RESPONDING to Sam Seder and Ben Burgis!

little do you know how I'm breaking

while your father memories

[Music]

a little more time

[Music]

thank you

[Music]

little do you know I know you're hurt

do you know I'm trying to make it better

[Music]

I'm ready

[Music]

thank you

little do you know how I'm breaking news

[Music]

a little bit

[Music]

thank you

[Music]

little do you know I know you're hurt

do you know I'm trying to make it better

place

[Music]

please

[Music]

thank you

[Music]

[Music]

little do you know how I'm breaking

little do you know I'm still haunted by

the memories

where do you know I'm trying to pick

myself up

a little more time

[Music]

thank you

little do you know I know you're hurt

do you know I'm trying to make it better

[Music]

thank you

I need a little more time

[Music]

[Music]

little do you know how I'm breaking

while your father memories

[Music]

a little more time

[Music]

little do you know I know you're hurt

[Music]

please

[Music]

thank you

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

[Music]

thank you

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

thank you

thank you

[Music]

flame

I'll pull you in and I pulled you back

too but you need initial

s

[Music]

cause she seems like she's good for you

and she makes you feel like you should

[Music]

say she's the one

for you is

[Music]

with you realize

[Music]

and say she's the one I love for you is

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

[Music]

what you need initially

[Music]

this time I'll let you be cause she

seems like she's good for you and she

makes you feel like you should and all

your friends say she's the one

[Music]

that you cry

[Music]

say she's the one

for you is

[Music]

lights

[Applause]

[Music]

[Music]

surely

it's just one call away

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

that you cry

[Music]

you should stay with her cause she seems

like she's good for you and she makes

you feel like you should

say she's the one

for you is

[Music]

ah

where the fuck are the sun gorillas

where the fuck is the excitement where

the fuck is the energy what is going on

what in the world is going on what is

this laziness what is this lack of

energy what is the sterility what is

this complacency what is this everyone

says oh yeah we're just gonna be weird I

don't know what do you mean you don't

know what's going on I know you've been

here for nearly two actually two years

we've been here

you know what's going on you know what

we're about you know what we're heading

for you know what the vibe is you know

what this all is don't act stupid don't

play dumb like you got your thumb up

you're right there you know what's going

on and this year it's going on

moron that it's ever been before

let me see those fucking Sun gorillas

let me see those goddamn Sun gorillas

and Mecca dafi thank you so much we're

gonna be talking about Sam Cedar we're

going to be talking about Ben Burgess

and we've got so much news and we've got

so many things to cover and so many

things to cut but but don't act stupid I

just don't want you to act stupid like

this is your first time oh I don't know

what's going on what do you mean you

don't know what's going on you know

what's going on be aware be aware of

what's going on okay don't sit here idle

don't zone out it's been two years you

know what the deal is you know what the

mo is you know that truth is on our side

and I'm gonna be sharing with you holy

fuck Mason thank you so much man

appreciate you

please debate Elise carrier in your next

stream

I will debate anyone right now okay I

have some things to cover that are very

important but to be clear I will debate

anyone right now anyone literally anyone

just get in the show cue state where you

want to debate about in the show request

can be even a sentence I will debate you

right now if you want to debate okay so

I don't have to be less next stream

thank you so much crack dealer holy fuck

thank you man appreciate you

I will debate anyone literally not okay

Ben Burgess all right I'm gonna explain

thank you so much Shane I was the brains

behind me in which set up the Sam Sater

Jackson

I think we as the infrared coming he

should set up an awesome debate that's

what I was going to get to today I want

to debate Sam Cedar I officially do

there's a few things Sam Cedar has

covered Hayes from the infrared webcast

on his main Channel while simultaneously

pretending I don't exist he made a video

on his main Channel about me

of him pretending to not know I exist

then why upload it to your main channel

it's so fucking stupid right then second

of all

we've got Ben Burgess so if you guys

remember the Ben Burgess debate he was

BTF owed but he decided to go do some

reflecting on his sub stack as a coping

mechanism I guess to basically write

down and he's like he ran away to his

sub stack not thinking I wouldn't I

would chase him there I am I'm chasing

him I'm chasing Ben Burgess to his sub

stack okay I'm gonna be chasing him all

the way to his goddamn sub stack

tonight and we're going to be breaking

everything down and I was thinking about

doing a written response but it doesn't

even deserve a written response we could

literally do it all on stream because of

how sophomoric and ignorant it is of the

wider theoretical

underpinnings

of where our position is coming from

especially when it tries to talk about

the Maga communism stuff

but it gets into the barista

jibber jabber and oh marks doesn't mean

shut up

in any case

we're getting right into it

first with Sam Cedar now

this is just Rich okay

this is just rich

Sam Cedar his main Channel

and he uploads a uh an entire video

about me

based so much diogenes nothing funnier

than a Fabian Marxist claiming the god

communism is incoherent Ben Burgess

completely was totally coping about

productive laborers overwhelmingly

supporting Trump

no the Starbucks coffee beans are

productive what are you talking about

Starbucks Coffee Starbucks Starbucks

when the revolution is over we're gonna

make all the infercells be sex slave

Baristas we're totally not deranged six

Psychopaths

we're totally not upholding a modern

version of slavery we're totally not a

bunch of fucking porn addicts

the fuck like infrared people are saying

we want to destroy bullshit jobs give

people free time and only have dignified

manual labor and this is my favorite

time I've been doing a Super Chat salaam

alaikum and you're my inspiration as an

ml twitch streamer love you big guys

thank you so much I appreciate you thank

you may to continue debating was based

on genius load of people saw it as

trolling but it was very tactical

hilarious but effective yeah I always do

that I notice I always do that thank you

Mig but um

yeah you guys want to notice something

our meme is we're gonna make you work

the land bridge which is not really

humiliating it's just it's it's humbling

it's good humbling work but their meme

is they're gonna make us be Baristas

it's kind of got like a lot of rape

Vibes if you ask me because it's almost

like it's like it's like it's like oh

you have to do services for us

that's like one step removed from sex

slavery you know what I mean

so it's like they have really creepy

disgusting horrific psychopath like ours

is you're gonna have to work on the land

bridge and what learn a good work ethic

and

develop good morals

and theirs is oh you're gonna have to

put on a dress and serve me coffee and

be my servant

what so their vision of socialism is one

step removed away from sex slavery a

really disgusting rapist fantasy and

ours is the rule of Labor and dignified

work ma it says a lot about character

you know what I mean there's a bunch of

sick sick fucks

sick sick fucks

in any case

so Sam Cedar

Sam thought ha's infrared was a band

why would you upload this if you don't

know who I am

it's such a stupid form of posturing

oh who's that Haas guy I'm just gonna

put him on his my main Channel

no you're trying to make the point that

you don't know who I am but you do know

who I am because the point wouldn't be

worth advertising on your main Channel

if you didn't know that I was someone

you wanted to pretend you didn't know

who I was thank you so much

yeah

thank you

thank you so much trail mix appreciate

you man

[Applause]

