Debating Esha from Historic.ly on Patriotism

i i guess since you're the one who uh

started this uh just um

like

i think the best thing is why don't you

give up uh give us like your full

position so i understand

what it is that you believe and then we

can discuss it further

sure okay so my position is basically

that um historically speaking uh

the default position for communists

regardless of the country within which

they live is that is one of uh

patriotism that the class struggle

necessarily has to be uh

national in form otherwise um

it there's no way for its actual content

to be given expression

so what that means is that even if your

country even if you're a country like

imperial japan or even

if you're living in nazi germany right

um german communists resisting the nazis

still must be german patriots and the

same is true for japanese communists

resisting the government of imperial

japan and opposing the policies of

imperial japan

so to me being a patriot is an integral

part of being a communist so much so

that i cannot really see any context or

meaning of being a marxist

or a communist or let alone a marxist

leninist without um

being a patriot and to me being a

patriot doesn't mean

agreeing with your government

or even identifying with your government

or even necessarily identifying with

the you know

institutional foundations of your

government it simply entails a love of

your country and uh your people

um

so

but to me i think the american context

uh

is especially significant because it's

in america that we find

more or less the origin of modern

patriotism in the form of the uh

the war of independence

uh

which to me i think has a special

significance for communists historically

and um

even today in the present day

uh

so i think i'll just begin with that

okay um so i i think i uh i have just a

few questions to ask

um the first question i'm gonna ask is

you said that imperial japanese and

communists in nazi germany

uh

had some kind of patriotism

but since they both kind of failed

is that something like

why is that something like we should

learn from like why did it fail like

and how is that related to their

patriotism like have we investigated

that

yeah i think it's a long discussion but

i'll give a brief answer for both of

them respectively um i actually think in

an ironic sense german communists failed

to pose a challenge to the nazis

because in a sense they weren't

patriotic enough and what i mean by that

is that they didn't draw enough

um support in the deep german

countryside

amidst the german peasants and the

german rural masses which the communists

at the time considered not an especially

significant class

because they had this kind of

prejudice from the second international

of stageism that there's just a more

developed capitalism of the proletariat

and this means the peasantry are no

longer a factor

or

relevant

um as far as the history of the imperial

japanese in japan i mean is concerned

i'm not

uh especially familiar with it but i

what i will say is that i think this has

to do with um just the general history

of japanese modernity itself like for

example um

japan

uh was introduced to marxism

in the same way that it was introduced

to a whole lot of other kind of western

ideas and why it is that communist

failed in japan um

is tough to say but i think the whole

experience of modernization within japan

was bounded up

with

political forces that were then existing

so much so that like those same

political forces within uh japan and

imperial japan i'm talking about the

kind of elite that were sent to

um uh be educated in western countries

as well as the industrial bourgeoisie

these actually often were the like the

platform for for marxism to have

relevance like for example these same

people even during the age the time of

imperial japan

uh they were influenced

i mean like you could see that they were

influenced by marxism and the way that

they were approaching in their economic

policies and their developmentalism and

in the the terminology and phraseology

that they would use to describe

their country and economy so

i don't think that but i think my wider

point as far as both of those cases are

concerned

um before we can talk about like what is

a necessary effective strategy to win

power i just

trying to stress that even in countries

whose crimes are so just

uncontroversially egregious even among

you know bourgeois liberals for example

in america even in those extreme cases

it's not enough for germans german

communists to withdraw

their sense of patriotism and love of

country and the same is true for um

for japanese communists

but we still have not addressed how or

okay so okay i guess you might we've

mildly addressed the patriotism so you

think that

because the german communists

rejected the appeal to patriotism they

were not able to recruit enough rural

uh rural

peasantry

in the weimar republic is that what i'm

hearing i just want to make sure i

understand this argument no i think

by patriotism i really do mean um

tapping into the real

uh foundations of the german nation and

the country itself in the form of the

german peasant which was a more which

and every peasantry in every country is

going to be more national in character

inherently

hold on um one question though um

so the

german country as we know in the weimar

republic was kind of created by

basically

the treaty of versailles where they kind

of chopped off different areas but

before then the peasantry in germany

felt patriotism to the bavarish

kingdom and i know this is because i

read the book about uh hitler's trial

so it was it seems like

how could they feel

patriotic towards a country that didn't

really exist for two years and

most of these german peasantry felt

patriotic for the bavarian kingdom

and that's why they were and they were

mainly catholic and the people in the

north who were the communists were

mainly from the former persian empire so

this whole patriotism thing is a little

confusing to me so can you clarify how

this works with the

irish kingdom which you can think about

is the fact that bavaria was more rule

in general it was less development no no

no no i'm saying that let me just get

the quote out that i was uh i i read

from david king's book but go ahead well

while i get the code kodak continue to

make your point yeah um by peasantry

right um it could obviously mean a lot

of things

usually it just refers to the material

the masses who form the material basis

of the country in the state but as far

as the origins of germany as a country

this actually has its origins in the at

least the 19th century

um

there is a strong sense of a german

country even among

the bavarians

and throughout the constituent um you

know provinces of uh

the weimar republic and is before then

the german empire

it's only with the weimar republic that

you have of the for the first time an

explicit modern german state but the

question of there being a german people

and a german country

um

was not really you know

that much in dispute it's not like

germany or the idea of germany was just

invented with the wyman republic after

all the weimar republic adopted the flag

of the um the german revolution of the

48th you know during the spring time of

springtime of nations

so and and the german national project

was a project of the german people right

um including and uh you know

but okay so this is what i read from the

book um uh the trial of adolf hitler he

says um but by

okay hold on um

it says that by november 7th however

hitler had changed his mind he had

received word of gustavon carr rally

following the night of the burger brow

and he feared that this event might

pre-figure a major announcement possibly

unveiling carr's own plans to march on

berlin or even declare bavarian

independence

hitler um but even if the speech

produced no major results which was more

likely hitler predicted that all

prominent leaders of the bavarian regime

would be together at the beer hall so it

seems like hitler was appealing to the

sentiments of not the german nation but

bavaria

like of the bavarian um

kingdom

according to at least david king's book

the trial of adolf hitler so

how can he eat

so

it seems like

there wasn't really

okay so can you like try to explain how

can you kind of clarify

what is the discrepancy between what i

am reading from the book written by

david king called the trial of adolf

hitler versus um

the beer hall push it's a trial it's the

beer hell push on the trial of adolf

hitler versus what you're saying about

german patriotism because like i said it

it seems like the peasantry which is the

rural population of germany who kind of

earned their living

not unlike the gig workers of today

um they were it seems like they were

upset

at the versailles treaty rightly because

it was very punitive and it cut off like

them from their relatives and a lot of

them had relatives in what is now known

as austria or they are in what used to

be the austria-hungarian kingdom so it's

a little confusing to me

yeah i mean it's pretty clear that the

treaty of versailles um

at the national level of the you know

germany as a whole i would imagine

um

germany as a whole didn't really exist

until after the treaty and that's how

when it was decided right

because it used to be the german empire

and then there was the austria-hungarian

empire yeah um

there was still um a german country

right there was still there was the

german empire yes and but bavaria wasn't

part of that was it

right but the german people

um

but the german people you mean the

german language speaking people

that's what the german people who were

the focal point of the revolutions of 48

and throughout the history of 19th

century german nationalism which you can

even say dates back to the napoleonic

wars i mean that's they're germans

um

