BadEmpanada gets EVISCERATED (RIP)

[Music]

all right we're gonna get right to bed

empanada

so in case uh any of you guys don't know

that empanada is a fucking idiot

um

[Music]

he's the most bitter

deranged piece of shit that uh you know

circulates our sphere and this is what's

going on so beta empanada um he's

covering me now you could see the

bitterness and the frothing at the mouth

because beta empanada you don't have

this beta empanada you don't come close

to me beta empanada you got to know your

place beta empanada beta boy empanada

you understand beta boy empanada because

that's what you are you've outlived your

significance

you've out

surpassed your significance as an

internet content creator ain't nobody

give a shit about you beta empanada

nobody give a head about you beta

empanada you know i'm already about to

surpass you and subscribers your videos

are dog shit your video on the uh

you go to genocide was dog shit bullshit

was it debunked and you're about to get

debunked you don't know what the fuck

you're talking about about anything

beta empanada you don't know what god

damn fucking thing you're talking about

beta empanada is he wants to be the

hipster of the hipsters so he acts like

he's above everyone every content

creator is stupid except him he's the

smart guy that you should trust because

he's the only one living in reality

everyone else is delusional and

beta empanadas the one who's

level-headed and actually grounded in

reality so he's against bread tube but

he's also against caleb maupin and he's

also against the gray zone because he is

just so above it all

that he he's he's he is the one he's the

the messiah right he's too much of a

beta to own up to any position so he

just dwells in a fucking uh eternally

ironic position because he can't fucking

fathom the idea that you literally live

on the fucking internet you don't live

in the real world beta empanada you're a

fucking internet figure and you can't

own up to that fact so you just act like

you're this ironic guy who just makes

fun of everything and

nothing can be taken seriously yeah we

get it beta empanada but guess what

you're stuck here with us you're not

better than anyone you're not better

than anyone beta empanada you hide

behind irony because you got nothing of

substance to offer anyone about anything

you fucking dumb fuck you're a dumb fuck

with nothing to offer to anyone except

this idea that

um

no one knows what they're talking about

except me i'm the only reasonable one

who knows what they're talking about

everyone else is just ridiculous

shut the fuck up beta boy empanada so

let's uh

let's see what beta empanada had to say

about me ever where he like talks about

how like um the the us wasn't

imperialist it was just a normal

everyday republic and then british

asians form the deep state and force it

to be imperialist yeah that's not what i

said what i actually was trying to say

was that it was not in the nature of the

american republic to take on the level

of post-war u.s hegemony that it did in

order to do that it had to inherit the

legacy of the british empire it had to

in a way forget and repress its own um

founding you know like principle or

founding ideal whatever you want to call

that of the american republic that's all

i was trying to say i didn't say that

you know it was just a normal i don't

even know what that means in normal

republic i was just trying to say that

what we know of is the american empire

which comes after the world war ii did

fdr represent a threat to the british

well fdr would give speeches like for

example saying that america will never

ever ever again and this is what he said

after world war ii go to war for the

british empire yeah fdr was a threat to

them dude there was so much tension

between fdr and churchill and especially

in regards to the soviet union fdr was

very um he had a very kind of friendly

relation to the soviet union and he

foresaw a future of friendly cooperation

with the soviet union whereas churchill

was like extremely uh anti-soviet

manifest destiny in the spanish-american

war show how wrong you are i didn't say

nowhere in this video did i deny that

the united states was developing its own

unique form of imperialism especially

after the 20th century in the late 19th

century and 20th century i never denied

that but what i was talking about was

what's called the american empire which

was

referring to the post-war uh

american you know bretton woods system

deep state like using the word deep

state is fucking hilarious accentuate

the contradiction

why is the word deep state funny because

all the word deep state is referring to

is the power of the state that's beyond

its official uh its official and formal

reality

that there is a fucking deep state dude

if you don't fucking understand that

you're fucking stupid if you think the

cia is an organization that acts only

within the capacity of the formal laws

and rules is overtly and explicitly

established by the uh american state you

don't know what the fuck you're talking

about and then cia is just one example

we're talking about informal networks

we're talking about the ngos we're

talking about you know uh entrenched

business interests talk about the

military industrial complex we're

talking about all of these institutions

we're talking about so many different

things if it is bad empanadas saying

that there's no deep state i think he's

trying to say that the american state is

pretty much just what you see on the

surface like there's no deep state it's

just like when you see biden on tv i

guess that's just the american state

it's just when biden's on tv that's what

this fucking idiot who is pretending to

be a fucking marxist but doesn't know

the fucking um doesn't even know his

head from his own fucking ass is trying

to say he's trying to basically say that

uh everything is just american liberal

democracy and that's it who's calls the

usa the destruction of the republic so

let me get this straight as far as

dipshit dumb fuck stupid bitch

beta empanada is concerned first he

tells me that there's no deep state and

that there's only the overt state in his

own qualifications he has to accept it

to republic the american state is

formally a republic and the constitution

establishes this as a republic from the

very beginning if you're going to say

