final who's uh

for whom the final consequences of

socialism are already realized

it means it's a socialist society it's a

society that is

building socialism that is uh itself

socialist

it's in the process of the development

of socialism there is no

end state or end goal here that we're

talking about

so i believe like the main problem here

is that

i would say it's largely ignoring what

the historical

actual economic policies that were put

in place at the time and plays

and what the practices actually were in

i i i'm mostly aware that they

understood

that socialism and communism are

basically interchangeable and

saying that you're having a political

program where it's just addressing

itself to historical necessity

it that's just seems more it's like a

coping process to say that we haven't

done socialism or we're not going

towards socialism

because if we look at what the actual

historical policies were

it's basically state socialism which is

interchangeable

with state capitalism which i would say

are good systems they're better than

what we currently have

and there there's all kinds of stuff

such as like uh and kadar on

you ha there's like a hungarian article

where it talks about planned management

socialism where it basically encourages

small scale

uh petty bourgeois ownership of the

means of production you have the case of

poland

when it was integrated with the soviet

economy where

by 1956 most of agriculture was

privatized

and then you have the peace rate system

in the soviet union you still have

commodity production you still have the

value form the only socialist to try

and attempt to abolish the value for him

was actually pol pot and i don't even

know if most marxists want to stand him

even though

i think he's a great guy but

i i well there's a few things uh first

of all i'm not sure what policy is

i'm not sure how i'm ignoring historical

policies i think everything i'm set i've

said is perfectly consistent

with an appreciation of those uh

historical policies it's perfect i think

that's a criticism there's plenty of

times where i wanted to interrupt you

and i held back so i want you to hold up

okay i'm sorry

uh it's perfectly consistent with what i

said

that socialism will take different form

according to different national

conditions there's no blueprint

for socials and britain somewhere

there's no one path to socialism that

applies for all

uh secondly i'm very curious to know

where any prominent marxist speaks of

the

abolition of the commodity form whether

marx angles

lenin or style themselves abolition is a

political

measure that you take by the use of

state

power directly it's not a this is a

volunteeristic

and undialectical view of how uh a mode

of production changes a mode of

production

doesn't change because a state

legislates

so by law or abolishes something

it happens through a gradual process of

transformation the material it's not

just

instruments of production that

constitute

the material forces of production the

material

relations of production are also

material and not

purely subjective and political so those

uh do cannot be abolished this idea that

the value form is abolished is 100

percent a an american falsification

that has nothing to do with marxism

whatsoever there's no

abolition of the commodity form just

like there's no

abolition of the state or even abolition

of class

the word marx uses often is of hebong he

doesn't use the word

abolition he uses the hegelian term

sublate

and sublate obviously doesn't mean

abolition

so an antedir ring frederick angle says

again with the seasoned means of

production by society production of

commodities is done away with

simultaneously the mastery of the

product over the producer

anarchy and social production is

replaced with systemic definite

organization

which became which is state machinery

which marks use the term statweason

which is basically a skeleton of the

former self of the state

and this is just broad institutions that

all they do is monitor production this

is not a

governing body in the way that we think

of like an actual state as state

and

that's really like the the main point of

contention because like it seems like

you just

want to go out and say mom material

conditions

when the material conditions don't

address what the historical

implementation

of the policies were you use that same

exact criticism with fascism when you

talk about its exact economic policies

even when we look at mussolini's

regime sure there was laissez-faire

economics for like what

five years and had implementation of the

rocco laws with rossini

which she brought in state-owned trade

unions cooperatives and then by 1932 you

had the formalization

of the corporate state by that point 75

percent of the economy was in state

hands owned by the state directly or had

state management

and then by 1943 with nicolo bambachi

which was the

founder of the italian communist party

you had

95 of the economy that was socialized

with worker management

and that seems like it's more of a

distraction from what the actual

policies of what marx

linen and angles were arguing in their

actual literature to basically say that

socialism is just whatever i want it to

be at this given place in time so i can

address

any pragmatic policy and then you want

to implement people that are

incompatible

with a marxist worldview such as nick

land and heidegger

which heidegger if you go through his

black books is completely in line with

like nazi doctrine and this is something

that's largely accepted by national

socialists themselves

and i would say this even as a fascist

okay you done there you done yeah i'm

done there you go

uh we have a lot so i can see why

uh you choose not to turn on your cam