well it seems like from my understanding

of history it seems like there is a big

german language speaking population in

austria-hungary the persian empire the

german empire bavaria and believe it or

not even in the russian empire for

example the very first adherents to the

um nazi party were actually baltic

germans who were upset about losing

their slaves in the bolshevik revolution

so the winery republic for the first

time established a german nation state a

state did the weimar republic

but wasn't the wymark as republic

essentially established by france

england and america of course yeah so so

then like they cut off pieces of that

used to be that had a like in strasbourg

that had a majority german-speaking

population that just went in rohr valley

that went to france right so the

decisive thing is that the weimar

republic

however

abysmal and you know offensive and

unacceptable in the conditions of its

establishment were to the german people

at the time was the first modern state

of the german people and by modern state

i mean

a state in the modern sense like the

french state after the french revolution

and the american state of the american

revolution um a state that you know had

not only had a constitution but was kind

of um

uh

had a kind of formal rule of law and it

was basically a state in which all

citizens were equal before the law and

there was no

recognized distinct distinctions uh

according to the law

uh the basic universalistic kind of

modern state for the german people so to

me um i think the wider point is that

but wait the manner by which one second

one second um so i'm again this is from

the same book the trial of adolf hitler

by david king and this is what he said

the berlin after all the bloodshed and

sacrificed the berlin government dared

to sign the treaty of versailles at a

stroke of pen germany would be stripped

of ten percent of its population

thirteen percent of its territories and

all of its overseas colonies

so and for many germans it was a piece

of shame and unparalleled national

humiliation

the monarchy and great power status were

gone and germany was no longer the

continent's richest and most powerful

state oh and then when it reads with a

map of europe and handed over

german-speaking populations to france

belgium denmark then recreated the

kingdom of poland in the new state of

czechoslovakia

and a white gulf indeed seemed to

separate the victor's lofty ideals and

their actions and to the horror of many

monarchists and militaries alike german

was a republic for the first time

so it seems like um

in fact

none of the parties could actually

appeal to german patriotism but in fact

there were some that appealed to

bavarish separatism and others

wanted to kind of

appeal to like a let's

move on forward so i'm just a little

confused so can you try to explain this

again yeah

so since the weimar republic was the

first german

state right proper the state for the

german people

a democratic state for the german people

so to speak

um the role of communists would have

then been to um

be german patriots in the sense of being

the best representatives

of the people and the country

except no but there was no german

patriotism because like i said

look it if you look at the literature

back then the spd did not appeal to the

german patriotism in fact the nsdp the

lebanese realm

propaganda was literally to give most of

the baltic germans and the persian

junkers

back their territory yeah so the reason

for that and i actually addressed this

in a debate before was because the nazis

were unable to carry out the necessary

land reform within germany and appeal to

the actual german no no they were not

unable but rather they were funded

exclusively by baltic germans who did

not want land reform but they wanted

their old lands in estonia

i understand yeah so the nazis so

wait wait wait you said they wanted to

carry are not able to carry out but they

never promised land reform what they

promised was laban's room which is new

land the point will be clarified very

crystalline okay okay no worries yeah so

the nazis

um had no interest

in carrying out a land reform within

germany right correct and yet there was

an issue of a um the

land that was owned within germany being

concentrated within the hands of the

small uh landowners and nobility and

yonkers and all those kinds of people

right so what the nazis did

was that to appeal to the national

feeling and sentiment of the german

people who after undergoing

proletarianization wanted to return to

some kind of uh you know middle class

normality or something like that they

promised them the land in the east

okay but the reason for this is because

they were unable to engage in the kind

of patriotic class struggle that was

necessary within

germany that would overthrow the

landowners and the elements of the

ancient regime in favor of the german

people but wait the nazi party was

created essentially by the bourgeoisie

so what we see is

okay so in 1918 a lot of the baltic

germans were the first funders so alfred

rosenberg we have an entire episode

about this um

where we talk about the land burgess

family it's kind of funny though listen

to our episode about lithuania and the

forthright but yes so the first wave was

in 1918 where the first adherence

between 1918 and in 19

was lower the baltic germans were mainly

the funders and they were the petty

bourgeoisie but then um around 1922

that's when they were found the right

character which is hitler and then the

industrialists

wanted

to um basically also kind of get their

territory back so they were the second

wave of the bigger funders so now

um so the nazi party never claimed to

have a class struggle in fact if we read

michael parenti's

i think there's a really big

miscommunication i guess that's going on

here because i'm not trying to say the

nazis were engaging in a class struggle

i'm trying to say that because the nazis

were not engaging in a class struggle

they still at the same time had to um

displace the class struggle that was

objectively

a reality within germany in the form of

the german people's striving to respond

to the modern predicament of

proletarianization and they did this

through le benzram which is promising

the german people

land to the east and this effectively

extinguished the class struggle within

germany between the german people and

the monopolists landowners and so on and

so on

um who were you know

uh owned most of the land within germany

as well as the monopolists who

you know possessed a stranglehold on

german industry at the expense of the

democratic petty puzzle

so

uh when i say that the german communists

were not patriotic enough i just mean to

say that they focused too exclusively on

the urban proletarian class struggle

within the cities but didn't recognize

the the need for the application of the

insight of leninism according to which

um the class struggle has to take the

form of a kind of uh united front and

even a popular front

in an alliance with the quote unquote

democratic petty boss jose this is

lenin's phrase for the um

for the

elements i'm a little confused so you

said that they had to appeal to the

german patriotism but now it seems like

you've redefined the patriotism to mean

uniting the peasantry and the

proletariat which is

can you repeat what you said earlier

just so that i remember that ironically

in a sense communists were not patriotic

enough

okay but but then we kind of try

patriotic to which country that's a

little confusing to me because germany

as in the weimar republic

as a whole

how can they be patriotic to a country

that didn't really exist i think you're

confusing a country with the form of

statehood and form of government okay so

what is the difference can you please

enlighten me on this one yeah

what's the difference yeah yeah okay um

a

state or a government relates to the

country in the same way that a

superstructure relates to the base

um

a government in a state

it's i'm going to actually just quote

stalin actually um i think it would just

be better okay which piece is it

so

stalin's quote is basically the hitlers

come and go the german people and the

german state remain so the form of state

in the form of government

may come and go but there is an

objective german country

that you know manages to possess it you

know a kind of material reality and

objectivity that's not reducible to the

ideological political and super

structural form that it's going to take

hold on um you also said that the german

con but okay i just want to clarify

by german communist do you mean the kpd

or the sdp

okay so you're saying that the kpd

didn't appeal to the rural population

yes i think they had it well mostly it

was that they had an ex they had a very

narrow view of an application an altar

left application of the uh the class

struggle okay because um let's i'm just

looking at um the issue with the kpd is

that it came to a point where it had to

exclusively um draw its ranks from the

most marginal and desperate elements of

the population the unemployed

even the lump in and so on and so on and

it was never actually able to constitute

itself as a kind of patriotic or

national whatever you want to call it a

people's movement within germany it had

to confine itself always to a kind of

minority it was never able to see

achieve the kind of gromski and hegemony

over the people of germany hold on one

second i'm a little confused okay so

let's look at the election results um so

in

in the um

1924

um uh may elections

um let's okay so let's look at the may

1924 elections

let me see i'm gonna send it to janet so

that she can dm it to you or something

um

because

it

uh

it seems like

okay so let's see um

see it seems like majority of the kpds

um here i'm gonna send it to it seems

like the majority of the kpd's um

uh

actually uh votes came from the rural

areas in 1924.