there's no deep state and there's only a

surface state you're the one you should

be doubling down on this point that i'm

stating that there's an american

republic oh no

we have we must uphold the u.s state we

must continue the u.s state it's so

important you can't you can't destroy

the republic what is this who is he this

is this you know this is like such a

truism for marxists from the very

beginning marxists never envisioned the

destruction of the american republic as

a whole they envision a destruction

maybe of uh the imperialist state

machinery uh the deep state i guess we

can't acknowledge there's a deep state

and things like that but as far as the

constitution is concerned and the

republic is concerned you know the the

reason why marxism leninism is

associated with like the violent

overthrow of uh and complete

annihilation of states and building new

states from scratch is because

oftentimes the states that they were um

overthrowing were not democratic

republics but were states that were

leftovers of the ancient regime this

effectively states that we're not modern

states but when marx and engels looked

at the united states the united states

is already a democratic republic you

know

let's look at let's consult angles as

principles of communism angles

principles of communism so

i really need you guys to understand

what a fucking dumb stupid fuck bad

empanada is i need you to understand

like how he's trying to paint me as a

ridiculous guy because i'm talking about

the republic and all this kind of stuff

well this is point 25 of engels's

principles of communism what is the

attitude of the communists to other

political parties of our times in

america where a democratic constitution

has already been established the

communists must make common cause with

the party which will turn this

constitution against the bourgeoisie and

use it in the interests of the

proletariat

that is the agrarian national reformers

it's funny how my position is literally

identical to angles in 2021 my position

is literally just identical to this all

of this shit that they're smearing

against us for being american patriot

socialist patriots you go back and read

the principles of communism and he

literally and then we talk about land

reform and the necessity of building a

base in rural america and the american

peasantry or whatever it's like he's

literally talking about this engels is

literally talking about this and

remember a democratic constitution has

already been established communists

should make calls with a party that'll

turn it against the bourgeoisie that's

literally ron paul maoism that that logo

talks about gender dong said marx and

angels were wrong about america that's

fine but don't call us the revisionist

then don't call us the revisionist for

maintaining continuity with the views of

marks and angles on this matter

this guy is a marxist

we must protect the the us republic

we must uphold the republic i don't want

i don't want to abolish the state i yeah

i'm a marxist and i have receipts you

fucking dipshit i actually have receipts

and yeah his soy voice is cracking um i

have receipts straight out of the words

of marx and angles themselves and i also

have receipts from the experience of the

popular front in the 1930s

where there was a threat of fascism and

communists were given we're tasked with

the duty of protecting the republic

against fascism

believe it or not

i don't want a revolution i don't want

to replace the state with a new one i

want to defend the republic

yeah you don't understand what

revolution or anything even means you

guys a revolution isn't what happens

when people just decide they want to

abolish the state a revolution literally

happens when for example the state

itself imminently loses legitimacy or

collapse but the state's continuity

historical continuity that remains even

amidst the revolution that continuity

remains that's when the bolsheviks took

power even the tsarist state which was

never legitimated in a modern way

whatsoever they just had to remain there

had to be continuity between the laws of

the czar state and the bolshevik state

now later on they would amend and

eliminate them but they they did this

through a system of laws that was

created by soviet democracy there were

there was no precedent for any

democratic system within the russian

empire at all all the laws were based on

the sovereignty of the czar he was the

sovereign right so there's no way to

internally use the state machinery after

you seized power to change anything you

had to implement a new system because

there was no modern state to speak of

lead to the destruction of the republic

why must it lead to the destruction of

the republic

are you like a fucking like republican

senator as as palpatine is forming the

empire what is going on here because the

republic is bad

no beta empanada you're just a fucking

idiot you're literally just a dumb fuck

and you sit in australia and comment on

this shit looking like a dumb fucking

shit i don't think you've noticed that

more morale this like

disgusting fuck can't even help but pick

his nose you can tell this guy doesn't

shower and you can tell this is a smelly

guy

who just picks his nose and picks his

ass all day doesn't even wash his hands

you could tell his fucking mouse and

keyboard is sticky as fuck and he's just

this fucking nasty guy reality that

means not

more morality that means nothing to me i

guarantee you this guy has an idea of

what good and bad is and he's just

saying that's morality it means nothing

to me i don't

yeah but that has you can't conflate

your sense of good and bad

with some kind of prescriptive form that

has to be imposed on reality fanatically

dumb fuck our sense of good and bad is

always actually always going to be more

fundamental and more dense than the form

of our morality morality if you

understand marxism is a form of the

estrangement of our more fundamental

sense of good and bad it's a form of

abstraction and estrangement from that

actually he has an idealist view of

morality our sense of good and bad does

not premise the form we contemplate of

our sense of good and bad cannot be

taken as the premise of material reality

even if material reality is imminently

moral you can't just say the republic is

bad when you're describing it because it

has a material reality because the