because i think the audience will show

that the person behind the computer is a

broken record and not a human being

oh it's not a broken record well i'm not

sure

um yes so it sounds like you're just

trying to throw a lot of shit at the

wall and see what's gonna stick

you uh quoted angles again for no reason

even though we already addressed

that what that precisely looks like and

when it actually happens was not

addressed

by angles in that book i don't know why

you just quoted again

then you said a lot of things about

fascism that i'm not sure

are relevant to the conversation and you

then well we can we can change the topic

to fascism since you don't know anything

about marxism we can talk about fascism

then you brought up nick land and

heidegger and find it impossible that

they could possibly that could they ever

possibly be reconciled with marxism

even though the precedent for them doing

so in the 20th century

probably outnumbers the amount of people

who

or at least in the case of heidegger

probably outnumbers the amount of people

who

have an appreciation for heidegger in

isolation

and as regards to nick land it's already

been established because i don't know

how you measure this but most of

nick land's followers and the people who

appreciate him are marxist

so i don't even know why you're bringing

up it's very chaotic you're bringing up

a million topics trying to pivot away

from the fact that you don't know what

you're talking about

when it comes to marks and angles we

talk about the implementation of

policies

and the implementation of this

contradictoring

what marx and engels said was but you're

interpreting

marx and engels's words to be what the

blueprint is what the minimal program is

going to be when the proletariat seizes

political power

that wasn't what they were talking about

what they were talking about was more

fundamentally

uh the ultimate consequences socialism

would have

for society uh when engels says

that the anarchy of production is

replaced with definite organization

that commodities are done away with

nowhere does he

say that this is in the form of a policy

that is uh

written by fiat upon the immediate

seizure of political power if he says

that

please find a single quotation by angles

that suggests in a specific determinate

and concrete context germany france

england

that immediately upon seizing power the

proletariat is going to do this this and

this policy

that will correspond with that that

wasn't how marx and engels thought

it isn't what they said and they said

the exact opposite

angles even said that the forms of

private property will persist

uh after the seizure of state power it's

funny that you call yourself

a fascist but the extent of your

knowledge about marxism

doesn't go farther than ultra leftist

and infantile

leftists and trotskyists that were

profusely already critiqued and

excommunicated

from marxism by marxist leninist

precisely on the grounds that they

possessed an implicit affinity with

fascism

a an affinity that you seem to be here

confirming

uh the connection it seems between left

communism trotskyism and fascism

you have confirmed yourself

still there

is the sound gone for you or is he just

not talking

are you still there's alton

i don't know if he's there this is the

problem with no camera though

somebody's there um

i don't know if he said or not um oh

there he is

are you talking or not because oh there

you go well hello

um i don't know if you were talking or

not but we couldn't hear you

yeah it's being bought it's being really

buggy sorry about that

i don't know why you did that i did not

hear anything that he said

sorry about that

um okay somebody sent me a message he

said that uh i affirmed a connection

between like left comms and trotskyist

right

that was the a very minor point that i

made

in rebutting pretty much everything you

said

i said that at the end as a kind of

ironic cherry on top but that in no way

was the substance of my argument

substance of my argument is that all you

know how to do is repeat yourself and

not address any of the ways i've already

responded to

the various passages and quotations you

brought up for angles marx and lenin

it doesn't seem to be it seems like

you've lost the plot and you're not

actually following the course of

argumentation as it's been taken

uh okay so i would say that the

the literature is actually honest with

what it says and my view is that

trotskyists and

left communists or left comms have a

more correct

application of what marx actually said i

see marx's linenist as partly

contradiction and the other part

is uh mostly because i see them as

closer to me

as a fascists and most people like

which were the german national

bolsheviks uh

identified very closely with them and so

did uh

i think his name was krivakesky which

was a russian national bolshevik he

considered

uh basically bolshevism to be kind like

a radish

it's white on the inside right on the

outside and like my view

is basically the same as that marx's

lindeness have more common commonalities

with somebody like me

and the historical process argument i

would say like the historic

historic historical progression of what

happened

under these eastern countries ended up

embracing a form

of corporatism which is state-owned

trade unions cooperatives or

worker councils that basically

coordinate production and planning

for social ends and that's how i would

probably broadly view it and i think

that marx and lennon and angles are very

uh upfront about what they actually

meant

in their literature i just think they're

wrong and they're largely outdated and

marx actually

has an incorrect understanding of

socialism i believe socialism is

state socialism when it's done for