like if you were to talk about the spd

yes i totally agree with you um at the

spd uh definitely even in donna hirsch's

book where she talks about how the sbd

failed she talks about the detail of how

they just ignored the rural um

are you talking about bavaria 19

no no i'm talking about the german the

the weimar republic's federal you said

that the

kpd you did not appeal to the rural

population right but by

1924

um

weimar republic federal elections and it

seems like the districts that the kpd

won came exclusively in the rural area

so which districts were those located

here i just sent it to janet and she'll

share it with with us

from bavaria

no bavarians went mostly center okay um

i wasn't actually familiar with the

election of 1924 okay but then you said

but you did claim that the cape yeah

yeah but it's actually besides the point

because no it's not because you

literally claimed that the kpd

did not appeal to the rural population

let's be logical here right no no it's

logical there's so there's two important

points though that make that not an

essential point right the first one okay

the first one lies in the fact that even

if by happenstance the kpd did receive

the majority of its support from

peasants in the election of 1924 this

doesn't necessarily mean that the kpd

was effectively or correctly appealing

to them it could just be that for

reasons that it was unable to articulate

and distill the significance of peasants

were swung over to the kp so it doesn't

actually prove that they came okay so

then in the december

okay so it could be for example in

december of 1924 it could be for example

that the kpd did not correctly uh

understand this like this has happened

in the history of the american communist

party as well and the communist

experience of communists in the west

elsewhere as well is that they receive

support from a certain population and

they somehow are confused about why

aren't we winning from the urban

industrial proletariat we need to go

hard to win them for more hold on so

often times theoretical dogmatism can

get in the way of that but regardless of

the situation of the kpd in 1924 what

i'm talking about is the decisive

situation after 1929 when the nazis the

nazi party rose to power and the ways in

which the kpd had to compete with them

so

no 1924 and the 1930s are not the same

time period okay so if you can find me

evidence that in the 1930s the kpd

maintained the majority of support

okay

hold on hold on no no what you don't

understand is that the nazis in 1933 the

minute okay so the first thing have you

read the book four years of political

murder

um

so what it shows you that in that

between 1918 and

1922 there was basically a lot of murder

of left like other people who were

members of the kpd and they went mostly

unpunished um but then what

happened is that according to donna

hirsch's let me just read you this

segment oh here you can continue to talk

while i find the irrelevant segment from

donna hirsch's book but this is what she

said about the uh kpd that what happened

in 1920 after 20 19 28. um so let's see

uh

give me one second um so

1924 was like the only time that um

okay so

basically in 1924 like the only time

they kind of had a fair chance to run

the election because i'll as like in

in 19 um

the spd in 1924

28 basically had um a thing where they

wanted to eliminate um fascist violence

so they did this um thing where they

were like oh we're gonna eliminate

extreme violence on the left and the

right and then cut crack down on a lot

of the kpd so they weren't really given

a chance to run in 1928 so and then in

1933 they were just completely all of

them were arrested and sent to a

concentration camp so okay so there's

two things right the first thing is that

we can clearly discern um all of that

aside i don't know no no we can't

discern all of that aside because you

just claimed that the kpd failed to

appeal

no no of course they failed but first

thing you claimed was that the kpd did

not appeal to german patriotism and then

you said that they that that's why they

weren't able to get the

rural bourgeoisie population actually

never in quotes and this is an important

distinction i never said they didn't

appeal to german patriotism patriotism

is an idea it's an ideology i said they

weren't patriotic enough which is what

does that okay what's the okay fine

pineapple right what is that they

weren't effective enough in relating to

the national realities of the german

country they didn't appeal to the german

people enough not necessarily to an idea

of the country but the country itself

which would make them patriots now

patriotism is a kind of abstraction

that's not really my point i mean

uh ernest talman had many patriotic you

know quotes and he had a lot of

patriotic sentiment but that doesn't

actually reflect the overall policy of

the kp at the time which was caught in a

kind of ultra left confusion and the

reason why

i'm being a little bit dismissive of the

points you're bringing up is we can

actually discern a shift in policy not

only among the german communists but the

entire common turn from the third period

to the period of the popular front and

the popular front was an admission and a

recognition

of the fact that the class struggle has

to be national and foreign has to

uh

requires acquiring hegemony over the

people of your country not just

um

the industrial proletariat and and

finally

uh the relation to patriotism is that

when the communist party took power in

germany and eastern so the communist

party never took power in germany except

for like a like literally never took

power in germany so the what was what

party took power after world war ii in

eastern spd the socialist democrat

the deutsche

the social the socialist social

democratic party was the one that's

absolutely not the case the east german

east germany was a communist state okay

no no we're talking about

wrong war we were talking about world

war one world war ii is what i said okay

world war ii happened after the soviets

liberated germany and so that had

nothing to do with the german communist

party it had everything to do with the

soviets so

that yeah

so if you have to wait for the soviets

to liberate germany wait one second okay

we don't even know what we're talking

about right now no we know perfectly

because you just cut me off you don't

even know what point i was trying to

okay fine i'll listen to it the point i

was trying to get to that is that they

were unequivocal german patriots when

they were in power

they promoted german patriotism they

promoted a love of country and a love of

people not just the germany mind you the

after they took power but germany as a

whole in its history the germany of

beethoven the germany of uh kant and

hegel and the germany of even

people like martin luther and and

frederick the great and people like that

so i think that's just

like it just settles it completely when

they actually got power i mean they were

actually when they got power

right okay so what you said is that um

but okay i'm reading one of your older

tweets and what you said is not is that

um if you

it seems like you seem to think that you

need patriotism to get power right but

if it's after you get power um it is

completely different because then

um

then of course yes after you have a

country that's a communist country

what you're basically trying to say is

that well the point is invalid because

it's the soviets who allowed them to

acquire power but i didn't breathe

to demonstrate the necessary no no it's

after okay there's a big difference

between after you have a country

versus when you don't have a country but

if that was the case they would only be

patriots uh for the germany that's ruled

by communists exactly that's exactly

because a purpose of a state is to

oppress one class over another and the

only state that is worth being the

patriot over is no no

the only country that's being is is a

dictatorship

or the germany

that existed before the communists took

power okay can you show me a citation

for this one please i want to see like

some documents

the flag came from the german

revolutions of 18 no no no that's not

enough okay show me a citation that

shows you like why there's a flag like i

i've i've been showing you all my really

okay i should yeah you have to because i

should literally read out of books

i know you're an educated person do you

really need a citation yes i do because

i

of course i do because i gave you i keep

citing all my sources so you should cite

your sources too but i i actually was

here to have a debate with you not the

uh

well it's okay otherwise it's just the

free form of

odyssey

um a harry potter duel when we shout the

quotes at each other and shout phrases

at each other well unfortunately so you

can kiss just make up crap right

you like you literally can't make up

crap so let's start over again okay are

you okay hold on are you alleging that i

am making up

that german communists promoted a

general sense of german national pride i

don't know where the general sense of

german you you keep changing okay i

don't understand whether in general

german history as a whole not just okay

well i don't understand what you mean so

can you send me an example

okay i gave you the example of the flag

how about the marches they retain the

prussian marches on hold on hold on i

don't know what depression okay what are

oppression marches

the anniversary of the protestant

reformation they celebrated people like

mark okay hold on what is oppression

march

sorry

well you said they retained the pride so

what is special about the what is the

president march and how is that

different than a general military march

because it's a uniquely prussian

national form

how so what does that mean i don't i

don't know anything about it

form of

it's a form of military marching that

originates in prussia

uh okay so it seems like according to

the 1917 i'm sorry according to the new

york times from august 9 1979

it says that they use the persian

persian march to sidestep the specter of

the wehrmacht era so it was like a it

was a way to it was not quite the person

it was a way to like they invented their

own communist march that is pure pure

and devoid of the stamp of ugly national

you know patriotic realities but they

decided not to and why is it on the

anniversary of the protestant

reformation they celebrated martin

luther why is it that there was such a

strong sense of german national feeling

and patriotism under east germany so

much so that because it was a

dictatorship of the proletariat and they

wanted to preserve it it wasn't just the

germany ruled by the communists that

they were celebrating they were

celebrating the german history the

german

okay that part i'm not 100

sure

i don't think you're educated on the

matter if you well well yeah exactly so

educate me and show me

you're not can you tell me more clearly

east germany celebrated the history of

non-communist germany as well i don't

know yet can you tell me about it so

that i can learn about it because i

don't know anything about this so tell

me

okay well um the german communists in

their education and in their media

communications promoted a general sense

of national pride and patience it's not

like you're reading are you reading from

wikipedia because i'm not like it seems

like you are word salary

the difference between you and me is

that i have not had to consult one

external source throughout this i know

that's because i don't bullshit with my

audience i make sure that they know i

never liked examples i always consult

external sources because i'm not a

teleporter

you don't bullshit you just quote a

bunch of irrelevant bullshit that has

nothing to do with it no no it's not no

no it's very relevant no it's not

relevance okay it's absolutely not

relevant so you are unable to explain it

beyond a same set repeat like acting

like a robot okay let's try this i'm so

confident in this that i think if you

deny i don't care about your confidence

i just want um to ex i want you to

explain

how what the uh uh

general sense of like okay so you

how is celebrating okay so first of all

i don't even understand what you don't

seem to

have a very can you explain what um

patriotism is while i could drink some

cider so

uh explain how they can you just explain

to me like i'm a four-year-old kid and i

know nothing about easter west germany

just explain how uh they used um

patriotism is a general love of country

and people and a country and a people as

the quote by stalin i mean alludes to

okay okay so it's okay so then in east

germany you're saying that

because well every time you ask me a

question you just cut me off after two

oh sorry okay i'll mute myself while i

drink some cider so go ahead please

drink your cider so i can talk

um

a love of country and people and a

country and a people are not reducible

to the political or ideological form

of their expression in the form of the

state which means there is an

objectivity to countries and nations and

peoples that's not reducible to

ideologies and then to theories i mean

stalin makes this clear and his writings

on the national question and stalin just

said it directly the hitlers come and go

but the german people in the german

state survive well hitler was in control

of the german state so how could stalin

be alluding to the idea of a german

state and a german people that's just

not reducible to the form it had taken

at the time well because he acknowledges

the objectivity of national realities

and east germany uh likewise

acknowledged this

in the form of

acknowledging the history traditions and

realities of the german people even

above and beyond the form it was taking

at a time which was led by the

communists the communists didn't just

promote communist germany

they promoted a sense of pride in the

history of germany as a whole even

before the communists took power

again i don't understand

how

you can promote the sense of a history

of a thing that didn't really exist

until 1918. so that's a little confusing

to me so are

what

did exist before 1918.