republic is bad what does that actually

mean materially and practically nothing

it means we should abolish it and that's

literally what defines the aesthetic of

these fucking anarcho-leftists is that

they have this kind of apocalyptic

moralistic view of reality according to

which if something's bad we abolish it

if something's good we preserve it or we

implement it right this is their

basically their theory of praxis their

aesthetic as a whole and their view of

morality which is wholly idealistic

wholly subjectivistic and wholly

anti-marxist

an empire built on imperialism slavery

and genocide is me being the republic

was founded on the basis of seceding

from the empire i mean i went over this

already earlier in the stream

but the us was not founded on the basis

of seceding from the empire with the

island yes it was you dumb fuck it's

literally in a declaration of

independence you are literally a stupid

fuck on the basis of settlers wanting to

have their own empire the british there

was no it wasn't he's taking the words

of like george washington that he quotes

in the comment section out of context

when empire just meant a big polity back

then but as far as the british empire is

concerned yeah it was founded on the

basis of seceding from it and founding a

state of the american people by of and

for them the fear that the british

empire would potentially abolish slavery

the british empire actively was trying

to limit western settlement western

encroachment onto yeah he's repeating

the talking points of the fraudulent

1619 project which is entirely unfucking

true if the british intended on

abolishing slavery why is it that it was

the british system that prolonged the

existence of slavery in the united

states and that when the time came that

the north was sufficiently strong enough

to lead an effort against slavery it was

the british empire which backed the

confederacy explicitly why was it that

the confederacy was aligned with britain

then you dumb fuck you literally are

trying to fucking rewrite history

to indian lands i can we're not talking

about the end of an empire we're talking

about the creation of a new empire that

was a radicalization of the empire

that it was no it wasn't you dumbass

north america was just a complete colony

of foreign european powers the american

republic was meant to be a republic not

an empire but a republic when washington

used the word empire he's just referring

to a big polity a big sovereign state

and he's gonna go here and be like no

the the u.s wasn't an empire

the us it wasn't the fucking empire

dumbass

you know split from the empire so it

can't be an empire even though it

literally

literally like

the founding literally

literally shut the fuck up bitch

pops of the usa explicitly outline the

fact we're open with the facts nice burp

like they were open with the fact that

you know we're making an empire here we

want a coast to coast empire where white

people can have tons of land who can

yeah they didn't say that at all they

never even said that whatsoever you're

just making that shit up we want an

empire for white people yeah nice

fucking 1619 woke revisionism of history

dumbass they he then founding fathers

never said that shit okay maybe it's

implied because obviously at that time

in history there was no view of the

equality of all races and whatever um

there wasn't even a view of equality

between men and women you know like it's

so stupid it's these people are so

fucking stupid you know as far as the

times were concerned it was a democratic

republic it had ambitions to expand

seaboard to seaboard because it was

america it was the united states of

america its expansionism was based on

the fact that these territories were

already being contested by all the

colonial powers they wanted to take

territory contested by colonial powers

and make them the territory of a

democratic republic and not a colony you

dumb fuck these were already the

territories of european colonies like

these people complained that britain was

going to bow slavery when all they did

was ban the trade of slavery with their

big fucking navy which is like the same

thing we put into the constitution that

the importation of slavery would be

banned after 1806. yeah that's what

these people that's what this dumb fuck

doesn't understand if yeah if he's right

why did we put it in the constitution

that the importation of slavery is going

to be banned in 1806 that doesn't mean

slavery is going to be abolished dumbass

as about the fact that people are

already living there you know where

white people can take take land every

individual white family can have a

tunnel wait it wasn't just that people

were living there that these were

fucking colonies of european powers or

they were going to become the colonies

of european powers you don't seem to

fucking understand the europeans were

already there dumbass now as far as the

settlement of the territories are

concerned that was going to follow from

the united states annexation of these

territories because the united states

government was trying to build a country

not a not a colony not an empire but a

country

britain tried to maneuver its way into

the annexations in the texas republic in

the mexican southwest california this

guy's making it seem like like oh we

left britain and then we became the evil

guys who were just preying on all of

this this uh this empty territory that

the european empires had no designs on

and weren't vying for

it's been about

two or three decades

after the declaration of independence

and after the or after the end of the

revolutionary war rather through the

monroe doctrine so like it wasn't an

empire it was forced to become an empire

by the british is what he's about to say

the monroe doctrine was a doctrine

against european colonization and puppet

monarchies dumbass the monroe doctrine

wasn't oh we're going to imperialize

everything it was saying a warning to

the european powers we're not going to

tolerate your colonization of the

western hemisphere you don't even know

fucking history dude did they not teach

you about it in australia or you're just

trying to fucking send woke virtue

signal points to the fucking twitter

lefties according to ben and pinata the

us was always an empire because they

wanted to stop europeans from colonizing