social ends in society itself

and the dialectical process i would say

is actually more applied to the state

when it applies

to broader antagonisms inside of it and

then

synthesizes them into the state and then

uses them for social ends of its own

self and planning

stuff like that that's what i would

broadly say i

don't really want to associate with

trotskyists or lefcoms though because a

lot of them

in my opinion are just well

like a better word they look like in

cells but also coomers i don't really

know what you call them but

they look weird is it are you done or i

don't mean to interrupt you

no yeah i'm done dude okay well it's not

that i consider

uh left comms and trotskyists and

yourself

to um explicitly agree with one another

but you share the same

fundamentally dogmatic epistemic

position in terms of your thinking and

in terms of uh

your view of the matter i know mussolini

thought for example that stalin was

some kind of red fascist and many uh

people many fascists took liberties both

now and in the past

with how they interpreted the marxism

leninism and the meaning of marxism

letters but the the plain face

truth is that this is a form of copium

to deny

the simplicity the simplicity of the

manner by which

marxism leninism genuinely inherited

the tradition of marxism the very from

the very beginning of marx's

uh break with the young hegelians from

the very beginning of uh

lenin's break uh with the second

international marxism has

stayed uh in the

middle course the correct and golden uh

if you

if you will the golden mean the golden

course and it is not strayed from this

either uh to the left

or to the right it has stayed on course

and has

maintained its consistency and its

continuity

with marxism as a whole there's no need

to take liberties

in uh calling it some kind of uh

fascism or deviation because as we can

see

so long as we are not dogmatic and so

long as we are not

um on dialectical in the manner

by which we interpret the words of marx

angles and lenin

we can find uh very simply that

uh stalin mao and others

were in continuity with them and the

only proof of this we really need is

that

the same arguments you're using against

marxist leninist were curiously levied

against lenin himself

lenin was accused of deviating from

the in stalin's word the talmudistic

doctrine of uh so-called doctrine of

marxism

lenin was accused of deviating from

marxism and being a transgressor but the

truth is that what we're dealing with is

a dialectic

of essence and appearance

the appearance the stagnant appearance

of

marxism would eventually come to

contradict its

actual essence lenin rediscovered the

essence of marxism and in doing so

broke with the official apparent forms

of marxism the second international

and it is not without this uh break

that lenin would have uh that the

october revolution would

was even possible and it's the same in

regards to

um marx's relationship even with for

example

uh german idealism and you can go

forward i mean

uh this one-sided view that you're

uh attempting to portray marxism

leninism

under is the same view that left

communists and trotsky has had and the

reason why marxist lenin is historically

associated

i'm talking about in the 1930s

trotskyism with fascism

isn't because they explicitly agreed

with one another it's because they

belong to the same

uh historical one-sided position

of this abstract uh negation

of uh the uh classical liberal order

uh marxism leninism meanwhile was not

the passion of a one-sided negation but

involved the negation of the negation

the building of a new order

uh in its place a new um

reawakening of civilization if you will

the things that fascists were saying

uh superficially and apparently

for example about reviving tradition

reviving civilization and overcoming

liberalism sure they said all of these

things and they were very uh

vain and passionate about saying them

but they didn't actually do any of those

things it's only marxist

and marxist leninist in particular who

in reality

uh did this and they did this which was

perfectly consistent with

marxism from the very beginning

uh yeah so like

my main view with like marxism leninism

isn't that it's necessarily a bad thing

that it wants to do

like state capitalism or like state

socialism they're both the same

but that's not necessarily a bad thing i

think they're very positive ends for

social planning

and organizing the economy for society

and

that's part of the reason why i i

personally don't

get along with like trotskyists or left

comms and you may be right that i may

have like a similar criticism but it's

because i believe

that the actual literature says

different than

what the was put into practice under

stalin

in fact like uh uh par i know that like

stalin's main argument against lenin was

because of the nep

but this is probably kind of odd for you

i personally think khrushchev

is better than stalin's he actually

streamed line production nationalized

a lot of stuff and people unfairly

associate him with the liberalization of

the ussr which

which isn't accurate at all it's uh

but that's a different conversation on

itself really

and as far as like fascism like saying

it's going to

like do a new order and all these

different things i would say like if you

go through like academics like aj james

gregor

roger griffin uh zev stern held

a lot of them do see it as a

revolutionary political doctrine that

did a lot of what it said

in practice including like the by

weber's book varieties of fascism

and usually like the more left-wing

uh cope against fascism is like the

capitalism and decay thing that comes

from

our palm dalt but our pump dolls

main criticisms against fascism which

they're in 10 points