no the roman empire existed austin like

the german-speaking population where

there's no german nation state but there

was a german country and there was a

german people

okay so what is the difference between a

nation state or a country sure a

nation-state

um refers to a political form right so a

nation-state is a political institution

and it's a political form and it's a

definite territory instantiated by a

state a country on the other hand refers

to a deeper reality of the way in which

the manner by which people reproduce

themselves material materially

a common language a common um

culture a common history and a in many

ways a common identity those things

preceded the weimar republic by hundreds

and hundreds of years

the german ethnos so to speak had

existed for much longer than the german

uh

nation state

wait a minute okay so i'm getting a

little lost here

um

so

i thought your original argument is that

you needed um

patriotism

to get the proletariat

um it's actually not a utilitarian um

thing so it's like it's only for the

proletariat to do this

i don't believe

you understand that marxism does it

isn't about creating forms from scratch

it's about correctly identifying and

distilling

uh the content of the form which is the

class struggle which means marxists

don't want to use patriotism

or something marxists actually are

patriots they literally are patriots who

do love their country and their people

uh it's not like a cheap uh

scheme wait a minute wait a minute

but

did like

wait they do love their country after

the revolution or before they run before

okay

um but how is

i guess

countries are not created by political

will they're material realities they

okay wait

you're they're not voluntary

constructions created by uh ideologists

they're material realities that exist

across history that aren't they're not

voluntary correct they are just uh

there are political boundaries sometimes

um

maybe are you confusing maybe national

identity with country maybe i'm trying

to understand no even more so a country

is uh more authentic because a nation in

many ways is oftentimes

only finally given expression in the

form of a nation-state

whereas a country is more broad there's

this kind of soviet country there's a

russian country which is not reducible

to any russian nation state there's an

american country that's not producible

to any kind of uh american nation state

so

and if anything country is much more

dense and much more

real than nations are

uh

okay now i've lost track of your entire

argument so can you

it seems like you wanted to appeal to

proletarian like okay so can you kind of

go through what your argument was i

guess because none of this is actually

making sense to me so

why do you say um like what do you okay

so in your vision how do you make a

revolution happen with um american

uh patriotism and uh there's a question

um

from ella me he said what is marxist

patriotism has

so which one would you like me to answer

first answered uh elements question

first what is it okay um

marxist patriotism

is not different in essence from the

authentic everyday real patriotism of

the people the only difference in the

case of marxists is that they correctly

distill

and possess insight into the material

realities

uh the class realities and so on and so

on historical realities that underlie

the development of a country

so in that sense um

uh and by abuse of uh dialectical

thinking and dialectical materialist

thinking so there is no

there's just like there's no proletarian

culture according to lenin there's no

exclusive marxist patriotism the point

is marxists must be patriots

okay i thought lenin in the national

question said that the proletarian

should create their own culture but

because culture requires

uh some kind of state power or hegemony

to transmit over a long period of time

so he said that there were some

expressions of proletarian um culture

but

um

so um

so

so yeah but on top but

i'm still confused

uh completely rejected prolet cult which

was

a short for proletarian culture

complete

in which piece because they didn't exist

yet yeah um it's called by the time

prolets called came into being lenin

completely rejected them

uh wait okay no but okay i think

uh it was an actual phenomena movement

called the movement for proletarian

culture politics called it wasn't what

you did for culture but it was it was

called prolet cult which was a movement

to create a proletarian culture from

scratch and annihilate the previous

bourgeois and the past classical culture

and whatever lennon completely rejected

this he said the most important thing

for our country is for people to be a

cultured and educated in the treasures

of mankind and in the works of uh modern

civilization we're going to create our

own thing completely from scratch we're

going to possess continuity with the

treasures of the past culture

okay i am

reading this um are you talking about

his piece from october 8 1920

uh i'd have to double check okay so it

says it doesn't let me just let's just

read this quickly it is necessary to

draft a resolution of the proletarian

pro prolet called congress should drawn

up with the utmost urgency that it

should be endorsed by the central

committee in time to have it vote at

this very session of the prolet called

on behalf of the central committee it

should be submitted not late okay hold

on um

uh i'm confused a little bit um

so the relevant passage here is that um

marxism has won its historical

significance as the ideology of the

revolutionary proletariat because far

from rejecting the most valuable

achievements of the bourgeois epoch it

has on the contrary assimilated and

refashioned everything of value in the

more than two thousand years of the

development of human thought and culture

and then he said

ad hiring unswervingly to this stand of

principle the all russia protocol

congress rejects in the most resolute

manner theoretically

as theoretically unsound and practical

harm of all attempts to invent one's own

particular brand of culture to remain

isolated and self-contained

organizations to draw a line dividing

the field of the work

or to set up a proleta called autonomy

within establishment under the people's

so it seems like um

well

it seems like um

basically

okay so

it seems like

what he's talking about is basically

like a culture that's detached from the

proletarian

he's referring to the past 2000 years of

human culture and uh achievements

uh

this okay but this still okay now it

seems like we're veering way off topic

okay let's go back to where you're

saying

um

so another quote

since we're quoting um this however does

not mean we can restrict ourselves to

communist conclusions and learn only

communist slogans you will not create

communism that way you can only become a

communist only when you enrich your mind

with a knowledge of all treasures

created by mankind

okay um but that doesn't bear in mind

hold on example we talk about

proletarian culture we shall be unable

to solve this problem unless we clearly

realize that only a precise knowledge

and transformation of the culture

created by the entire development of

mankind will enable us to create a

proletarian culture the latter is not

the latter is not clutched out of thin

air it is not an invention of those who

call themselves experts in proletarian

culture that is all nonsense proletarian

culture must be a logical development of

the store of knowledge mankind has

accumulated under the yoke of capitalist

landowner and bureaucratic society all

these roads have been leading and will

continue to lead up to proletarian

culture and the same way as political

economy is reshaped by marx has shown

what human society must arrive at shown

us the passage to the class struggle to

the beginning of the proletarian

revolution and this is his to the tasks

of the okay hold on it says all

experience of modern history

so um for example

um you think that uh so how would like i

guess the flag of the east india company

modified uh

like how does that

relate the east india company was a

private

uh

yeah but the u.s flag is basically the

east india company flag modified um

literally

so i just don't understand

you want to use these symbols the

similarity between the east india

company flag and the american flag has

no bearing on the actual real world so

okay hold on hold on hold on okay you

made a tweet where you think you okay

people who do you know why there is a an

american flag

all the crimes against um the

literally the american flag is there

because they appropriated the east india

company um flag so i'm actually not

aware of that being the reason for the

american flag okay i am aware of that

because i read gerald horn's the counter

revolution of 1776. so it is literally

the appropriation okay um well let's

look it up since we're consulting

external sources

oh yeah we have to of course otherwise

it's just a free-form jazz odyssey okay

isha

your mistake lies precisely in the fact

that you see no other nations except

bourgeoisie nations and consequently

no i know that america no i understand

the

reason why you should be very patriotic

in the soviet union or east germany or

china but okay you have overlooked the

who arose out of yes but those nations

existed they arose out of the ruins and

in fact that's the east germany national

anthem

you are talking about patriotic hold on

hold on i'm answering wait wait one

second i'm just answering this one user

okay

thank you chris by the way i really

appreciate this um so what i guess um

uh

but what i feel like often with the uh

revolutionary patriotism stuff is that

you guys are

uh wanting to feel patriotic about a

nation that doesn't exist like the one

in the future of

post-socialist america that may or may

not ever exist so like why shouldn't i

just feel patriotic for the united

federation of planets if this is the

case i'm just curious

okay but gone

if you want to address chris's comment

you can continue to go ahead yeah i'm

doing i did some small preliminary

research on the question of the origin

of the american flag

and it turns out that this is actually

uh controversial some have actually

disputed a direct connection

between the two others speculate that

the main reason why uh there's a

resemblance is because initially the

unit the flag of the grand union was not

actually going to be a separate state

from the united kingdom so adopting that

flag was a symbol of loyalty to the

british crown

from the very at the very beginning

um

but

the after the declaration of

independence obviously it no longer took

on that significance but it still became

you know the way in which things become

the symbols of countries isn't some like

intentional artistic design that adheres

all of the uh

you know intentions and meaning it's a

completely arbitrary process why are

some random symbols the symbol of

countries and

nations well it's a completely arbitrary

thing it doesn't have to do with the

fact of what it comes to symbolize and

comes to mean through the course of

history okay well um the american flag i

mean would often for indigenous people

symbolize oh we are taking your land

we're planting our frag hair you're

going to all die and we're going to kill

you all of i mean so

it please symbolize that for indigenous

people and i wouldn't fault them for

feeling that way when looking at the uh

okay so then for what about okay so but

then the the then the duty of communists

would be to give the flag a different

meaning not based on moralizing and

virtue signaling to indigenous people

but by assuming leadership over their

country such that as the leaders of

their country they can make right by

indigenous people okay so you are saying

that different significance okay so hold

on you're saying that it is the

indigenous people that need to adjust

as opposed to the genocide i'm actually

not prescribing anything to indigenous

okay so then why they have their own

leadership

they have their own tribes and they have

their own organizations which i have no

plans on intervening in i'm an american

okay so you are basically

aspire to do right by them and make

right by them but i can't expect them to

trust me at this stage so i can just

hope that in the future american

communists leading a communist america

can earn their trust

by through practice asha and not through

virtue signaling uh by burning the

american flag through practice by

actually never using advocacy

power to give indigenous people to do

right by them to give them the land that