the americas and they wanted to combat

the influence of colonialism in the

americas what a horrible

you know what a horrible fucking crime

this is like when anarchists say that

the the soviet union wasn't communist

because it had a state how dare they

have a state and defend themselves

against foreign aggression that makes

them just as bad as the foreigners

trying to engage in aggression against

them apparently the british intelligence

james bond has infiltrated the us

government and forced the the us

government to become imperial this is

the most like unashamed just naked and

open ignorance i've ever fucking seen

james bond does this guy not know the

significance of british intelligence

first it was star wars now it's james

bond i'm beginning to think that this

guy has gotten his entire education from

popular media anyone who studied the

history of geopolitics in the early 20th

century and throughout knows the

importance of british intelligence in

literally defining the course of history

are you stupid dude you didn't know

about this the ways in which british

intelligence literally infiltrated like

almost every fucking government of

europe including germany you don't know

about things like that and the ussr you

don't know that british intelligence is

what fucking like pioneered that shit i

can't fucking even believe this shit why

are you bringing up james bond yeah i

guess the reason they made james bond is

is probably inspired by that legacy but

it comes from somewhere dumbass you just

don't know anything about history you

dumb fuck and you just fucking uh flaunt

this ignorance

like it reflects well on you and badly

on me

incredible imagine watching this and

thinking that you're watching someone

say something that makes sense this is

like the dangerous vorsh

imagine watching this guy and i bet his

audience just a bunch of bitter ass

bitch people too like you guys gets does

anyone just get satisfaction just

watching this guy and just always be

seething butt hurt bitter people who are

just unhappy bitter people at the world

just unhappy bitter people who have no

sense of fun or happiness really because

i could have sworn it was stealing of

mexico the constant supporting of

endless wars to steal territory that

were highly supported by the american

people even if they weren't supported by

the american people it's still a reality

i'm sorry but they were supported by the

american people because the people

leading the american people whereas

london understood was a labor

aristocracy and were um what the people

leading the american people were a labor

aristocracy

teddy what is going on here what the

fuck

elements align to you yeah during the

era of american imperialism you did have

a labor aristocracy that represented the

top segments of the american working

class and the american people that were

leading them along and you know throwing

down the breadcrumbs so

i guess

i guess bitter el pinata denies the

labor aristocracy

the u.s imperialism that we're leaving

them and like

let him just say that you should concede

the battlefield to those elements what

what the fuck is this is holy shit what

is going on here this is incredible okay

sorry but they were supported by the

american people because the people

leading the american uh people whereas

london understood was a labor

aristocracy and were um petty bourgeois

elements aligned to us imperialism that

we're leaving them and like that

literally means nothing you cannot

respond to it it doesn't mean anything

so what do you fucking mean it doesn't

mean anything you dumb fuck if the

american people are being led by a labor

aristocracy as lenin understood that

doesn't mean that the american people

couldn't have been led by any other

force lenin said working class partisans

should lead the american people right

class conscious uh revolutionary should

lead the american working class you

don't concede the battlefield to the

labor aristocracy and the petty

bourgeois elements and look at fucking

this dumb bitch

that's meaningless just like how hegel

is completely meaningless too right you

disgusting dumb fuck this guy calls

himself a marxist and calls hegel

meaningless literally the thing that

gave rise to marxism i would love to

have a debate with bad empanada and i

just want to ask ben and banana hey

better banana where did marxism come

from like did marx just wake up one day

and just decide to like be like normal

like you you're just the normal guy and

you're just bitter at the world for not

being as normal and cool as you are

right is that what you think you fucking

loser are you saying like the american

people were a labor aristocracy okay and

no i wasn't i was saying they were being

led by one you dumb fuck do you not

fucking speak english you call from

australia so english is your first

language did i say the american people

were labor aristocracy or did i say they

were being led by one you dumb stupid

fuck

but pity bourgeois elements are lying to

us imperialism that was leading them and

he's talking about like like the the u.s

you know of independence here right so

no i'm not i'm talking about the era of

us imperialism what the fuck does that

mean petty bourgeois elements are lined

to us imperialism and we're um petty

yeah have you read imperialism the

highest stage you dumbass well elements

aligned to us imperialism that we're

leaving so how is it possible that petty

bourgeois elements were aligned to u.s

imperialism when like before the us even

existed apparently yet the u.s is a

republic that has nothing to do with

imperialism and it was actually a break

from imperialism trying to understand

because there was an era of american

imperialism in the early 20th century

everyone fucking understands that that's

what i thought jason was talking about

and that's what i was fucking responding

to if you got the fucking stick out of

your fucking ass you'd see that's very

clear american imperialism did exist in

the 20th century now the american empire

was founded after the post-war period

but yeah there wasn't an era of american

imperialism like the rest of europe

which was hotly contested and a source

of such huge controversy and scandal

within america he is so reflexively

biased against you just like that's

where i know but you gotta understand

this guy has a stick in his ass 24 7.