it's so stupid it's like Sam if you

didn't know who I was you wouldn't

advertise you didn't know who I was I

would literally be a guy you don't know

but you do know who I am you're just

trying to take a jira and you're like oh

who's that and he's irrelevant I don't

know who he is

in any case I'll debate you Sam

I know you're looking for some content

because you have a Channel with 1

million subscribers

and your videos get 4 000 views

who the fuck are you Sam Cedar you have

1 million subscribers and this is the

video with 4 000 views on it this is a

video from one day ago that only 5 000

people looked at

out of 1.2 million Sam

you realize this is my like

you know this is on the low end when I

upload a video and it only gets 5K it's

kind of on the low end

I have 25 000 subscribers okay you're

like

dangerously close to being on my level

with these I mean what is this this

looks like my channel

right now this is a uh 69 000 I don't

have much of those on my channel but you

know for these it's kind of just looks

like my channel if I'm being totally

honest it's like

he used he seems to have been doing

better

a few days ago I guess but look even if

it's an average of 60 000 which is the

most I'm seeing here dude you've got a

million subscribers this is pathetic I'm

sorry

but here's me uh ha's infrared and this

is Sam pretending to not know who I was

now to give you some background Sam I

know you know who I was

because I literally

was in Los Angeles with yes Jackson

Hinkle I remember

sitting with Jackson

and this up scale Cigar Lounge Outdoors

he had his was it an iPad I don't know

what it was and he was preparing for the

debate with you and we were talking

about the debate and I was like dude

this is going to propel you into Fame

and we were like I was kind of helping

him prepare a little for the debate

and I was there for the whole thing

you know so you know who I am Sam Cedar

you took the biggest out of your life

from my friend Jackson Hinkle I was

there for that

I was there for that behind the scenes

you know yeah I didn't do much to help

Jackson prepare because he already knew

all his shit we were talking about the

rhetoric and the dumb we were talking

about oh he's they're gonna do some dumb

job take some personal jab at you we you

are so predictable we predicted

everything you did in that stream when

we were sitting down as we were smoking

cigars we were predicting everything you

were gonna do and you did all of it and

Jackson responded to it effortlessly I

remember that that day there was a

problem with his computer

his internet connection and that was the

one thing we couldn't foresee but Sam

Cedar you know who I am I know you guys

know who I am a lot of you know who I am

the masses are the ones who don't know

who I am but you guys do thank you to

viewer ratio you have a more

enthusiastic course I do nobody is

watching his boring content you still

have vids with 35k yeah

exactly thank you so much Boyd see the

masses don't know who the fuck Hayes

from infrared is I'll grant you that

but the the movers the influencers

all of them know who the fuck I am all

of them

they're pretending they don't because

they don't want this to catch on like

wildfire because I'll tell you guys what

it's a pretty safe time right now

I'm gonna give you haze's promise the

promise of Haws why does YouTube have to

throw out all my live streams why do I

have to get banned why does all this

shit happen have to happen to me why do

they slander me and make up shit about

me on Twitter

I'll tell you why

this is haas's promise

yeah this is Hayes's promise I'm gonna

give you haze's promise you guys ready

for haze's promise

Jesus promises this

guy like me

if I

go viral

if I blow up

if hundreds of thousands of people start

being exposed to my message and to the

things that I'm saying

oh boy

oh boy

are you in trouble

in terms

of having an internet

and a social media environment

that

gives you ideological comfort

oh boy

oh boy would that be dangerous

at where I'm at now

I have given people mental trauma I have

shattered the minds of thousands of

people

who literally lose sleep over me

that is how much of an impact my

community has caused already

the day that infrared leaves this small

Niche and becomes a bigger phenomena

thank you so much who we are he's

mentioned infrared a few months ago by

name he spoke of nagakami I know he's

lying he's a floristline thank you so

much Mig but you better believe it

now you can say we're going to continue

these streamer embargo and boycott of

we're not going to give Haz a platform

because we want to contain this the

right now the method is containment it's

the containment method against infrared

but how long is that going to work for

all it's gonna fucking take

is for these Zoomers on Tick Tock and on

YouTube shorts or wherever to pick this

up

and this shit is going viral I've

already had clips of me go viral

multiple times on tick tock millions of

likes not millions of

like tens of millions of views but

millions of likes

okay

and I've not even been trying because

honestly it'd be dangerous as fuck if I

blew up and went viral right now

I would be banned from everything

instantaneously worse than Andrew Tate

you want to know why because Andrew

Tate's a guy at the end of the day he's

selling Hustler's University

when all said and done you know what I'm

selling

I'm selling pouring

all of my viewers into the Communist

Party USA

to take over that party

and create an actual political force

yeah

that's what you call dangerous okay good

morning thank you so much Lionel

appreciate you

so

I know all these influencers know who I

am

Hassan piker guy who gets

30 40 000 concurrent viewers

knows who I am and talks about me

all of them do

they also know about the potential I

have because I think these people watch

me in their own spare time that's how

entertaining that's how high quality

content that's how much

wait my words carry it's how unique what

I provide is right

infrared blows up becomes viral it's

over I have so many enemies

right now

trembling at the prospect

just imagine imagine if infrared good

morning Revolution thank you so much

Violet imagine if infrared

gets

triple the average viewers it does now

and triple the active following and base

of members and supporters imagine the

Guerrilla Army just triples in size

you don't think they're fucking scared

they are I promise they are and you know

what they have every reason to be

because if we are causing them this much

trauma and mental anguish just by

existing

I mean all bets are fucking off if this

movement spreads

they will do everything in their fucking

power to kill this in this in its cradle

now you guys know why

now you guys know why

it's for good reason I'm not saying it's

not for good reason

but they will submit to what infrared is

bringing to the table

or they will perish in terms of their

influence and relevance

and I'm convinced of that

I am fundamentally convinced of that

I've been embargoed on YouTube for

nearly a year

good morning thank you so much Wing

numina appreciate you

it hasn't done a dent in the community

our community hasn't shrunk

hasn't grown much either

I'll admit that

I'll admit I I don't see that it's a

huge growth in the community the core

community

but I see perseverance against

overwhelming odds

that's all we really need

to get through this

I'm glad I'm somewhat under the radar in

terms of popularity right now

we're not ready for the

explosive growth of infrared as a

platform hell no we're not

because if that happens I'm

instantaneously deep platform from

everything possibly worse happening to

me in real life

we need to build a fortress and then go

fucking Mega viral

and that Fortress is going to be nearly

complete this month

my Fortress

will be the organization we're launching

which will change the fucking game

and I vow this to you my gorillas I vow

to you

that the organization being launched

whether it's this month or not I don't

know how long it's going to take when

that gets up and running it's going to

change the fucking game nothing like it

has ever been done before

based thank you so much Harold

appreciate class enemies tremble at the

prospect of communistic revolution

it's gonna change the game

we're gonna get to work

and we're gonna blow the enemy out of

the fucking water

infrared is a force to be fucking

reckoned with that's the fucking

takeaway

let's get right into it ladies and

gentlemen

scheduled to debate has of the infrared

Collective tonight at 5 PM Eastern is

that like a band Burgess

Ben Burgess is scheduled to debate has

of the infrared Collective tonight at 5

PM Eastern is that like a band

totally authentic reaction

totally like genuine spontaneous

reaction totally not a forced fake

reaction

he's like he's telling a joke you know

oh he's not relevant

I think I'm as relevant as I need to be

right now

aha's substantial I mean guys

you notice I did my Ben Burgess debate

and then Destiny immediately boosted

some like fake docs of me full of

complete lies that weren't substantiated

by anything

you know why Destiny did that

because every time I grow

they have to be at the Vanguard of

making sure I don't

and they never succeed

the one thing was the twitch thing that

set me back

remember how it was concurrent 1000 on

Twitch

and growing

and then uh Destiny started his Crusade

against me

he threw his whole platform against me

the whole fucking thing what a pussy the

whole fucking thing

I didn't even know this guy

my content has nothing to do with him

I'm covering Ukraine

and he uses his entire his entire

platform

all of his followers his whole Twitter

everything everything he uses it and he

throws it all against me

[Laughter]