they require in demand

to give them the reparations that they

see fit to uh

that are necessary for their people's

development and the necessary autonomy

and even even if if they so deem it fit

to complete territorial and political

secession from the united states so be

it right hold on hold on but the flag of

the united states doesn't only mean

what indigenous people view it as it

also has the significance of being the

symbol of america as a country and thus

what is america as a country besides

um

uh

no seriously what is america as a

country besides slavery and genocide and

colonialism um i don't see

america as a country can be defined even

in from the best examples of the

uniquely american philosophy of

pragmatism that's how bolshevik saw it's

not uniquely american if the bolsheviks

used it that means it's not uniquely

american no the bolsheviks directly

referred to it as american they said the

bolshevik spirit is basically a

combination of american pragmatism and

the russian uh striving for uh what is

it uh

iron will so i don't know i forget

exactly what they meant on the russian

side but the bolsheviks often made

reference to americanism and henry ford

and the american pragmatic experience

lord and all those kinds okay

um the bolsheviks were very much

uh interesting okay hold on one second

okay somebody asked why am i okay my

parents moved here because my dad had a

phd and the american government needed

his phd so that he could teach her but

most people hold on one second um and

the reason why uh you should read

lenin's um capitalism and immigration to

understand this

um anyways

okay sorry okay so neil has a question

for you has has are you familiar with

gerald horn his thesis of the

e

india company flag being the basis of

the u.s flag is obvious look at yeah but

i'm also reading uh

uh

other historians who reject this view

when they say that who whose other

history and disgrace um uh his name that

i'm reading now is um

vikram doctor

and he's writing for the economic times

against corporate flags could be

avoiding hubris countries and

governments feel strong about their

flags

um

hold on

others simplify the design into a

diagonally quartered flag with some

elements

hold on let me get the exact one east

india

east india companies flag dates from the

17th century long before the american

flag was even thought of and originally

seems to have been just red and white

stripes at some point the canton was

added

i was in

transferred

not the red and white company flying

through reddit flags on the ship's

dangerous cross in early 1616

um

american i'm sorry i'm doing all this

research like take your time we have all

day long don't worry um

the problem with faucets theory as you

ready we can see is that there is no

clear written evidence

that the americans took the company's

flag as their model yet none of the

theories put forth for the origins of

the flag are particularly plausible

either and fawcett's company flag theory

does at least have a strong visual link

it may never be firmly established yet

so it's basically we don't really know

maybe no but he said it it it made it

has a strong visual link so he he's

literally repeating neil's argument

where if you just put it next to each

other so right

but then again these like these flags

and their design and their use are like

really ambiguous like why is it red

white and blue the the colors of uh

you know britain it's just these are

because um you have to consult a

historian of the history of flag design

yeah understand this it's not

necessarily a statement that they're

making that oh we are the east india

company's successor i mean by no means

can you jump to the conclusion that

that's the significance the similarity

of the flags has

okay um so chris marlock has a comment

hold on one second

uh the american people which has been

adopted by the

okay so that's a lane quote um um let me

um read that so uh uh uh can you uh the

american people have a revolutionary

tradition which has been adopted by the

best representatives of the american

proletariat who have repeatedly

expressed continuous solidarity of the

bolsheviks but okay um but i don't

understand

he's referring to the

1776 and he elaborates it in the same

piece so is this is this from the letter

to the american workers yes

okay but he okay so also in the letter

to the american workers he says that

your every dollar is drenched in blood

oceans and oceans of blood so how do you

i'm so hold on one second um okay hold

on um what does that have to do with the

point about patriotism i mean well if i

mean if you're every dollar is

makes it very clear where he stands on

the american war of independence and the

history of the american country as a

revolutionary uh world historical event

in history that communists draw

inspiration from around the world that

lenin even goes so far to say in that

piece

that the american proletariat will be

inheriting the example of 1776 the

revolutionary of 1770s continuing that

tradition by opposing the imperialist

bouzouzi of their own country it's

almost similar

it's almost similar to how american

libertarians uh rural libertarians in

the united states um

oppose imperialism and the american uh

you know they don't the overgrowth of

the american deep state and the federal

government on the basis of an explicit

american patriotism it seems that uh

even alex jones is closer to lenin than

you are in a way okay hold on let's read

this um we have a question for you guys

there's a haas clip where he said we

shouldn't use the lgbt flag because it

has been co-opted by zionists by that

logic why use

american there is no clip

anywhere that says so can you i've never

seen this so can you tell me what your

opinion about the zionism lgbt flag pink

washington never said that the lgbt flag

was zionist i displayed a personal view

that aesthetically i don't really like

the lgbt flag because it's just all

colors and i just aesthetically speaking

i don't like it but i can see why other

people would adopt it as their symbol

i'm not lgbt so it's not really uh

doesn't my personal aesthetic taste

doesn't even really matter but that's

all i fucking said on that question so

it seems it seems that your viewers are

following true to the left-wing american

tradition of just making shit up about

people uh you ideologically disagree

with so okay so um some well

sure but um

i can't okay so you okay so i i don't

understand so can you explain a little

clarify what

what is it that what was the comment you

made about israel i'm just curious i

don't know anything not

say i never made any comments

uh saying that the lgbt flag is zionist

or is in any way exclusively uh

related to israel i don't even know what

the fuck they're talking about at all

okay um so i'm a little confused okay so

now how exactly so now i'm very confused

about your argument okay so you're

saying but like okay so let's say that

we could okay i i

were to accept your premise that

patriotism can be used for revolutionary

purposes so

if you had to rewrite or extend what is

to be done so can you tell us what is to

be done how do we use patriotism for

revolutionary i don't think communists

should use patriotism i said communists

must be patriots or else they're not

communists what is it to be a patriot

versus using patriotism sure to be a

patriot means to serve your country and

your people

authentically

oh who are my country who are my people

how do i serve it authentically like i

don't serve your country and your people

authentically by opposing the

establishment by opposing uh corporate

america by opposing the private interest

the military-industrial complex and

american imperialism which actively

works and conspires against the

interests of the american people and

even against uh american democracy

historical reality so that's what it

means to be an american patriot it means

to serve your country and serve your

people means to fight for your people

means to fight for your people for a

government that is by foreign of the

people which does everything in its

power not to intervene in foreign

countries and project itself but hold on

countries but to work at home so that

americans can live the most prosperous

um

the most cultured the most spiritually

uh elevated

uh lives that they can live

okay wait a minute wait a minute it

sounds like

are we talking about just like

this is what i'm confused about so how

is this related to marxism if it's just

some random feelings you have because it

doesn't really this is the entire

context

that marxism has had in history

okay so i'm sorry but this is like

really

in history it wasn't a bunch of intel

bitter intellectuals sitting around who

wanted to completely raise everything to

the ground and build something new from

scratch based on ideology hold on hold

on okay you said that

about establishing an authentic

connection to the people marx himself

was called prometheus because he took

uh from the heights of world historical

philosophy of his time down to the

people he he was the just like

prometheus stole fire to the from the

gods and gave them to humanity marx was

called prometheus he called the

proletariat the ingenious soil of the

people he didn't think the proletariat

was some separate hold on hold on but

that has absolutely nothing to do with

patriotism it sounds like oh okay

of course it has no hatred because so

far as the people

have a character and have a form and are

different people are different

one of the ways you identify that

difference is through their country what

what nation are they what country are

they what uh statement

all of these things are part of the ways

in which you know you're fine

the chinese people are different from

russian people russian people are

different from french people french

people are not the same thing as uh the

people in uruguay people in uruguay are

not the same thing as people in uh india

people in india are not the same thing

as people in uh syria people in syria

are not the same thing as people in

ireland and so on and so on these are

all different types of people

okay but it seems like different history

with different culture different

tradition different state and uh

different reality

so okay so now um assuming that okay it

seems like you're kind of word salading

but so now how is i still don't

understand

that there's to me i don't see any

logical thread between anything you said

today it seems like you're

so i think that's an i think that's a

most intriguing form of copium for your

being unwilling to recognize

just the plains the plain reality of my

correctness here like you can cope and

say that you know you can okay

my very clear line of argumentation by

saying there is none and that it's all a

bunch of you know i didn't say there

wasn't that none i said that

i asked you to explain it again

okay i'm sorry i asked you to explain

the argument a little bit more clearly

so let's start over so you said that um

patriotism

people okay

so let me just write down what you say

so that we don't miss okay so you said

that so let's make sure so communists

must

be patriotic in order to be successful

is what you're saying

not only must they do so in order to be

successful they must do so in order to

be communists in the first place what is

okay wait a minute that doesn't even

make yeah it makes perfect sense where

does the word communism come from are

you aware

it doesn't matter okay of course it

matters we're talking about community or

whatever it is

even means in the first place

it okay it me okay so it is a class as

marx defines it it is a classless

society blah blah blah

the eschatological christian view

uh no it is not it is literally more

marxism

it's a pseudo eschatological view with

marxism okay hold on i don't know what

the word says

can you tell me what the word pseudo is

good

what does the word pseudo eschatological

mean i don't know what it means

eschatology refers to like a final end

goal and final state of okay okay so how

do you spell eschatology i've never

heard everything leading up to okay hold

on hold on okay let me just um look up

the word i think we should actually

consult marx himself on this question no

no no no no i don't understand that okay

hold on no no let's not consult mark

let's understand the word pseudo

eschatology because you use this and i

don't wanna i said pseudo-christian

eschatological oh okay i don't know what

okay let's start over i don't know what

eschatology means so let me look that up

s c h

[Music]