and he's look this is a guy who just

watches people grow and he just becomes

bitter he's like everyone's wrong and

i'm right everyone's wrong and i'm right

i wish everyone was just like me

he's like squidward tentacles you know

he's got the squidward tentacles

mentality where he just got this idea

everyone's a moron but him you know and

he's the he just plays the clarinet by

himself he just plays that clarinet all

by himself and cries

that no one will understand him

okay so this is going to be the part to

the final destruction of bitter el

pinata the stupid bitch

this all began with um this video that

he uploaded guys i i don't i

guys please hold your horses

i've been exposed as a fake i'm just a

guy who doesn't understand lenin i've

never read lenin in my life apparently

that al pinata has made me look so

stupid guys he just made me look so

stupid it's so embarrassing guys look so

i'm gonna do it in his uh bitter bitch

elpinato voice debate infrared verse

lenin on imperialism

it's not like i literally responded to

this argument like a trillion times

before so let's see the embarrassing

mistake i made and then i'm gonna break

down and dissect the meme to just bask

in the exposure and humiliation of

infrared by bitter el panada this is the

guy who understands lenin he knows what

he's talking about and it's so simple

it's as plain as day as this

genghis khan was not an imperialist the

roman empire was not fucking impulse

that's not what the fucking word

actually means we have to get the word

imperialism from lenin then i don't care

about your concept of imperialism as a

marxist leninist we have our own concept

of imperialism we get from lenin

imperialism the highest stage of

capitalism by vladimir lenin page 75

colonial politics and imperialism

existed even before the latest stage of

capitalism and even before capitalism

rome founded on slavery carried out a

colonial policy and was imperialistic

oh my god guys hold on

you see it here this is straight out of

lenin himself

lenin's directly contradicting me he's

he's directly contradicting me

apparently that's what's going on i mean

he why else would lennon dedicate an

entire sentence to stating definitively

that rome was imperialist because that

was the point of this sentence right i

think that was the point lenin was

trying to make with this sentence wasn't

it what do you guys think you think that

just read this guys i want to see i want

to probe your brain what was the point

lennon was trying to say in this

sentence do you guys know are you able

to know do you know the context know

that the context isn't that i'm wrong

and i don't know what i'm talking about

right well why don't we look at the work

itself it turns out that uh

this one sentence

he just he just cited this one sentence

which would be opener to a paragraph and

the paragraph actually is going to tell

us the point he's trying to make

colonial policy and imperialism existed

before the latest stage of capitalism

and even before capitalism rome founded

on slavery pursued a colonial policy and

practice imperialism

what does lenin in context

mean by imperialism here is he talking

about the system that he is then going

to elucidate throughout this entire book

or is he referring to some

trans-historical essence that just

exists across time well it's a shame

that lenin's not alive anymore otherwise

we'd be able to ask him right so i guess

that it's

settled himself clarifies the matter we

actually can look at this like one word

later when we clarify what he actually

means

right after he says this but general

disquisitions on imperialism which

ignore or put into the background the

fundamental difference between

socioeconomic formations inevitably turn

into the most vapid banality or bragging

like the comparison greater rome and

greater britain what lenin is saying

here is that you can't compare rome with

britain because they rest on

fundamentally different socioeconomic

formations

you can point out the fact that on a

superficial level yeah with our empires

and both have a colonial policy but they

don't share the same essence the reason

why rome for example is an

expansionistic empire and has a colonial

policy holds itself to an entirely

different material premise there's an

entirely different historical and

material reason for why so essentially

speaking it is not appropriate to call

the roman empire imperialist once you

acknowledge what lenin means by

imperialism in this book now the reason

why lenin says that rome is

imperialistic is because he's

acknowledging the common sense

understanding people had have

imperialism at the time that they were

vaguely throwing around that yeah rome

had a colonial policy it was

expansionistic it was an empire it

conquered territories yeah that's what

lenin's saying yeah i'll give it to you

that's true but you can't say that this

is the same in essence as the

imperialism that exists today it's not

specific enough right just because

you're expansionistic and you have a

colonial policy and you're an empire

doesn't mean we're referring to the same

thing when he uses the word imperialism

as the highest stage of capitalism right

then look what lenin said even the

capitalist colonial policy of previous

stages of capitalism is essentially

different from the colonial policy of

finance capital implying that both

modern imperialism and colonial policy

is essentially different so let me break

down what essentially different means in

the context of using words if a word has

an essentially different referent if the

referent is not in essence the same once

it has been clarified it is no longer

appropriate to use that word it may be