I know someone must have called him I'll

be like Destiny we don't have it we

can't have a song too when he's too busy

throw it everything

we gotta stop this infrared guy

he did filter out all the band kids all

the band kids

you know

all the uh

the nerd glasses Emoji people I don't

think I'll ever be able to win them over

ever

but that's not my target audience now is

it

so Hayes has been on YouTube

like a submarine

that's what I am I'm a submarine

I'm below the waters lurking

and I'm waiting for my moment

to emerge onto the surface

but it's not going to be me that emerges

it's going to be

my missiles

metaphorically thank you so much thanks

appreciate it I usually fall into Doomer

moments but its speech is like yours

that raise my morale also I got placed

in quarantine f

yeah we've had to thin the herd and we'd

have to take a lot of difficult

decisions on the Long March through the

winter of embargo

we've had to put people in the gulag

take harsh measures ban people

good people getting banned

I hope you guys don't take it personally

when you get banned from the Discord

I hope you don't take it personally a

lot of good people get banned from the

Discord a lot of people that I like

we ban a lot of people that I like from

the Discord we ban you because we have

to because if we don't Discord

will come after us

but some of you take it personally and

get quite angry and those are the dumb

ones that we just filter out

the dumb ones we don't need the dumb

ones the Smart Ones understand why we do

we do

Smart Ones understand

Smart Ones understand the dumb ones

the dumb ones just don't get it

I want to give also a message to Stannis

because

I haven't been addressing the status

question

but you guys can relay this message to

our resident troll status Stan as we've

been tolerating your trolling we have

and you're it's a great laugh for all of

us

and we all like Stannis we all like

status right

Stannis the things you've been posting

on Twitter I've I've only seen some of

it

you gotta stop okay whatever that

direction you're going in

whatever that direction

you're pursuing

it's not the one

it's not the right one all right it's

like

we've all looked the other way

until now okay

so oh this whole

um blast to the Past sorry for my choice

of words about you're talk reminiscing

of when you were a neoconservative

I mean I don't

I I look

you're still the same person have some

shame all right have some

you know it's just there's some things

you shouldn't be saying or sharing

to anyone for that matter uh not even to

yourself if the if the things you say

are true you should probably just forget

them

um and pretend they didn't happen

I would like to live in a world where I

haven't had to see those tweets okay

but

you know it's just my friendly advice I

can't enforce it

it's just my advice to Stannis is we've

gotta you gotta change directions just a

little bit

the direction you're going in now is

just it's not the move

it's not the move

okay

but anyway let's continue watching this

who is has of the infrared he's a I

think the brains behind uh makakami yeah

he's like the other oh okay the topic

how the fuck would you even know that

the debate on the viability of Maga

communism seems like it might be

happening online he's two months too

late yeah good luck to him he's real

really like abrasive and stuff I mean

they're morons yeah Z in the chat says

love him or hate him has really well

it's a it's a very tame choice of words

really knows his Marxist theory Matt

Leck should definitely tune in so he can

maybe learn a thing or two as Mao said

no investigation no right to speak

who sent that shot

who sent that here instant hero if

you're in the Discord instant hero find

out who that was hero of infrared

immediately okay

but immediately get hero infrared for

that

don't know who that is

but instant hero for whoever said that

let's continue I'm good I've watched a

full debate with Oz he's terrible

yeah like I watched the debate he had

with Destiny guys

whenever anything whenever it comes to

anything with Destiny I have to explain

something to you

Destiny is an Optics manipulator he's

just a rhetoric's guy

he's like a woman he's like a spinster

he's not it's not truth it's not reality

if you want to find out anything about

anyone

Destiny is not the person you want to go

to

if someone's interacting with Destiny

it's like

just assume there's already a frame it's

already Being Framed in some way it's

not real okay

um because there's a combination of an

influencer and a community that'll

believe anything he says Nate rocks off

Ben Burgers would rather believe in the

apocalypse than the end of McDonald's

gorilla Sun thank you so much

holy fuck rocks over the 100 holy shit

Rock solve holy fuck thank you man

thank you so much

but yeah

when it comes to like benberg is like I

watched her debate with Destiny on

Russia Ukraine did you watch the one we

had with Adam something or did you watch

the first one where he derailed the

debate into an insult match and yes he's

the one who did that not me

he is the one who did that like

he started with the name calling and all

that shit so how are you gonna have a

debate when there's in people calling

names and shit

I mean No One's Gonna care about the

substance of the debate they're just

gonna care about the insults so it's an

insult right

see this is the interesting thing

if you debate him

and you don't insult him back

and you beat him in the debate they just

will he the community's bigger so

they're just going to take away the meme

that Destiny oh he called you a name and

that's going to be the takeaway from the

debate nobody's actually going to care

about the substance

that's how it works

right but again any any time someone's

character is you want to judge them

don't let Destiny be the person that

measures that based on their interaction

with Destiny

if it's on his Channel at least he

frames everything

in a way favorable to him why because he

has that womanly Instinct like a

spinster where he puts that much thought

into it now most of us

I don't even know women who put them

this much effort into it most of us

don't most of us are just like I don't

have time for this

you know I'd rather go you know watch

the TV show

I I I'd rather go just lay on the couch

and just chill I don't I don't want to

spend all this

Alice Adderall fucking you know

time that's put into uh reputation

destruction you know Jordan Peterson was

right about some shit men

their toxicity is violence woman's

toxicity yes is reputation destruction

so a man who is adept at reputation

destruction by definition is a womanly

effeminate male it's a eunuch more or

less right

um anything else I say is not allowed on

YouTube so I'm not gonna say it

but it's an interesting because speaking

of eunuchs and

competition between them

I don't know what I'm saying this or I

don't know I mean it's just like he got

banned

he got banned because he was competing

with another

because the tits Town ain't big enough

for two of them

whoops side anyway we're on YouTube hi

YouTube We're on YouTube what's up

everybody let's continue

I I did I watched one with like uh

assata bear I think like Santa communism

oh it's the SSR bear one never mind

[Laughter]