a t

o l

o g i c a l okay okay so eschatology is

the doctrine of last things it was

originally a western term referring to

the

uh jewish christian muslim beliefs about

the end of history resurrection of the

dead last judgment

but marx is not talking about that um

no he's not but the perverters of marx

such as yourself are talking about how

can okay

communism just means a classless society

yeah that's exactly what i said but

that's not how marx refers to he says

the opposite actually marx says

communism is not an end goal it's not a

state it's not an end state with which

we uh strive to con conform the world to

according to our heads communism is the

real movement which

contains the sublation of the present

state of things

we call communism the real movement okay

hold on

said that what is communism communism is

a doctrine of conditions of the

liberation of the proletariat

um but again so you seem to be yeah marx

and engels both okay hold on hold on

okay now it seems like so much as an end

state as much as a real force a real

okay so now how is this related to

patriotism hold on hold on hold on hold

on actively okay how is this related to

patriotism i'm a little confused now

because

i maybe

the issue is is that

my arguments being fundamentally more

profound require exploitation but you

just interrupt me and you don't even

okay fine i will mute and tell me when

you're done with all the explanations

and then i'll ask questions go ahead

but

you can't ask me a question and then

interrupt me two words in when i when i

answer you i've muted myself so you end

okay start tell me when you're done

first let's see the question what is the

question we're answering again i'll

explain it very simply

okay

communism has its origin in

uh basically the word common communists

right

and what communism and socialism is

referring to is a common social

substance of a given society

now after modern capitalism specifically

this modern

sorry this common substance that unites

a people and uh

and establishes a common economic

reality of a people breaks down people

become proletarianized they lose their

land they lose their traditions they

lose their

sense of common reality with one another

and so communism intervenes to address

this specific reality economically what

is this common uh object of our economic

reality

that has been lost and how can we

restore it

and that's why some of the first

communists were in fact reactionary kind

of communists reactionary socialists

feudal socialists one because they view

few they saw feudalism as in a

restoration of feudalism as a return to

what had been lost

now if

if

the form of any given society is

inherently going to be within a specific

country a specific civilization a

specific nation

that means

that the only meaningful context for a

common reality is going to be the common

reality

within the context of this country this

civilization or this nation communism

isn't something you impose on reality

from thin air you identify the common

reality and in in the case of the

america one of the only ways you can

refer to this common reality is by means

of being a patriot the common reality of

the american people and the country

within which we live it is this reality

that communists that

uh seek to address seek to relate

themselves to this is the only context

within which communism can have any

meaning

it's as simple as that

so the first thing is that um

so

i get okay hold on um somebody asked a

question isha could you point out uh

where

marx and engels ever said no i did not

say that i've never said that they said

communism is a classless manila

stateless society no i never said that i

said that the first stage is the

establishment of the dictatorship of the

proletariat and that's what they would

define as socialist

so once you have they never made the

distinction between socialism and

communism yes they did um

lenin later made this decision no no

okay

read from the communist manifesto marx

literally says that the first stage is

the dictatorship of the apology you

didn't make a distinction between souls

yes okay no he did okay communist

manifesto literally says this so um i

can read from this give me a second i

think you have maybe a hearing problem

or a communication problem perhaps okay

i'm not denying the proletarian

dictatorship i'm saying they never

distinguished communism and socialism um

okay i'm gonna say that they use these

words interchange interchange

okay um they used the words communism

and socialism interchangeably i don't

believe so okay hold on let me actually

did

okay whatever okay let's read from the

communist manifesto instead of like i

don't read where he talks about the

proletarian dictatorship which is not

under dispute talk about where he

identifies social status

okay socialist okay

um let's see um

uh

hold on i'm looking through this um

okay um

i i guess i'm still not understanding um

okay so the first thing is

why don't we address my main objection

um are you familiar with say the jakarta

method or actually can i just quickly

show the clip of what they contrasted

yeah i i am aware of the crimes of

american imperial okay so then if you

were to tell the proletariat every

single crime of america like how can

they feel patriotic about a country that

um what would be this like kills babies

with the sledgehammer the context and

the significance of doing that

okay well for example okay okay so for

example in afghanistan the u.s put in

rapey warlords so the idea is so that

you can tell the soldiers don't i

actually have a uh response to

everything you just said no no no hold

on that will save us time it'll save us

time no no i don't want to save time but

go ahead i'm listening

while you do it i'll mute and then i

will um look for you please and uh i'm

going to address this entire argument

no one's denying that there have been

crimes of american imperialism in the

american ruling class

but simply telling going to random

people and just telling them this the

question is what is that hold on i okay

okay that's a strawman i'm not saying

that you go hey death to america that's

really stupid um uh that's like a

complete straw man like no one's saying

hey death to america by the way did you

know that they killed babies at a

sledgehammer in guatemala no no no the

idea is that if you educate people on

the mechanics of imperialism yeah

basically hold on hold on

no i need two minutes i let you speak

for a long time has so you let me uh

just let me know when you're done i'm

gonna go uh

so you won't listen to me

okay so i guess he's not listening okay

so he doesn't really okay so the thing

is that if you have

child minor

okay so basically

the way imperialism works is that you go

down from each level so that in africa

you have to have child slaves and then

the reason it keeps trickling up so when

you understand the whole system of

imperialism and the fact that the us has

been waging a war against illiterate

peasants for the past hundred years

um how on earth

can anyone like you have to understand

imperialism in order to break it down

and you need basically the only way i

can think of to break down imperialism

is to get the soldiers to basically do

what len said turn their guns i.e not go

and kill entire villages in afghanistan

but to defect

so um how are you going to do that like

to me it doesn't seem

to make any sense that you're gonna get

them to turn their guns like instead of

like killing

uh entire uh villages in afghanistan

like you have to explain to them the

whole system and then you'll notice it

keeps happening and over and over

indonesia jakarta vietnam they basically

fought against us in order to

make sure that they have access to raw

materials they literally wage the war

again for bananas and the so the way you

can break the imperial chain with the us

proletariat the only way

is he pointing a friend

is he phoning a friend

okay

phoning girlfriend

wait are we done wasting time or

something

okay

sorry i say is by just like you have to

explain to them this

so

how are you if if you actually let me

talk and just don't let you talk okay

fine

you can talk as long as you want

this whole debate like this specific

point will be over it will be completely

addressed

um but i don't think you can like

can you just not interrupt me

won't interrupt you until you see i am

completely done and you can interrupt

you can speak okay perfect

okay

so we don't need another lecture on the

crimes of american imperialism uh around

the world and the atrocities committed

by the united states around the world

and that's not under dispute in the

center contestant the best manner by

which the american people will be

educated about the crimes of their

ruling class and the crimes of american

imperialism is through accentuating the

internal struggle at home between the

american people and their establishment

now you could educate people all you

want about the crimes of america around

the world and exact this uh

moral guilt from them all you want which

is usually a way of just people like you

just getting attention right when people

feel guilty one of the ways they're

going to mitigate that guilt is by

giving people like you attention and

clout right that's this whole uh scam

and this entire um hustle that has been

going on for many years but if you

actually want to educate people about

the crimes and the inhuman depravity of

american imperialism and the american

government around the world you

participate and accentuate the objective

contradiction between the american

people

and the establishment at home suddenly

the crimes of the american establishment

will become very apparent

in so far as these crimes become

apparent in the war between the american

people and the establishment

through the course of the uh development

of this struggle and in this war the

american people will see the hypocrisy

of the establishment they'll see its

rottenness they'll see the evil and this

proverbial swamp of the american

establishment such that they will be

open to all manner of education about

the past they will say

wow there's so much we just didn't no

we're only on the tip of the iceberg if

it's this bad just imagine the crime