appropriate according to a certain

context but in the context of the debate

i was engaged in where someone was

trying to say that modern and compare

modern imperialism to you know genghis

khan and the romans it's not appropriate

to say that lenin himself made it very

clear that it's not appropriate to

compare them so if you're a dipshit who

just watches this video it's gonna seem

like you know this is the angle that

empanadas going for in this little clip

the angle that he's going for is

basically like dude even lennon

understood that yeah rome was imperious

dude imperialism is an eternal platonic

ideal it already has a fixed essence

every single concept that has any

relevance in the modern day has always

existed nothing new under the sun the

only thing different is that things

change and evolve but qualitatively they

stay the same and as you're going to see

in the comments this is actually bad

empanadas argument his argument is

basically that all london was saying was

that imperialism changed but that in

essence it's the same it's just evolved

notice in a previous video or a previous

clip bed empanada has said that hegel is

completely meaningless mumbo jumbo well

the reason it makes sense that he would

say that is because you really do have

to understand hegelian dialectics to

understand the possibility that there

are qualitative changes there can be

qualitative changes historically history

is not just the evolution of the same

essence the essence itself undergoes

qualitative transformations that make it

essentially a different thing

not the quantitative evolution of the

same thing but an essentially different

thing qualitatively a different thing

the imperialism of ancient rome which

carried on a policy of seizure and

conquest by force of arms subduing to

its hegemony a great many countries of

europe asia and africa must not be

confused with modern imperialism just as

for instance usury capital which existed

before capitalism must not be confused

with usury bank capital in the epoch of

imperialism the difference between

imperialism of ancient rome and modern

imperialism consists in a difference of

production basis then it was a small

presence in artisan production and

commercial capital now it is an enormous

machine production and monopoly capital

this example among others shows how

incorrect it is to understand it by

terms of modern imperialism only a

policy keep this in mind specifically

right it's incorrect to understand by

the term modern imperialism a policy now

what does bad empanada have to say about

that we're going to see and not a whole

system of capitalist economy the former

point of view makes it impossible to

understand the distinction between the

imperialism of ancient rome and modern

imperialism now at this point the debate

would just be over he's just wrong he

doesn't know what he's talking about

anyone who watched this clip and thought

this was like a got you and somehow like

this clip made a profound point you are

literally just exposed yourself as a

stupid person if you thought that this

made me look stupid you are you just

exposed yourself as a midwife this

comment section is full of midwitz who

just love having this idea that oh no

the streamers don't know anything house

doesn't know anything he's just drifting

like you're a fucking dumbass dude you

literally don't you are worse than just

an average dumb viewer okay you're

someone who's pretending to be something

they're not you're pretending to be a

smart intellectual and you're a fucking

dumbass so this guy he's kind of good

faith and he goes i suspect what

infrared meant was that rome was not

subject to the same productive relations

this is a good own but it doesn't really

engage with the subs of the debate i

didn't know i didn't watch it wow this

is like the only good faith guy in this

entire fucking comment section no he

clearly doesn't because if he'd actually

read the work in question

he would say that lenin acknowledges

that ancient empires absolutely were

imperialist but that doesn't actually

reflect what lenin said we go here dude

he didn't say that they were absolutely

imperialist by any metric or

qualification whatsoever he said they

practiced imperialism or he called them

imperialistic but that was immediately

followed by a but so it's anything but

absolute and then in the footnotes he

really goes to clarify that you're

dealing with an essentially different

thing like the words here are referring

to essentially different things like all

lenin means by the imperialism of

ancient rome is the policy of seizure

and context if you don't even like in

good faith no one could come at this on

bad imp and bitter el panada's fucking

sigh you just couldn't agree with him in

good faith when it comes to this this

doesn't actually say that lenin

disagreed with me he's just trying to

dig up something that would make me look

bad qualitatively speaking i am 100 in

agreement with lenin here right but he

digs up an inconvenient

like detail that makes it seem like

there's some huge difference that i'm

departing from lenin from when if you

actually put that in context i'm saying

the same thing lenin is saying that the

character of imperialism has evolved as

systems of production have evolved the

world has become more connected and

finance capitalism has developed changes

nothing about the statement being an

idiotic it's like saying racism is

different today than from 200 years ago

because its characters change and

therefore no one back then was racist

two things actually there's there's a

whole lot of stupidity in this fucking

paragraph alone that we're gonna dissect

and destroy so first just