that was all uncalled for no that was

the Ben Burgess is the one who said that

about the destiny debate

I also find it funny because Destiny on

his Twitter he's like I just saw some

shit he's like oh one of the things

about me is um I am a decent person

relatively decent and I'm an honest

person it's like dude you

single-handedly boosted lies thanks so

much JC infrared is rising you singly

you single-handedly boosted

lies like even if coincidentally

everything that was said happens to be

true

it's still a lie because

the Tweet is Being Framed as though this

is being backed by any verifiable

evidence and it's not that person just

made it up now the probability of

someone making something up and it being

true is very low

and it's also very low in the case of

that tweet and if you want to go by my

word the probability is zero because

they're literally just lies that were

made up from scratch but you want a

logic Lord at however you want he's a

fucking liar right he also said that me

and Jackson take Russian money

you're a liar dude you're a fucking liar

it's as simple as that we take Russian

money really

where did you get that oh I made it up

okay

or is he gonna do the thing where oh

disprove me just that's not how the

burden of proof works if you make a

claim you have to back up the claim with

evidence

or else don't make the claim at all

that's how everything works

you know where does this means I don't

know

you can sue them

yeah but then I'd have to I might if my

name actually gets revealed my real one

because at that point it's like I'm

gonna if that happens I'm gonna sue the

fuck out of a lot of people actually

right

I will sue the fuck out of a lot of

people if that happens who made shit up

about me

not a lot probably just like three

people

I don't even know if Destiny would be

one of them

honestly because

um

I don't really care if people think I

get Russian money I mean it's not true

but

I think if you watch me enough

it's just a stupid conclusion to draw

and I don't think it's very convincing

like

like Russia pays me to do this shit

like Russia pays me to do this shit

really Russia pays me to talk about Deng

Xiaoping Taliban stalinism really it's

kind of a stretch

you know what is wrong what does Russia

pay me to do exactly if I can play GTA

RP

right does Russia pay me to fucking

do Twitter spaces and

it's it's stupid right

what do they pay me to do

does Russia pay me to do karaoke night

probably not

probably not

uh yeah the pedo Saturn guy I would sue

the fuck out of him

easily that would be the easiest lawsuit

of my entire life like yeah you're just

like blatantly lying about me and it'd

be easy too because he's got his name

attached to it

that one I would probably Sue

yeah I probably would sue them

but it's like even if it's oh you get

paid by Russia

I literally just had like two fifty

dollar donations in this stream a

hundred dollar donation a bunch of other

donations I don't think I need Russia to

pay me I think I have a very loyal

committed active user base that supports

what I do wants to keep seeing more of

what I do

I don't think you need to explain that

in terms of Russian money logically

speaking but forget about all the logic

forget about all this other stuff

how do you how does it happen

that you can just make something up and

say oh you take based on what where's

the evidence you know what I mean

it's a Rachel Maddow epistemology

where's the evidence

okay Rachel Maddow there's no evidence

you just feel like that might be true

and therefore it's true

which reminds me of something

that we can't talk about on YouTube

Harry Potter

boy JK Rowling I wonder what she's all

about any anyway

let's continue

I can't remember what he goes by but his

husband's like bit I mean the Marcus

Lemonis theory of why we need to point

and gawk at people with you know blue

hair and uh like art like like

I don't think we need a point and gawk

at them

at all I think we need to separate

ourselves from them and protect

ourselves from them as a civilized

society because they have a raging and

murderous intent toward everyone who

doesn't subscribe to their ideology

I don't even I don't think we need a

point in Glock at them

first of all why would you need to point

at a a blue Air person what'd he say

get people with you know blue hair and

uh like art like like non-binary or

something like that it's just yeah the

blue I don't think you need to gawk at

people with blue hair I mean I don't

think you need to point them out you

know the the kind of morbidly grotesque

deformed malformoid appearance does all

the pointing you need I mean talk if you

wanna if you want to stand out from a

crowd just be one of those Chas people

on the Chas mug shot

there's no I don't have to point at

anything okay all I have to be like is

like I have to be sitting and there

could be a crowd of 100 people it used

to be one of them and I just be like hey

what's that fucked up looking monster

and everyone you know what I mean

everyone would know what I'm talking

about I wouldn't have to point Thank You

there'd be no pointing involved in fact

look there'd be no pointing at all all

right I'd I'd be look I'd be standing

like this and I'd be like oh my god what

the fuck is that

everyone would understand what I'm

talking about right everyone would get

it

everyone would get it

they'd be like yeah it is the Chas

mug shot

because there are aliens Among Us okay

and and please look at that you know you

know what I'm talking about go to any

radical Socialist Communist meeting in

America go to any anyone any of them go

to any one of those meetings and tell me

you believe

that lysenko was wrong

go to any one of those meetings any one

of them I want you to go to any one of

those things and then you come back and

report to me with a straight face oh

yeah

yeah

I guess that's just

that's the Revolutionary working class

all right

uh-huh

yeah you're at the meeting

oh yeah

don't say anything or you're a

reactionary

are you sure

because I'm not

I'm sure of the opposite anyway let's

continue stupid

I mean

honestly I think people need to like

touch grass or a book

I guess my point on that is thanks so

much Putin

I guess that city was right it's Putin

Putin just gave me ten dollars

all right I guess

I guess this got confirmed Vladimir

Putin just gave me as you saw plain and

say ten dollars ain't too much Stannis

appreciate it accept your terms watch my

edit it's important the YouTube all

right guys remind me we're gonna watch

stannis's edit as soon as we go through

this and then we're gonna go through the

Ben Burgers shit and then we're gonna

settle it there but we're gonna go

through the Ben Burgess sub stack

and we're gonna then we're gonna watch

the status video so hold me to it guys

hold me to it

make sure to hold me to it

who cares yeah exactly like I mean the

the like

the the territory that is being fought

over with the so-called Maga communism

is so infinitesimally small

compared to what though

you got to think about it like that like

okay that sounds true

but compare what do you compare it to

because you don't have any territory

you're just a Democrat with extra steps

right

so where's the new ideas where's the

novel I mean you know what I mean by

that it's like

it may be small territory but it's like

there's some gold

below your feet in that territory right

you do some digging you'll find diamonds

where are you abiotic oil is two percent

to the most Elementary and foundation of

the lives reality infinite growth

Quantum absolutely are well thank you so

much brother I appreciate that

it's like it's like uh oh the territory

that's being fired so small okay it's

small but it's wealth it's wealthy

what you you can have a territory of a

bunch of

empty land with nothing in it

you know Sam your Channel's in Decline I

wouldn't be talking about

small territory it's like

you know you think about the issues of

the day and it's like

what actually matters though you know

what I mean

you can say oh the the latest jibber

jabber on the news is what matters

who is Matt Walsh oh Matt Walsh said

this and and and and

Tyler Braxton said that

but who I'm looking him up Matt Walsh I

don't know who that is by the way

he's with the daily wire who owns that

Ben Shapiro

okay

so this is what happens uh liberal smug

liberals who wear glasses uh talk about

Matt Walsh saying

Preposterous things

and then you just go and then Matt Walsh

calls you a cuck

and then you go back and forth

you're really making progress for the

American people here

you're really doing a number you know

groundbreaking stuff you know really

earth-shattering I mean that's that's

what's gonna you know bring political

change to this country

that's what's gonna bring political

change

based there you are Sader is Duke of a

petty Thief gifted to him by the DNC

infrared exists in a space as wide and

open as the step

exactly

that's what I think too

yeah I mean I think it's worth

dismissing Lyndon laroucheitz okay

wait wait hold on

um

I could be wrong about the logic here

but he pretend he doesn't know who I am

but he knows that I'm friends with the

Schiller Institute

how does he know that

and what is what is Maga communism have

to do with larouche sites

there's a few things that we have in

common with the larouche that I'll

I will concede

just two things I can think of the one

thing

we have in common we draw from larouche

we were inspired by is the theory of the

British Empire 2.0

and the idea that there's an America

that was forgotten and lost and was

hijacked by British civilization

and I think that's supported by

historical evidence that I've

independently verified in my own studies

the second thing

is not in any way

uniquely laroucheight

could also say it's Paul Cox shot Ian or

something but it's this idea that

there is a physical economy

of use values

whose reproduction has diverged from the

fictitious virtual economy

of exchange value

but like the idea that like you have

this immense accumulation of fictitious

capital on the one hand and then you

have a decline of Industry on the other

and I think this logic was covered by

Marx

except with agriculture instead of

Industry the depletion of the soil it's

a metabolic Rift depletion of the

physical economy that was the very

premise of the fictitious capital

and the degrowed stuff and the

anti-environmentalist stuff which I

don't think is uniquely larouchite

you know

I don't think that's unique to larouche

at all

I think there's other severely misguided

people

in other respects severely misguided but

in this respect at least on to something

when it comes to the critique of

environmentalism

but yeah

it's not always about larouche

it is not always about larouche

so I know I don't think our

anti-environmentalism comes from

larouche I just think larouche has given

support for it

like

argumentative and evident based support

but no that was an independent

development

that was an independent development

that was an independent development

anyway let's continue

which is basically and taking a little

effort to dismiss them

but not

why I don't think it does it's like okay

if I if Sam Cedar and Daniel Burke were

in a room

could Sam Caesar easily dismiss Daniel

Burke and still be logically and

rationally consistent no he couldn't he

would have to make an irrational leap

a Quantum Leap if you will

in dismissing uh Daniel Burke on

completely unjustifiable grounds because

the truth is

I've argued with larouche people and no

you it's not easy to dismiss them they

do raise legitimate points I disagree

with them but they're not crazy there's

there's a reason they believe the things

they do

it it has to do with a degree of

literacy when it comes to you know

philosophy and things like that which I

don't think Sam Cedar has

you know I I remember when I was in New

York

and we did that conference with the

Schiller Institute we had dinner

afterwards and I brought all the

infrared people to dinner and then the

Schiller people came

and

I remember after dinner I was there and

I was at the table

and I was arguing about one of their

guys about

Hegel versus

leibniz

I'm the hegelian they say no liveness is

all you need content Hegel that was

rubbish that was unnecessary

and obviously I disagree with that

and I was arguing

not in a hostile way a friendly argument

but you can't dismiss what they're

saying

any more than you could dismiss anything

else it's like you know you gotta

actually think about these things why do

you have the views you do

not that much yeah

why Sam think about it why

see this is how you know he's a

dishonest person

just because someone has a maligned

reputation

it's not grounds for dismissal at all

someone could have a bad reputation

because there was an artificial and

coordinated campaign to destroy their

reputation

I know that happened to larouche because

it literally happens to me

there are

tens of if not hundreds of thousands of

people who think that my name is Adam to

here

I am half Swiss Canadian or something

half

well I don't even know what they're

saying half Maronite

um

I'm give me a second to remember this

stuff

uh

I uh they think I

was expelled from Law School

I didn't have a scholarship my parents

paid all my tuition

they think what else they think

hundreds of thousands of people believe

this shit about me it's not there's

nothing it's not real but they believe

it

did you guys know it's not even a joke

I mean it's like hundreds of thousands

of people believe I'm literally like

four or five and it's like am I right

they believe I'm remarkably like of like

a a Wonder of nature

because they don't understand like how

can this characterize your reputation

and that not be the case

you guys don't think that

even Nadia didn't know when I was before

I met Nadia in person

she didn't know she was like

so is it true are you actually like four

feet nine

I was like what

she was like yeah I saw this photo of

you with no knees

I thought it was real

I'm like what

people actually

[Laughter]