anybody can look them up those same

points on what he defines as like the

capitalistic nature of fascism

otto rule which was a trotskyist from

germany

used that to basically umbrella

fascists with marxist leninist ii

ironically many of the same criticisms

people can find that on the our plan

website if they're interested as far as

tradition goes i don't

necessarily care about tradition like

nazis

were a bit more about tradition i don't

really care about tradition at all like

i'm okay with people want to go destroy

church as a religion i don't really care

for me i just want a society that's

based

on concepts of modernity and technology

and adopting these two

social ends and i don't really see

tradition as doing that

mostly as it's old sterile and it's

mostly liberal nowadays

okay well uh i have uh no doubt

that you um believe that your caricature

of

marxism leninism is a positive that you

just

unironically identify with it but i'm

not

interested in the caricature of marxism

leninism either

that's been created by left communists

trotskyists

and opponents of marxism leninism at

large

whether they unironically agree with it

or condemn it

uh or not i'm interested in the

authentic

uh essence of what marxism leninism

actually was

uh historically and in the contemporary

era

and if marxist leninists have never

transgressed

in terms of the main thinkers of marxism

leninism they have never

transgressed beyond the simple means of

their words

people have to superimpose

interpretations that these are red

fascists that these are

um gravediggers of the revolution that

these are uh

bourgeois state capitalist deviations

whatever

they have to superimpose

this interpretation because they take

too many liberties

in terms of how they interpret the

meaning of the their words

their meaning of the words of the

marxist leninist

theorists and thinkers are indeed simple

right they're very simple

but they're precisely simple because of

the depth and complexity and brilliance

that culminates into them now uh

in regards to um the nep

uh this was not the primary i'm not even

familiar with stalin disagreeing with

lenin per se on the question of the nep

stalin affirmed

at least later the necessity of the nep

he just

recognized that it had fulfilled its

purpose by 1928 that its purpose was

completed the primary difference between

lenin and stalin

actually rested upon the national

question things like the georgian affair

and here it's a little bit more

complicated

now and it's a very subtle difference

not too much of a

extreme difference now in regards to

this new order of fascism you allege

i'm not so sure what new civilization or

reawakening of the fundamental

civilization fascism was ever able to

accomplish

if by new order you mean the invasion of

libya

ethiopia and eastern europe

through turbocharging the pre-fascist

military-industrial complex with the

backing of

international finance and banking

cartels

uh sure but i don't see what's so new

about that whatsoever

it seems to me from a cursory glance at

the actual history that fascists were

merely the hired thugs

of international banks and the

military-industrial complex and the

status quo that had prevailed

before they seized power

the soviet union by contrast

never engaged in such vain

transgressions of uh

attempting to acquire some kind of

colonial

glory all of the soviet union's actions

including the invasion of

finland during the winter war uh

were done in accordance with its

rightful uh

historical and uh uh

territorial uh rights bounded by

pr uh prior written uh agreements the

soviet union did not

transgress the treaties it signed it

didn't uh

in vain invade these countries it has no

right to

so uh i don't see the soviet union

rather

focused on the reawakening of its own uh

internal civilization

uh yeah i would say there's a book by a

thing his name is stanley turner hitler

a biography

then you also have the myth of big big

business

in nazi germany uh i don't remember the

name of the author but it's whatever you

have mussolini's intellectuals by ann

james gregor then you have fascism just

titled fascism by roger griffin which is

another academic

all of them pretty much do a pretty good

job

going against the accusation of

international finance backing them

in fact the only people who say like

back to the nazis that had like an

economic incentive where white russians

i believe is what is pointed out in the

biography on hitler

i am aware of a book called uh

liberalism to fascism industrialism

during

fascist italy and there's actually a

letter that's included in the book

that is written to gramski it's

i can send you post an image of it the

discord and all my telegram people are

interested

but uh wait a second

did he get a phone call

just keep going sorry about that

uh yeah uh i completely

forgot where i was at but we're gonna

probably get into the q and a because we

have a lot of them and that could

probably take up um

all right to an hour so i don't know if

you want to finish up some of your

points and then we'll

okay okay yeah yeah uh i

forgot what i was saying on the last

part but basically those academics

do a pretty good job going against the

idea of international finance backing

them instead they show that there was a

pretty big contention with international

finance in them

and the letter that was written to

gramski

it basically says that the

industrialists were willing to pay the

communists

in italy to disrupt the fascist unions

organizations which is

pretty much an accusation it's level

leveled at fascists for doing

against communists which i won't

necessarily deny but

linen did similar things when he

basically disrupted union organization

and varieties of fascism which is by