unambiguously anti-marxist statement the

marxist view is not the evolution of a

single quality or the single form the

marxist view is a contradiction between

content and form that leads to

qualitative changes historically it's

not just the evolution of the same fixed

essence the essence itself qualitatively

changes which means that the character

of imperialism hasn't evolved as systems

of production have evolved imperialism

as it existed in the roman empire was

annihilated according to the mode of

production being annihilated when the

actual material premises of the roman

empire changed the roman empire quite

literally collapsed its imperialism may

impart some significance as an ideal

concept in your head but that doesn't

mean that the ideal concept has some

imminent fixed essence that is

trans-historical and merely evolving

across history the only thing you can

point out is that on the surface yes the

british empire was an empire and the

roman empire was an empire and then

surface level both of them were kind of

expansionistic and you know seizing

other land and seizing other territories

but in terms of the essential reasons

behind those that's different the reason

the roman empire was imperialist in

lenin's sense of the word wasn't because

it was imperialist it was because of its

specific mode of production imperialism

as some kind of trans-historical concept

doesn't explain the reason why that on

the surface you're seeing this when it

comes to the roman empire this guy is

basically no different than people who

are just trying to say he actually

here's my challenge to bitter el pinata

why couldn't you just say that

capitalism has always existed sure

capitalism has developed and it's

evolved but it's existed since the dawn

of time wouldn't that be accurate after

all you know the accumulation of capital

and commodities has always existed

capital in a sense has always existed

the increase of your coffers through the

sale of commodities has always existed

that's always been a thing you know

what's funny so let's ask the question

right

let me ask ben and i hey bad empanada

did the proletariat always exist

did the proletariat always exist he

would probably say no the proletariat

didn't always exist the proletariat as a

class arose

with the

arrival of the capitalist mode of

production right in the class of wage

laborers and the um you know

the socialization of labor and the

generalized commodity production and the

emergence of abstract labor that's what

gives rise to the proletariat right well

let's see what marx has to say people

forget the saying the roman proletariat

lived at the expense of society while

modern society lives at the expense of

the proletariat so according to bitter

el pinata's bankrupt anti-marxist stupid

fucking logic the proletariat has always

existed at least is existed as old as

ancient rome just because the words are

in common if we use the word proletariat

to describe something today it couldn't

possibly be the case that we're

referring to something different in the

times of ancient rome well we're using

the same word just like like lenin is

using the word imperialism just like

lenin marx is addressing the common use

of the word proletariat which was a

historical reference to the ancient

roman proletariat and while

acknowledging the uses of those words in

terms of what they're trying to say that

yes there was empires who expanded and

stuff what i'm trying to refer to is

different so my word imperialism the

highest stage of capitalism it's

literally the title of the fucking book

is referring to something different this

is the one-to-one comparison and analogy

now will bitter el pinata really come

here and say that marx is referring to

the fact that the proletariat has

absolutely preceded capitalism finally

it's like saying that racism is

different today from 200 years ago

because its character has changed and

therefore no one back then was racist no

it would be like saying that racism is

different today from a thousand or two

thousand years ago because it's

referring to something qualitatively

different yes racism is a modern

phenomenon racism existed 200 years ago

because modernity existed 200 years ago

the same modern racism existed 200 years

ago because 200 years ago we were still

living in the modern era moderate if

unless you don't know what modernity

means racism is something unique that

emerged in the modern sense of the word

like in terms of racism as this strict

kind of essentialization of people based

on their physical characteristics um

from a natural scientific point of view

that is something that's very recent no

racism for example in the modern sense i

would argue didn't exist in the times of

ancient rome i would 100 argue that is

ridiculous the usa only turn imperials

after world war two as a british

conspiracy can

bitter el pinata i literally destroyed

him last night about this whole topic i

actually clarified that yeah america was

obviously imperialist before world war

ii can he actually provide evidence that

i said it wasn't all i said was that the

american empire which is something

specific we're referring to which is

american

unipolar hegemony is something that

emerged after world war ii american

imperialism uh in the preceding decades

was qualitatively something different

than the britain woods american-led

order after world war ii and moreover

the um the era of american imperialism

in the sense of the reagan bush

reagan clinton bush heroes of kind of

becoming the world police you know that

is something that arose after world war

ii absolutely the us before world war ii

was just another imperialist power now