before suddenly the crimes of american

imperialism and the american

establishment will be given new meaning

through the course of the development of

a present struggle not a focus on the

past but focus on the real objective uh

class struggle in the present

and that is how

the american people will become educated

uh as far as the crimes of american

peopleism are concerned not by uh

holding them in a room and explaining to

this how are you going to get soldiers

to rebel

against the military

you're not going to do it by

appealing to middle-class morality like

during the vietnam war you're going to

do it just in the same way that the

russian soldiers were able to turn

against the czar you're going to do it

by addressing the contradiction between

the american people

among whom include soldiers and the

establishment it's to the development of

this contradiction that the same

divisions within the military and so on

will appear that's what happened in

russia russia had a land reform american

people too aspire to have some kind of

uh proverbial land rather than this

aimless proletarianization of the gig

economy and this future of complete

uncertainty being unable to raise

families and live normal lives now you

are beginning as your starting point

from the premise of thin air morality

i'm referring to the actual concrete

material realities that are just about

sums of the difference not there's no

contention about the crimes of american

imperialism or the atrocities of

american imperialism around the world

and the fact that i'm even having to be

associated with that position is just

fucking outrageous it's a complete straw

man and has nothing to do with my

position as a matter of fact i'm willing

to bet that i pose much more of a

challenge to the same criminal american

empire than you do the american empire

thrives when people like you go and tell

the american people that you're simply

anti-american and you're not patriots

you don't even exploit the

contradictions internal and within it by

exploiting those contradictions that

you're really going to bring this empire

to its knees

i rest my case

okay there's a lot of things that i have

a

lot of questions on so the first thing

is that the reason

the main difference between zarya's

russia and america is that in america

you're having a very

nice flow of commodities in that for

example american soldiers have boots

uh zarya's russian soldiers

did not have boots in fact the

afghanistan

soldiers

um the soldiers in afghanistan like

actually fled because they were hungry

starving and didn't have boots so

basically in order to get the soldiers

to turn their guns every time in history

it's been through like pretty bad

deprivation

but what i'm saying

well

most of the time there's actually in

italy they've been able to do it um in

italy they kind of say around world war

ii they switched sides and they did not

do it via appealing to patriotism but

yeah so

that's the first thing

the second thing is that the way

the you cannot fight what you don't

understand

so in order so u.s imperialism is a big

monster that has never been defeated and

no one has a solution otherwise like

there are billions of people who would

have wanted to get rid of u.s

imperialism

so um and we also know that it's

unlikely that within the uh american um

imperial court even lenin didn't think

that there will be anything good

happening in the imperial he really

doubted whether the imperial corps

was

revolutionary he he didn't believe that

so

in order for

so right now ice what i see the main

problem is that way too many leftists

are kind of like oh i support the oygar

thingy oh my god free belarus and all

kinds of things like that so they're not

basically showing critical support to

third world countries who where the

chain is the weakest because um of

basically showmanism and just not

understanding the problem

so

i guess what i see is that in the u.s

american patriotism is always used as a

way to skip the dialectical analysis for

example somebody's like oh we're

like for example instead of like reading

capitalism and immigration they say

america is a land of opportunity or the

fact that um instead of explaining that

america has the wto that just kind of

like excludes everyone from intellectual

property and literally steals things uh

they would say oh america has the best

inventors

so

the way patriotism as it is used right

now is basically to skip the dialectical

explanation and give people uh american

exceptionalism and uh exception and so i

just do not see how we're gonna be

aiding third world countries in their

struggle so how by

appealing to american patriotism if

anything it has been a tool for the

bourgeoisie to get the u.s soldiers to

like in fact um the american unions and

so itself collaborated with the

bourgeoisie in 1948 and ever since the

afl-cio which i jokingly call the aflt

has a solidarity center right now trying

to do a coup in myanmar and thailand so

for me what i see is that i don't

separate myself like so there are two

things that can happen with the

proletariat they can be either

collaborate with their bourgeoisie and

the bourgeoisie could see the threat and

get a bigger share of the loot

or they could stop the process of

looting

in general and i just don't see how

patriotism can stop the process of

looting within the imperial core

the first point i would like to make is

that deprivation is always historically

relative this is a basic marxist point

in relation to its significance for

politics and in relation to its

significance for the economy during the

conditions that would lead to the arab

spring in 2011

um no matter how bad the standard of

living of the actual middle class

egyptians

uh in

cairo and in

the major cities of egypt as well as

throughout tunisia and the rest of the

arab world they were nowhere near as bad

as the people who lived hundreds of

years before and yet

uh the people hundreds of years before

weren't uh rising in rebellion against

the ottoman empire despite living in a

comparatively worse living standard

that's because it's a living standard is

just that it's a standard when there's a

deviation from the standard that people

reasonably expect to have that is the

source of revolutionary upheaval

revolutionary sentiment and a breakdown

of trust in the establishment um

and that is always going to be something

that's relative now people mock for

example the shortages that are probably

going to plague the country in the very

near future i'm talking within the next

two months uh because americans are so

privileged and have access to a standard

of living that most the people in the

world can't even dream of but this

standard of living is relative to the

american people if american people can't

have meat for christmas and can't have

access to things that they expect to

have

christmas that is going to be a source

of discontent with the establishment so

this moralization over the flow of

commodities isn't particularly

convincing

because the degree to which people

are going to have

a rebellion against their state and

their government reflects their relative

standard of living and those

expectations as a matter of fact that's

why oftentimes revolutions actually

break out

among the most privileged sections of

the society this was true for the french

revolution and this was also true for

the arab spring people who had expected

to rise to the ranks of the upper middle

class and increase their standard of

living even if when their standard of

living didn't go down just the fact that

it didn't go up was enough to provoke

this kind of up people they didn't go up

relative to their expectations so

uh talking directly about whether people

have shoes on their feet and whether

they have boots

um isn't really real it's a completely

vulgar third worldest view

which whose logical conclusion is a kind

of anarcho-primitivism

right is this this idea that humanity

must be reduced to its basis level of

want in order to be truly revolutionary

it's just a complete nonsensical

argument among and finally

you talk about this is going to bridge

to the point you talk about the

so-called third world and the need to

have solidarity with the third world but

countries like russia china iran the

most formidable challengers to american

imperialism don't conceive themselves as

third world countries they conceive

themselves as middle countries that are

aspiring to uh possess this status of

being developed being developed

countries with a good standard of living

for their people they don't want to

dwell in in being a third world country

the poorest of countries if your theory

would were to hold true then it would be

the poorest of the poor countries of the

world that are the most uh

vehement uh opponents of american

imperialism but as we can see

even macron's france is a bigger

opponent of american imperialism than

some of the poorest countries on earth

especially with the recent row over

something like august and the divisions

that are starting to become apparent

between the european union and the

united states and you may laugh at this

but mount seiton

the figure that third world is referred

to the most to appeal to as the kind of

intellectual forefather mao zeitung took

notice of the contradictions within the

american and western and imperialist

camp he pointed out how in taiwan and in

south korea and even in europe in the

united kingdom there's starting to be

divisions and challenges to american

imperialism in mao's work uh the wind

sorry what is his work uh is it called

the wind in the rain

american imperialism paper tiger

u.s imperialism is a paper tiger

he explicitly says the united states

owes debts everywhere it owes debts only

to the countries not only to the

countries of latin america asia and

africa but also to the countries of

europe and oceania the whole world

britain included dislikes the united

states the united the masses of the

people dislike it japan dislikes the

united states because it oppresses her

none of the countries in the east so

he's not just talking about third world

countries he's talking about how

objectively speaking there's a

contradiction between american