so it's like larouche how can larouche

how can you not understand there's ways

to artificially destroy people's

reputation that have no grounding in

fact you know what I mean

you know what I mean

yeah I mean my thing is like all right

go uh go organize Glenn Beck's audience

for uh Communists and uh then we'll talk

are you living in 2009

what do you mean Glenn Beck's audience

first of all

Glenn Beck's audience

that's not that's the Tea Party era dude

what are you talking about

what do you mean Glenn Beck's audience

Glenn Beck is more like the rational

conservative

anyway I uh it's not difficult at all to

talk to Ben Glenn Beck's audience but I

think you you mean Tucker Carlson's

audience

in which case it's like extremely easy

right but it's even easy when it comes

to Glenn Beck it's like it's even easier

when it comes to Tucker Carlson who's

regarded as even more far to the right

than Glenn Beck right

so yeah

okay now for the Ben Burgess sub stack

and I've got to clarify a number of

things in this sub stack

so oh boy it's gonna be fun

okay I'm gonna skim through the

beginning and then we're gonna get into

the weeds of it when it actually matters

a few days ago I debated YouTube

personality Haws the topic was his

advocacy of something called and I

promise I'm not making this up Maga

communism

it was a strange experience and won that

for a few reasons stretched the limits

of the case I made for the value debates

it's like Ben he couldn't reject a

debate with me because his whole fucking

MO is oh yeah we should debate people

yeah but not Haws

political philosophies don't get more

marginal than Maga communism it is a

pretty reasonable argument to make dude

dude I have to explain something to you

this is like saying there's an open

Frontier of the Wild West

open Frontier and there's very little

there and there's like one guy there

who's setting up a tent and he's like oh

that guy's marginal

yeah he's marginal and then 10 years

later it's a fucking whole city

this is Uncharted Territory

you can say Maga communism is marginal

but what it is not is Obsolete and

Democratic socialism my friend is

obsolete as an ideology and it has no no

future in this country except maybe some

of its policy proposals and positions

being assimilated into the campaigns of

establishment Democrats but it is

obsolete

there is no future for Democratic

socialism whatsoever

there's no every political ideology you

can think of in America is obsolete so

when there's a new one called Maga

communism and you're saying it's

marginal it's marginal compared to

non-existent and compared to non

compared to obsolete right

there's a pretty reasonable argument to

be made for responding to anything quite

that self-evidently Ridiculous by

rolling your eyes and moving on rather

than taking the time to engage

and that's what you would have done Ben

I promise you would have done that if it

wasn't for the fact

that at minimum hundreds of people

enthusiastically

adopt this slogan and it's not an

ideology or a political philosophy

but

thousands and thousands of people take

it seriously which is why you take it

which is why you're engaging with it so

you already reveal you have no

principles if I was just one guy you

just call me a schizo and move on

it's the fact that we made it trending

on Twitter that you find it necessary

to you know give it some attention

one reasons I didn't is that however

eccentric and fringy this particular

manifestation may be the larger impulse

is actually fairly widespread

there you go

if you read hawes's soft stack post

explaining what he means by this odd

combination of words he opens with an

argument that there's no such thing as a

left

okay this is I have to piss really bad

this is not true

I don't say there's no oh wait okay I'm

gonna clarify what I meant by this

because this is misleading this sounds

like I'm advocating for a form of

syncreticism which I'm not

but I have to piss so fucking bad I have

to piss fuck

I'll be right back

listen to some music while I go pee I'm

gonna go pee it's gonna be literally

like a minute I just gotta pee really

bad give me a sec

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

okay let's get into this

all right

okay

so

so Ben kind of is gonna try and do a

deep dive into the Maga communism sub

stack not a deep dive he's gonna very

briefly kind of

spare sparsely engage with it but

Ben the problem with Ben Burgess is he's

dealing with the wrong sub stack he

wants to talk about the Barista stuff

and that point of contention and the

whole stuff about private property then

he should engage

with the pat sock split sub stack we're

actually going to like a lot of detail

about that stuff right

the model communism one was about

political Theory now what is the

political theory he says

that

um there's no such thing as a left right

Spectrum no that would just be the same

as third positionism According to which

you need to go beyond left and right

which is not what I'm saying in the

Imago communism sub stack if you

actually read it what I'm actually

trying to say

is not that there's no Left Right

difference there is a difference but

that the Spectrum

of basically established

sorry the spectrum of politics which

attempts to kind of

what do you call it

um

formalize this difference

and has entered into contradiction with

the actual difference itself now this

sounds really

um

difficult to follow if you don't

understand dialectics which I think Ben

Burgess outright rejects because he's a

follower of the analytical School of

Marxism

but no I'm not saying there's no such

thing as a left right difference I'm

just saying that the political Spectrum

which tries to assimilate this

difference into a smooth space and a

smooth continuity such that there's no

real qualitative difference there's just

this kind of

um difference that is on the same

Spectrum you get what I'm saying

it's not a fundamental metaphysical

difference that's the problem

and I expect a lot of people might not

describe this as either magra might not

along with at least that part of the

essay

I I don't think I argue that there's no

such thing as the Spectrum I think I

actually do acknowledge the Spectrum

of of politics and it's my theory of

alignment my basic idea is that the

political Spectrum represents every

political position that is aligned

with hegemony

so it's those positions that are outside

of the spectrum that are partisan so

it's almost it's very dialectical it's

like on the one hand you have

the political spectrum and these various

represented political

um

ideologies and positions all of which

are aligned with the hegemony

and then you have partisanism as such

and that's the beautiful thing about the

theory and why it's such a

groundbreaking and seamless Theory it's

like

it's yeah it's the Paradox of the

spectrum is it is the political Spectrum

itself on the political Spectrum

the way I resolve it is this distinction

between the political Spectrum itself

and partisanship partisanship if you're

familiar with Zizek which I'm sure

berges has to be because he's always

been having him on a show

a position of engaged subjective

partisanship is already partial and

responsible for some kind of active

political position right whereas if you

are on the political Spectrum

you are not a partisan you are just

aligned with the hegemony you don't have

to fight for your position

it's already systemically Fighting For

Itself by means of the hegemony

right so I make a distinction between

political partisanship as such

and the Spectrum

and I think that's what's groundbreaking

about

the Maga com the political theory in the

Maga Community partially when it comes

to the political Spectrum the idea that

you don't just have different forms of

political partisanship you have

partisanship as such and then you have

the formalization of politics by the

hegemony right

and that is what I was trying to aim at

the the Spectrum presupposes

uh a fundamentally bourgeois

subjectivity

According to which

all politics is about these abstract and

intangible values not grounded in actual

concrete material reality

that's in contrast to the partisan

schmidty and partisan that's telluric

and grounded in the determinate reality

of the people

partial to the concrete reality so the

political spectrum is a spectrum of

values whereas the partisan is a engaged

subjective position of partisanship

grounded in material reality itself it's

a concretely grounded position right

it's not based in any abstract values or

abstract universalism or anything like

that it's based in a specific concrete

position

material position right

so he got this very wrong lots of people

believe that

uh

uh America politics have realigned in a

way that renders traditional Left Right

dichotomy is irrelevant that is also not

the thesis of my

um

sub stack

unless you're if I'm being charitable

you mean

the traditional political positions that

correspond to the left right difference

in which case I'd say yeah

but the left right wing difference is of

it's the fundamental metaphysical

difference grounding modern politics

left wing is based on the Revolutionary

orientation of modern politics and the

right wing is based on the um

sorry the uh

orientation toward grounding

uh political modernity in some kind of

order some kind of

fixed order of some kind some kind of

cognizable

categorizable order right

the real divide is now supposedly

between politically amorphous

anti-establishment

or in haas's terminology counter

hegemonic forces on the one hand and on

the other hand the many headed Hydra

of the hegemony let's just say right

not true

not true

The Divide is between the partisan the

political partisan

which happens to be counter hegemonic

but the reason the political partisan is

counter hegemonic is because they are

grounded in a kind of polarity which is

a word for it's an alternative to the

hegemony

they're grounded in a kind of if you

want alternative hegemony it's not just

that they're counter hegemonic it's that

they are partisan they are rooted in a

partial

polarized that's why we call it polarity

hegemony rather than a hegemony that

based in this pretends to universalism

um I think this is it's a very

uncharitable reading because this just

makes it sound like I'm saying something

that Burgess is already familiar with

which has already been critiqued a lot

of times like

Jesus is like oh they're saying that

it's not about left and right it's about

anti-establishment versus establishment

but no I I my

sub stack is much more theoretically

specific and it's imp the specificity is

very important

because I am not

trying to say that political difference

is not real

on a metaphysical level

if you've ever if people are like oh

Beyond left and right is is just a right

wing yeah it is it is third position is

inherently right wing

I'm not forwarding a position a third

position

so actually read what I wrote before you

say stupid shit about it

if you've never heard this world Express

before

count yourself lucky

I almost off the far more mainstream

than Haas people who have in one way or

other promoted it

I'll leave the construction of

socialists as papers and philosophy