after world war two it kind of started

to seize the responsibility of becoming

like the preeminent global power of the

global order right um it's incapable

yeah too bad i never actually

contradicted london ever unless you want

to get into like semantics and be like

um but you said the us only became an

empire and by definition imperialism no

because what i'm referring to by the

american empire is the bretton woods

it's what most people refer to when they

say the american empire they're not

referring to like when america was

imperialist in the early 20th century

why are these people so stupid like even

basic logic and history destroys these

people yeah i know i know but like

judging by the comments of this video

and also all the likes and shit i really

feel like they need to be taught a

lesson and it really needs to be

hammered in that these are stupid

fucking people right

but imperialism now is different changes

nothing it's not just different you

fucking idiot it is essentially and

fundamentally different so essentially

and fundamentally different that it is

not appropriate after the publication of

lenin's book to call the roman empire

imperialist especially not when i'm in a

debate arguing with someone who's trying

to make comparisons between the you know

the mongols and the roman empire with

modern imperialism when lenin himself

says that these comparisons rest on

vapid banalities and generalizations

lenin the rom for lenin the roman empire

was imperialist

but the only times lenin ever refers to

the roman empire being imperialist is

precisely when he's contrasting

the modern form

of imperialism it's almost like lenin

isn't actually saying the roman empire

is imperialist

acknowledging what many other people

mean by the roman empire being

imperialist that it sees as foreign

territories and that it expands or

whatever

and that all he's trying to do is

distinguish his use of the word

referring to an entirely new and

qualitatively different system from that

one it's almost like it's not for lenin

that the roman empire is imperialist

it's for the people in lenin's time that

he's trying to respond to and

distinguish himself from that it's

imperialist now if lenin and i can't

believe i have to explain this if lenin

in context was like you know the roman

empire wasn't imperialist he would

effectively in context be saying that

the roman empire wasn't an empire that

seized territories and expanded

and had colonies because that's what

imperialism as most people at that time

thought of the word it was just this

vague general thing if lenin was like

saying oh the roman empire wasn't

imperialist that that would assume that

he had already clarified the system of

modern imperialism that's the highest

stage of capitalism but he didn't do

that already because he was doing it in

the book itself that's what the fucking

book is for if the roman empire existed

today it would guys

it's over it's fucking over it's fucking

over if the roman empire existed today

it would use the same means as other

empires which is why lenin acknowledged

it as such that's not why lenin fucking

acknowledged it as such really thank you

fucking dumbass let me only acknowledged

the quad the claim that imperialism

could be uh ancient one was imperialist

because it carried on a policy of

seizure conquest this is what he was

acknowledging not that this imperialism

is qualitatively the same as this

imperialism but that he was

acknowledging yes there was seizure in

conquest but despite that he's talking

about an entirely different fucking

thing only superficially are they can

they be compared only superficially are

they comparable not essentially you

stupid fuck you literal stupid fuck you

literal fucking brainlet stupid pseudo

intellectual fuck literally said if the

roman empire existed today it would use

the same means as other empires this

actually pisses me off now that this

fucking guy is being treated like a

fucking marxist that people are

following and actually believe anything

they say you bum fuck you have literally

just tarnished your entire fucking level

of credibility on the fucking internet

you literally said if the roman empire

existed today it would use the same

means as other empires what the roman

empire rested upon an entirely different

mode of production in so far as that

mode of production which are its

material premises change the roman

empire fucking doesn't exist

that's why it doesn't exist anymore

if the fucking fundamental premises of a

policy transform the polity collapses

and no ceases to exist the roman empire

is not a fucking trans-historical entity

that just exists across every fucking

mode of production it's called the

contradiction between the base and the

superstructure and the forces of

production and the relations of

production you stupid fuck the fucking

roman empire if it existed today would

not employ the same means because

qualitatively it would have give it

wouldn't even exist anymore it couldn't

exist today

if it existed today its territories

would just immediately be seized by

everyone else because it's literally a

primitive backwater mode of production

that's from 2000 years ago so yeah the

advanced militaries and modern weaponry

and methods of production were just

completely annihilated or it would just

fucking collapse because they wouldn't

be able to fucking survive the shock of

being introduced to entirely different

modes of production which would

inevitably give rise to a revolution in

the forces of production which would

destroy the fucking foundation of the

roman empire you stupid fuck bitter

bitch el pinata you dumb fuck you're

literally the dumbest fuck on the

internet