imperialism and uh this new multi-polar

world that had been emerging at the time

and this is not a contradiction based on

a moral appeal to the crimes of american

imperialism it's an actual material

world historical contradiction that's

happening independently of morality of

someone's morality so

uh and moreover as my final uh closing

statement on this matter

basing one's opposition to american

imperialism solely on the basis of

morality does nothing but in material

reality strengthen the foundation of

american imperialism because it

privileges the site of american

subjectivity as a site of privileged

moral universal agency and it is

actually american universalism in form

not necessarily in content in terms of

the ideological content

that is the fundamental uh basis of

american ideological imperialism

american imperialism isn't just when you

promote freedom democracy and

liberty it's even if you swap freedom

democracy and liberty for marxism

liberation uh

justice and third world islam it's still

the same fundamentally american

pathology

in form it's the exact same thing and

that's actually what counts

okay the first thing i'd like to clarify

is that the arabs are you familiar with

atpor and sergey popovich because the

most of the arab spring

was a national endowment for democracy

operation in order to create coups and

they so it is not um

it is literally not uh

like a revolution in fact it is a

counter-revolution in many ways in that

they became it was basically like i said

sergey popovich bragged about how he

created tahrir square as a way of like

it was like literally an experiment for

him

so i would not use most of the arab

springs

tunisia was probably genuine but

everything afterwards um was definitely

used by the us government as an imperial

under imperialism

so that's the first thing the second

thing is that the revolutions you

mentioned there are two kinds of

revolutions the bourgeoisie revolutions

and the proletarian revolutions the

proletarian revolutions 100 of the time

have happened in the poorest and poorest

countries like russia china vietnam cuba

bourgeoisie revolutions like the one has

happened in france um and and other

countries

as for

um

uh

okay because of imperialism

the u.s tends to install like public

government so yes many third world

countries have a comprador class

and if you watch um john pilger's

pilgerism

the new rulers of the world you'll

understand how the u.s cultivates that

kind of bourgeoisie like with the cycles

so um i i i don't so it's kind of like

you the u.s installs a government

against their will and yeah they're

gonna

continue to like allow their population

to be used for essentially slave labor

so i just don't

like i guess

what i'm i i guess it seems like i'm a

little um

so what i see is that

so that's just the main thing that i'm

addressing um so i would not use um the

national and i just don't think

okay so what i'm saying is that yes uh

it is unlikely given our history so if

you have a new method

that can

shake a revolution from the imperial

court i'd love to hear about it but i

was just making a comment from

historical observation

so

i guess um

i'm not sure how much more time we have

but

yeah i i guess i well

i guess

uh what i'd like to do is um

i guess do you have a i don't know

closing statement or anything like i i

guess i mean i think this was a very

fruitful thing in that i understood a

lot of where you were coming from

but um but do you have any like

last-minute closing statements or like

any idea of like what is to be done

that regardless of the circumstances of

what actors were intervening in tunisia

and egypt i don't buy the idea that the

revolution in egypt was a foreign uh

okay sergey popovic literally admitted

to it um so i don't know what yeah i

just don't buy that mubarak was a

revolutionary and

mubarak was not revolutionary but the uh

tahrir square i was definitely uh i i am

yes

okay so what they did is they

assassinated hold on hold on

it was a badass they assassinated him

the sentiment the anger the passion and

the culture everything behind the arab

spring in egypt

was more or less authentically

reflecting the reality of the egyptian

people

and

finally uh and the same can be said

about tunisia and the to say the

otherwise is just a flagrant okay so

tunisia like i said i was authentic

but um

like i said the carnegie council

basically

has uh like i will send it to janet and

she'll send it to you and she'll share

it to share it with the chat but the

carnegie county oh a council literally

explained how regardless of the point

though it's actually not no no it makes

sense it makes a big sense in that if

you have a cia app that's like much

different yeah it doesn't work

egypt was not like syria it was actually

a real authentic no

i'm sorry but sergey popovic literally

admitted to it and the cia doesn't do

that that is but it's i think

it was the guy who did the um

people from egypt and what i know from

on the ground than uh sergey popovic i'm

sorry okay um see here's what um

okay

uh yeah i know foreigners uh were and

ngos were involved no no no no

specifically this was literally an op

design and sergey popovich kind of

little went a little rogue in order to

prove that he had the

method

so

tahir square i wouldn't isn't definitely

a national endowment backed operation

yeah i i just we're just going to have

to agree to disagree there but well i

mean literally i'm showing you them

admitting that i don't know what that is

okay well we'll send it to you um but

okay

so in that case well um

do you wanna if you wanna tell people um

what time

like do you stream every day i just

wanted to say that it's actually not

true that revolutions happen in the

poorest countries russia was not the

poorest country at the time and china

was also not the poorest country of its

time i didn't say deep forest i said in

deep

in countries that are poor like in deep

yeah

it was the most poor country i reject

the poverty as an explanatory value for

why revolutions happen revolutions

happen for much more complicated reasons

than just poverty but regardless of the

fact the example of history should not

discourage communists in western okay

hold on um hold on chris morlock has a

super chat question hold on let's answer

his question

don't ultra leftists simply sell

indulgences meaning they offer an

absolution of sin by formally denouncing

the sin how is this material if the

purpose is to find the commonality of

all people okay

i'll address it first and then not you

can address it no um so so chris this is

not what marxists believe marxists

believe that

like society is fundamentally a class

uh conflict so we're not trying to find

the commonality between all people but

we are trying to get the proletariat to

oppress the bourgeoisie so it is a class

war the proletariat needs to fight fight

fight when so that is what marxists

believe and so we're not definitely

finding no commonality we want the

proletariat to go beat and uh defeat the

bourgeoisie do you have a comment on

this one or do you want me to read this

out loud or yeah can you see it quickly

the view of uh the selling of indulges

is actually one that our collective had

arrived at independently many years ago

and the it's not just that you know

cheap comparison it's actually very deep

ways in which you can see that

the corruption of the catholic church

and the current american left

uh the corruption of the catholic church

at the time of the reformation and the

american left now there's so many

striking parallels and similarities it's

really interesting to

investigate

uh

now

it's in no way material to the purpose

of

of

giving expression and giving meaning and

giving um

application to the common reality of the

people which is what communism actually

is about

uh and the significance of the

proletariat as far as marx is concerned

especially because it is the proletariat

that as a class embodies the true

universality of the whole people as well

as the fate that he viewed awaited

the majority the overwhelming majority

of the people

in the country within which

so uh yeah to answer your question uh

yeah i agree

hold on uh he uh he has to

wait he also asked about the commonality

well uh hold on uh there's one more

question uh dan can you bring this up

just quickly please

sorry

uh it's fine um he also asked um isn't

uh hold on let me just quickly

get his second part uh where is it i

can't find it anymore okay never he

asked something about like

like it aren't revolution some sort of

uh

chris can you type your question again

about the commonality so that has can

answer it

um if you're here if not um oh we'll

wait about four more two more minutes um

let's see uh somebody's any other

comments um

no

okay no worries um it's fine uh okay so

um

uh

okay so um okay okay he said you

answered it that's excellent okay that's

good um in that case um do you what days

do you stream how do people find you

online

um

[Music]

oh thank you um

i'm just twitch.tv slash infrared show

and uh thanks for having me on i don't

know what time do you stream like where

where uh daily

uh you know uh fixed schedule but

usually i announce it in the discord or

the youtube you can find us at uh

infrared at youtube um and we usually

just make a post but it's usually around

you know 4 p.m anywhere between 4 p.m

and uh 8 p.m we will find us

okay well um check him out um i really

liked what you when you debated what's

his faith sam uh what's his name

yeah vaush that was pretty good and um i

saw that one and then there's another

one that i really liked um this like

right winger not like fake he looked

like a persian um persian inbred person

socialism done left or something like

that

yeah social none left

yeah um well okay well thank you for

joining us and hopefully we can um have

uh

uh yeah we should continue this

discussion like in a few like in a

little while after we kind of understand

each other's position a little bit more

and definitely keep in touch it was

really nice having this debate like i

liked that we were both mostly

respectful

all right yeah okay thanks well and yep

and uh

next time uh we need to meet up when

we're in michigan

okay thank you so much