journalisms I put it as an exercise for

the reader

foreign

who has promoted my no one's promoted it

no one

the point is that it's in it's a it's a

fundamentally unique perspective it's an

increasingly widespread narrative

yeah I can acknowledge that but I think

the narrative is correct about the

object it's just wrong about how it's

describing it

but it's correct in in the cause like

yes one cannot simply identify a clear

left and right

mapping on to the mainstream political

positions but there is a historical

justification for left and right

and which leads us to conclude there

will re-emerge a distinction between

left and right that is Meaningful my

thesis is that there's a realignment I

think from Maga a new left is going to

emerge and what we consider left-wing

now will according to the perspective of

History be considered right wing that's

more my position

and it's nonsense why

outside a Compact magazine there's no

meaningful anti-war or economically

populist wing of the American right

there are no wings of any left or right

whatsoever

if you're going to

set the bar at um you know being some

kind of like

what at your own presidential candidate

who I mean

yes they're they're very much is okay

what what is your bar

to recognizing that

Maga

was lifted from Ronald Reagan's campaign

in 1980

yeah it was

not the whole thing but the make America

great part was

but I I think the guy um

from Platypus what's his name

Chris catron was much more an

izatrotskyite

but he had a much more intelligent

interpretation of what that meant he was

basically saying Trump

was the end of neoliberalism which began

in Reagan so it's like it was an

ironical throwback

make America great

is the birth of the neoliberal official

America

and when Trump is saying again he's

saying no let's go back and redo this

in a different way

so

it's basically a war against the Reagan

slogan when you think about it

we have been living in the Great America

of Reagan

since

uh until Trump I mean

where politics cease to be political but

was just this kind of

you know just establishment basically

so no you're wrong

about uh the significance of that

it's a branding exercise for Trump okay

well then maybe rethink your

understanding of Sociology because

everything is a branding exercise I want

to actually

take I I was limited in time in the

debate so I want to take a little more

time

to explain to Ben Burgess

the sociology and significance of

branding

and why this is a foolish and stupid

thing to say

but I'll wait for this donation to pass

before I do that

and I'm stalling and I'm buying time

waiting for stream labs to finally

process the donation

and streamlabs is taking their time

because streamlabs is a dog shit

platform and I only use stream Labs

because there's no alternative

streamlabs OBS there's no alternative

simplified form of OBS you can use I

would use one if there was they banned

me from going on mobile they ban me I'm

getting donations so did stream elements

and that's why I use streamlabs because

they're a dog shit fucking platform and

they take forever to process donations

and and as you can tell it's there we go

thank you so much I'll take appreciate

it is KGB Ben is KFC infrared deals with

meat and potatoes Jacobin deals with

high fructose corn syrup

all right I'll take you that is indeed a

hot take

hot and ready boneless wings I'm just

okay let's go

so he says it's a branding exercise for

Trump

I like how these zero books late stage

capitalist theorists think that by

calling things or branding exercise

you're kind of effacing the aura of

political seriousness and legitimacy

true the problem with late capitalist

cynicism Theory

is that it gets everything reversed

it's not ironic to say oh it's all about

McDonald's and Coca-Cola and KFC

McDonald's Coca-Cola and Disney

are themselves

the sublime the sight of the sublime

serious socialism that's not the dirty

pathological underbelly of society

that's not where Society is uh

relevant for the cynic

if this is if Maga is a branding

exercise for Trump that is more an

indictment on the nature of what brands

actually are brands are

I don't know how to say this without

getting into lakhani and stuff

let me put it this way brands are the

most powerful Trace

of

Collective identity

in the 21st century

name one 21st century

contemporary political movement

that does not take the form somehow of a

brand

even gangs are brand show me the Bloods

and the crypts where are they show me

the king of the Bloods or the king of

the crypts no such thing it's a brand

that brand organizes people that brand

delimits something in actual reality

that matters

you know what I mean

socialism is a brand

you think DSA works as an organization

not really it works as a brand

it's all ranked everything's a brand

because Brands themselves

are preeminent forms of based

phenomenological socialism thank you so

much branding exercise for fascism

a brand is not a cynical attempt to

create a symbol to turn a profit

a brand is a symbol that has assimilated

profit in order to realize itself

as an ideal

that's a very interesting thing that all

these late stage capitalism dumbasses

haven't ever thought about

Disney is not a brand to make profit

profit

is something

that Disney makes to sustain the brand

see what I'm saying the brand represents

a specific partial unique

holistic

uh

perspective on whole all of life and

reality

basically in Disney's case

that's the core that I made in my

opening statement in the debate as I

pointed out there

I spent the Obama years arguing with

liberals about drones and attentions in

Obama's failure to withdraw from

Afghanistan

yeah but you didn't address my point

okay and ironically the fact that you're

mentioning the brand I think is an

indictment against your point

and I know you ran to the sub stack in

order to avoid

confronting my the point I was trying to

make is

it has nothing to do with liking Obama

or liking Trump on a personal level the

difference is is that Obama did not

create a movement

from the perspective of which these

specific critiques of Obama could even

be meaningful Obama was just simply

fully co-opted by the establishment

whereas under Trump's presidency

regardless of all of the things that

happened under his administration

that you want to be critical of not all

of the things you're critical of are

even legitimate by the way but the ones

that you are

the difference is is that Trump was

under attack by The Unofficial State the

Deep state which is a real thing

it's an exoteric reality of civil the

hegemony you mentioned earlier

so there was a dual power that happened

under Trump's presidency I can prove

this by the way

there was the Trump movement on the

ground that only listened to Trump and

then there was the official state

now to prove to you that there was a

difference between these two things

all I have to do is mention a date

January 6 2021

the reason Trump isn't comparable to

Obama is because there is an autonomy of

the Trump movement that was never

actually fully assailed or assimilated

by The Establishment that turned it into

a counter hegemonic and partisan Force

now you seem to not like the word

counter hegemonic because you think it

implies that this is a matter of values

or principles and it's not I'm just

trying to say that the Maga movement

is both hostile

broadly hostile to the hegemony and also

outside of the hegemony I'm not saying

that it has taken it as a matter of

principle to dismantle the hegemony I'm

just concretely positioning it

objectively where it actually stands in

regards to that the Maga movement

is a movement built I think this is fair

to say if I was like some guy wearing

glasses who is working in a university

as a sociologist it would be fair to say

this I would I'd like any liberal to

kind of

push back on this with some good faith

right the Maga movement is a movement

that in large part has been built around

Collective distrust in the mainstream

institutions of society

I think that's fair to say isn't it

it's a movement based on distrust in the

mainstream institutions of society

that's really all I'm saying when I say

it's counter hegemonic thank you so much

Mig Obama bad Obama bad Democrats bad

followed by thorough and legitimate

critique but conclusion vote Democrat

just like GOP yeah because it's harm

reduction just arm reductionism thank

you so much Mig it's like my position is

pretty simple

Obama did not have a movement

that

was cultivated under his presidency or

was built before his presidency that was

defined by Collective distrust toward

the mainstream institutions of society

now you can say oh well they may be

distrustful of the mainstream

institutions of society

but they're 100 percent trusting of

trump and I don't think that's true

and that's not true because of the

vaccine issue and we're not going to get

into it here talk about it and don't

talk about it

but that's why because they were booing

Trump at his own rally because of that

issue

what this

distrust actually entails in reality is

that people are looking for alternative

explanations of the world what Frederick

Jameson I'm sure verges is familiar with

Jameson alternative cognitive mappings

of our world they're looking for other

ways of making sense

of the political situation in America

they are distrustful of the prevailing

forms of information

and the exercise of governance and

policy making

and are looking for alternative ways to

make sense of reality

alternative kinds of consciousness

that's what makes it counter hegemonic

Maga is you know it's even you just look

at the mainstream media and they will

say it like oh the Maga movement is full

of Q and honors and conspiracy theorists

you think there's like a unanimity as

far as what that looks like it's all

over the place you got flat earthers

you've got

these kind of conspiracy theorists

you've got these kind of Q and honors

it's all over the place why is it so

wild and chaotic because they're all

just United by the fact that they agree

about a fundamental distrust

in the prevailing institutions of

society which has led them to pursue

other kinds of ways of making sense of

the world

the conspiracy theories and the Q Anon

whatever that was just mentioned

so

that's all I was saying I don't know

that this is only contentious because uh

Burgess is being deliberately pedantic

on this point

he's just talking about

what Trump did as president

okay you can critique those

all you want but

it's actually the Maga movement

itself if you're principled about your

critiques that would probably be the

most receptive about those critiques

because they will rightfully interpret

your critiques if positioned outside

Maga as being just on the okay despite

all that go vote for Biden they don't

want any of it right

you have to have this clean break this

fundamental distrust with the hegemony

and also a positive belief this is also

important a positive belief in America

as a determinate community of people

of some kind

in order for your criticisms of trump to

have a solid reception

and it's very possible to critique Trump

within Maga and from the perspective of

Maga I do it all the time

right