another academic that i like he

basically says

upon closer examination we find that

most of the points

which dut considers characteristics of

fascism apply equally to communism

distrust of parliamentary liberal

democracy

power was centralized to the party

organs the central committee employed

bureau

in the early phase of the civil war

linden overturned the 1917 russian

constitutional assembly election

forcibly after the bolsheviks not won

the majority

extension of state monopolies and state

organizations state planning

cooperatives controlled all aspects of

the economy the limitation and

repression of independent working-class

movements

this was seen even during the civil war

with the crushing of uh

i think it's the kronstadt rebellion and

the ukrainian anarchist the

uh concentration oh decentralization

of all blocks into a single economic

political unit

and the excavation of imperialist

antagonisms both within and outside the

communist world

uh comicon was established by stalin as

bringing

as a binding economic force between

socialist states

of eastern europe and later to warsaw

pak to hold on to these vast territories

as far as more antagonisms i can think

of china

and the soviet uh soviet split where

china was basically engaging

in all kinds of border scrimmages

against russia unjustifiably so

and also many different asians

territories and even worked with

pol pot who was funded by the cia and

basically you could argue in forms of

territorial disputes with other

countries

and i don't necessarily think these are

characters of what marxist leninism is

i think they put up a front of marx

angles and linen to justify themselves

but largely i see

stalinists as engaging in a form of

revisionism to

actually warp it to what they want it to

be and this is

part of the criticisms i believe that

like

dugan has on one of his speeches on

the failure of national bolshevism and

one of the the reasons why he

disassociated from edward lippmann off

and that's about that's all my points

but yeah

unfortunately i don't want to take up

too much time it seems like you're

trying to bring up

a multitude of topics at rapid fires

though we're supposed to passively

accept this without a careful uh

evaluation and scrutiny of

all of the different types of things

you're saying because you said quite a

lot of things

just there you made allegations for you

may you denied for example the

connection between british finance and

the british empire

and fascism uh you then shifted to talk

about

uh uh com you then pointed out that

there were several

apparent similarities between communism

and fascism none of which you have

proven or

persuaded anyone in my view into uh that

these are the essential

characteristics of either respectively

they can even be applied

to capitalist countries to the new deal

america for example

you then uh talked about how china

unjustly engaged with border skirmishes

against the soviet union

again well that's your subjective view

that in the chinese view

all the territories that were stolen

from it

in the 19th century uh during the

century of humiliation

are its own rightful territories now you

can disagree with that but it's a

legitimate historical claim it doesn't

come from thin air

like ethiopia's uh invasion of ethiopia

and libya and moreover the nazis

invasion of eastern europe which was

completely baseless and

was based in no real a legitimate

historical claim but they just pulled it

out of their ass basically

and then uh what else did you say you

said something about

um you said something about paul pott

i'm not sure why we want to talk about

paul pot

the reasons for the chinese supporting

the kimarus

are complicated but they have to do with

vietnam and the perceived bullying that

vietnam was

engaging in in the region it's in the

old history but

it's a border dispute it has nothing to

do with the kind of

vain adventurism of fascism whatsoever

there's nothing comparable to that in

the history of communism not even the

invasion of

afghanistan which was by far the most

controversial in the

communistic world then you say that

marxist leninist put up a front

of real continuity but they twist

everything only in order to

fulfill what they want it to be but you

haven't actually engaged with the

content of what marxist leninists want

it hasn't occurred to you that what

marxist leninists want is in fact

to maintain fidelity with that original

brilliance

uh and that original revolutionary

insight

that began with marx that is what

marxist lenin is

ultimately so far as theory is concerned

want

uh anyway um

should i continue or

he's he's back hold on

and it says you the device isn't

connected though zoltan i don't know

what you just did

um i can't pull you in if you don't um

fix whatever it is he's below there

um i don't know if we should just hop

right into the queue and you can keep

going he can probably hear you but um

i don't know what's going on with this

oh wait there he is again no it's not

working

i don't know what you're doing it's not

working though whatever it is

um i don't know maybe we should just hop

into the q a and let him figure this out

sure i guess uh as a concluding remark

i'll just say that as far as i'm

concerned that

marxism is not as as stalin pointed out

marxism is in marxism feminism by

extension is not a dead letter it's not

a dead substance and it's not a

dead collection of texts marxism

is a living essence and it doesn't exist

to um conform to some kind of

i guess talmudistic textualism or

textual purity it exists to relate to

the material world in a specific way the

reasons for which

relates to something much more

fundamental about the encounter

humanity has with modernity as a whole

so that's what i'll say