it's hard to avoid the conclusion that

he was an even bigger Hawk than Obama

again this is a pedantic point which

you're like oh technically it's true but

why does no one really believe this is

true why does no one treat this as if

this is the case is it because you're

smarter than everyone else no It's

because according to most political

sensibilities

what a president does as a matter of

policy making is less important than the

factors behind those decisions

and how those relate to the hegemony

in general

Trump may have done

worse than Obama I don't think he did he

didn't start any wars so this is wrong

but I'm just saying for the for the

benefit of the argument for the sake of

argument

what you do is not as important as what

you actually stand for what you stand

for is not strictly only a matter of

what you say you stand for but where you

stand relative to the hegemony

how do you position yourself in a

certain way relative to the hegemony

it has to do with the circulation of

information it has to do with the

circulation of

um

control sorry it has to do with the

alignment in terms of the ability to be

controlled

Trump met with Kim Jong-un that was

something he did by himself so he may

have submitted to the hegemony in

different kinds of ways but

it was still him submitting to the

hegemony

him as an autonomous chaotic actor who

is not fully controlled or subordinated

by it and that is why Trump

is not seen as someone who's a bigger

Hawk than Obama

because he didn't stand for it

thank you so much Johnny do you think

Mega people are less dogmatically

supportive of trump than leftists or

with Biden I do yes I do I think Maga

people have an overwhelmingly defensive

position they it's not that they worship

Trump they are opposed to the ways in

which Trump has been maligned by the

hegemony

that's my experience

Trump's overall labor record was worse

no it wasn't

the massive wave of Starbucks

unionizations which have been would have

been more difficult if Trump's uh labor

board were still in place

good fuck Starbucks unionization I I

don't give a fuck

that is not nearly as bad so Ben Burgess

it's like a crazy logic so Starbucks

unionization is more important

then the rights of Railway workers

because Biden took away their rights

these Baristas didn't have the rights

they wanted but Biden actually clamped

down and took away that rights that rail

workers enjoyed like collective

bargaining they don't enjoy those rights

anymore

so you're saying Trump was worse because

uh he prevented Baristas from getting a

union what is this bafflingly stupid and

bizarre logic right

oh under Trump Baristas wouldn't have

been able to unionize so what

that doesn't mean his labor record is

worse than Biden's when Biden is like

actually destroying the rights the

working class actually has

not ones that

your definition of a working class

Baristas should get

this is a variation on a Case I've made

in other forms before like for example

in my 2021 debate with self-described

conservative populist Charlie Kirk

okay

okay so much Johnny then Burger sides

with the service industry Union so they

can feed him more McDonald's in KFC oh

come on Johnny he hasn't done any

personal attacks

should I just be an aggressive asshole

and just like fuck it I just you know I

tend to be a proportionate

attacker

but I don't know sometimes I'm like you

know what these people are all fucking

snakes just go all out just go fucking

all out right but I don't know

I don't know I like I like to consider

myself a civilized person

you know but it's always that it's kind

of like the Dark Forest

three body problem Game Theory dilemma

Reverend destroy them before they

destroy you time and nothing else what's

your position on this

thank you so much Shane rev says

Communism is free time and nothing else

uh what's your position on this

I don't agree with the slogan but I

understand why he I mean

not as a point of theory but like as a

slogan it's a cool slogan

but rev is his own person I I like rev

and what he's doing I endorse what rev's

doing I just don't think

it's what I should be doing

if that makes sense it's like I like how

rev is like schooling all these fake

marxists on Twitter and shit it's just

like I don't want to just be about free

time that makes sense

foreign

ER I give you an idea stand them in the

Discord dude I don't want to go on

Twitter to do this

send them in the Discord why is Lenin

trending

anyway guys sorry I just got caught up

with some other shit thank you so much

Mig Libs and lefts don't understand

Nuance of it in foreign policy Trump was

based and other times caved or Parallels

we've always said yeah but I guess you

gotta fully be behind Trump thank you

emila I love the part where rev exposed

that eunuch never having red Mark's cack

that was fucking hilarious that's what I

mean

that's what I like

um

I don't think rev is that dogmatic

either he's really not

but uh it's like an attack against the

fraudulent Marxist which I support have

a look at

looking at Haws I'm surprised he looked

at my sub stack because most people

don't

but I don't think he read it

I was careful to say all this in a way

that avoided the political Spectrum talk

I just laid out the facts about Trump's

record and argued it was offensively

absurd in light of those facts to try

and attach any kind of pro-worker

anti-interventionist politics to the

flag of trumpism well you shouldn't have

the political Spectrum was the first

part of it right you should have read

the rest of it I guess

and that doing so was an insult to the

intelligence of everyone involved again

you didn't you probably didn't read the

sub stack where I clarified it's not

about Trump personally because the Trump

brand if you since you like calling it

that

has become something not reducible to

him or his even his political

policies or anything like that

in response Haas incoherently slid back

and forth between defending Trump's

record and the record of Allied Mega

Republicans and arguing that what Trump

and other Republican does as an

individual somehow secondary to the

secret invisible essence of Magnus I

think that's not incoherent I think it's

very coherent and I'll explain why

because if I'm trying to say that there

is a essence of Maga that is not

reducible to the individual that is

Trump more on that later because if you

can't recognize the possibility of a

social Essence not reducible to

individuals you're not a Marxist plain

and simple you can't have any pretension

to understanding Marx's capital and I

will actually explain that in detail

because he he makes the same mistake

um

later on in the text

but this the the coherence in this

argument has to do with the fact that

every case of trump as an individual

or other Republicans as individuals

doing things that are aligned with the

establishment

can be explained easily in terms of

Their Own

capitulation to the establishment

right why else would Trump

do all do you think Trump did all those

things

that you I don't know what let's just

say the Jerusalem thing with Israel you

think Trump did that because of his own

principles or because the Maga

Grassroots were pressuring him to no he

did it because

in some way he submitted to the hegemony

as a person

but in other cases of

Trump's record like meeting with Kim

Jong-un

or you know

uh

the other cases I mentioned you're

alluding to you can explain those in

terms of the pressure coming from the

Maga Grassroots you don't need to talk

about a secret invisible Essence in this

obscurantist language to make it seem

like what I'm saying is somehow mystical

there's a hegemony coming from the Maga

Grassroots a pressure

coming from the Maga movement that is

different from the pressure not only

different but opposed to the pressure

exerted from the established hegemony so

there's Maga Grassroots and there's the

pressure they exert

the freedom they give Trump

and then there's a hegemony on top

constraining him and controlling him in

certain ways

the things about Trump's record that I

defended came from the Maga Grassroots

pressure or at least the freedom the

Maga Grassroots and movement gave Trump

he can do these things and have

something supporting him right

because I'll explain to you how this

works if you do things the hegemony

doesn't like

the media is part of the hegemony by the

way what they're going to do is malign

your character and try and make it so

that Americans hate you now the reason

Trump had a relative autonomy and

freedom to do things despite the

hegemony attacking his character is

because there were a lot of people who

believe the media was fake news

so that's a clear example of that

and it's not just the media by the way

it's uh every institution of the

so-called Civil Society thank you Julie

I appreciate you John mayersteimer an

expert on Foreign Relations agrees that

Biden is more hawkish than Trump I mean

he undoubtedly is undoubtedly is

Maga is also

Zionist

even if Maga is Zionist where does the

Zionism come from

it comes from the convention

conventional

pro-israel uh Republican Party

where do you think

critique of Israel is going to find more

currency

Ron desantis's campaign or Trump's

campaign trumps tell Maga people why are

we giving so much fucking money to

Israel they'd be like you know what why

are we

you think there's something inherent to

Maga that's pro-israel there isn't

that's inherent to the

convention established by the hegemony

within the Republican Party

I'm not saying Maga is anti-israel

or is pro-communist or is even

necessarily fully anti-war I'm just

saying Maga is

a political space where those positions

are possible

because it's a space not subjected to

the hegemony

comes from Evangelical Christianity

ah

sorry so uh

yeah the Evangelical churches are an

institution

I will grant it's a pretty good argument

Ben Burgess should have probably made

that argument

because you are dealing with these huge

huge

you know

Mega Million

billion dollar

churches

Evangelical churches

which do mobilize uh people

politically

I agree with you that's a real Block in

politics

but I don't think the Evangelical Church

is at the core of Maga the established

churches I don't think they are

I don't but I agree that is a factor I

definitely agree

the church's Evangelical churches if

you're talking about the giant ones

uh those are

uh para hegemonic forces

they're not fully fully

yeah the televangelists they're not

fully uh seamlessly in an informational

continuity with the hegemony but the

same forces of the hegemony are fully

behind them

and establish them on the side

so I agree that's a thing

but

I think good old

I mean look the televangelist

Evangelical movement

America is a two two kind of forms of

Christianity one is the Catholic Church

which is not within the televangelist

the Catholics are not part of the dumb

televangelist shit

the Mormons are also not

and finally

evangelicism is supposed to be the

latest form of protestant Christianity

well it's very easy to apply the logic

of protestantism against

the giant Evangelical Church movement

like yeah the the priests are all just

taking your money very widespread

sentiment among all cynical working

Americans

not all but a lot of them right

I don't think that's what's at the core

of Maga

I kind of see in Maga more of a

very Protestant from scratch Q Anon kind

of like the storm is I don't see a trust

in institutions

like sheep being shepherded by these

massive televangelist institutions

I don't see that as driving Moga I see

Maga is kind of like

a new Lutheran Lutheranism

style like

our own interpretation of

the Christianity right that's rooted in

conspiracies and all this stuff so I

don't I don't know I don't see that

but that that deserves more attention I

will I will uh concede that's a valid

point not concede your argument but

concede it's something I don't ever talk

about anywhere in the Maga communism

text

or uh much at all ever

I said pretty much everything I have to

say about that issue

um

so he's gonna go raise two points in

critique of Maga communism so here's

we're gonna go here's we're gonna go

irrelevant

this is just his dumb take on Capital

and his interpretation of it generally I

don't want to really get into the weeds

of that

um because I want to address all this

efficiently

Mark starts out we're exploring the

conceptual building blocks

no I don't think so

I think David Harvey was more correct

when he described it as more like an

onion where you're peeling back layers

and layers or some people who say it's

more like Dante's Inferno

where again layers and layers and layers

it's about layers

but I also think between volume and one

and three there's a big split that's

consistent dialectically but that's

where you cannot cannot

be a Marxist without dialectics it's a

really big dialectical Rift right

Marx wants to Think Through the

particular way

they come together in the constantly

modern commercial Society

I don't think this is uh correct that he

makes blocks and wants to shake things

no

I think Marx Moore begins with an

imminent critique of the existing School

of political economy which actually

already does this shaping

interrogation of how things are shaped

it's just that Marx develops

what political economy has already laid

before

um

in order to reveal an internal

contradiction

in political economy not in capitalism

strictly not once does Marx directly

reveal the contradiction of capitalism

and capital it's an indirect Revelation

the contradiction Marx reveals in

capital is of political the school of

political economy the entire purport and

aim of the school of political economy

has an internal contradiction

the contradiction of capitalism itself

is indirectly laid bare through that

critique

and that's something that's going to be

relevant coming forward by the way

these relations are the primary subject

of the book

okay so this is where we get it

an issue that came up during my day with

Haws had to do with Marx's definition of

the working class

uh he spends a lot of time explaining

how proletarians are different from

peasants slaves and other kinds of

laborers but these explanations always

focus on their relationship to the means

of production

but it is being forced by economic

circumstances to rent out your labor

time to a means a production owner and

not having any significant degree of

managerial over your job sufficient for

counting as part of the working class or

are there other conditions lurking in

the background

of course there are

because Marx

the reason Marx doesn't necessarily

describe these other conditions from a

physical perspective for example

is because he's just dealing with an

imminent critique of political economy

Marx's critiques are supposed to make

sense of how the formalism

of

uh let's say

the

universal commodity production General

commodity production

enters into contradiction with its

actual physical material premises

by referring to specific

um use values

for example and privileging them

it will do marks no good

the contradiction will only be revealed

at the imminent level of the form

the commodity form

uh here's an example of this Marx will

talk about how capitalist accumulation

begins and he describes it only purely

from the formal perspective of what's

going on at the level of price including

the price of weight a labor power right

which is the variable

the variable capital

so

no sorry if I'm confusing the

terminology just this is not my point

he's only describing that at the level

of price but why is it that this

kick-starts the process of accumulation

in actuality

because that price corresponds to yes a

tangible

crystallization of definite substantive

concrete labor

in the form of some kind of wealth which

indeed does

um

produce a surplus

over and against the extent of its

ability to be formalized by Capital

because the production process of

producing wealth is a living process

whereas the commodity form is a dead

uh formalization

it's a very simple logic in Marx's

capital

that's

it's like there's two things going on

almost in opposite directions like

one thing is what's happening from the

perspective of cap the capitalist and

from the formal perspective of commodity

production and price right but the

deeper material premises behind why you

see these patterns is indeed rooted in

something going on in the physical

economy

and that is very much very much clear in

Marx

leftists kind of have this idea that

money comes from thin air and it doesn't

it's rooted in a real process of

production

not production of prices not production

of symbols not production of titles of

employment or unemployment production of

real tangible physical material things

that is what is entering into

contradiction with the form of

production and also the form of Exchange

in the form of price

uh he's giving trying to give context to

um where this came up that

because the real working class

or maybe just the important part of the

word yeah it's more the important part

is the shrinking of minority Americans

who are engaged in manufacturing work

not what I said

I said the blue collar working class

which are by no means

exclusively engaged in manufacturing

work the blue collar working class

are engaged in construction forestry

um mining

you know

Tradesmen

they're in I mean even people who are

servicing cars and repairing cars I

would qualify I would put under this

definition

that is the working class

why is that well if you want to know why

that is you have to go to my essay on

the pat sock split now here's the

problem with the pat sock split

everyone thought this is just about some

drama I had with the pat sock Dems so

nobody really committed to reading all

of this

I don't think anyone did because they

because they were like this is not in

proportion to how much I'm invested in

this dumb online drama so I don't care

but all of the theory behind the class

analysis

the Barista stuff is here

and

it's very important now you're saying

why didn't you include this in the Maga

communism thing why are you referring to

something else because Maga communism

sub stack wasn't about that maybe it

presupposed things that I outlined here

but you know some pseudo-marxist who's

going to object to some things I take

for granted in the Maga communism sub

stack

I didn't care to address that in the sub

stack because it's like okay well I

already addressed whatever contrived

objection you're gonna have from the

perspective of your dogmatic Marxism

but that what does that have to do with

my independent kind of formulation of

the political theory in Maga communism

nothing right you are just making an

assumption that things that are being

presupposed in there are inconsistent

with Marxism okay if you're gonna make

that leap go back and read what I

already wrote about it it's already been

addressed in the past

uh he got there by latching on to a

couple things Mark says and putting them

together in a way that misses the point

Marx often describes the labor process

in general

as it happens under any motor production

in terms of what we're being given in

nature

being transformed into human use values

Marx use the word production in

capricious ways he says at one point the

fish in the ocean are part of the

fisherman's means of production

the fisherman okay whatever

but this is the consistent problem

you're going to run into in Ben

burgess's claims

yes uh a transformation process

of things that are given in nature being

transformed into human use values but

the thing is Ben Burgess is that

that transformation

is a social one

it is not at the level of an individual

action upon nature

being produced into a human use value

that the labor process

in general is defined now Marx uses

these as examples to make a point a

simplifying point of examples of the

labor process but

Marx outlines the notion of a generality

of human labor

subjected to a general division of labor

so there is a general threshold defining

collect any given societies

relationship to Nature and all of the

different instances of the labor process

such as a fisherman fall within the

division of labor so first there is a

general

mode of production

and there is a general threshold

defining Mankind in relation to Nature

knowledge techniques

and um

instruments for example right knowledge

techniques and instruments

and that threshold

acquiring generality in a general class

somehow

is what defines the generality of a

labor substance

and that's really the main thrust of my

argument here the

defense of the idea of general labor

as justifying the why the blue collar

working class is at the Vanguard of the

interests

of the working class as a whole which I

includes service sector workers

but service sector workers

that are vacillating

are they interested in

um

siding with the expropriators

uh and the parasitical

industry that they are working Within

with the industries itself parasitical

or

do they see themselves as aspiring

laborers

who want to emancipate themselves

from the bullshit job that they only

have owing to the artificial

de-industrialization of society by the

Monopoly capitalistic oligarchic Elites

which has happened in the recent decades

right there's not much precedent for

that situation in Marx at all

that we're facing there with the rise of

the bullshit jobs

uh

okay

he distinguishes between productive and

non-productive forms of Labor because

one of the big things he wants to do in

capital is to carefully think through

which aspects of the labor process as it

exists right now are products of the

current social system and which would

still exist in a different system

I find this to be a bizarre and just

basically baseless claim

being made by Ben I'm open to being

corrected but no

that's not the distinction

that productive and non-productive labor

rests upon

the distinction rests upon whether which

forms of Labor produce capital

yup

you heard that it's that simple

productive laborer is productive because

it produces Capital

non-productive labor is unproductive

because it absorbs

costs

of capital it relates to Capital as just

a cost not as a vital Wellspring of its

existence

and this is a source of confusion for

Marxist because they somehow think that

every form of employed labor as a

necessary cost of production is

producing Capital that's not true just

because it's necessary cost of

production doesn't mean it's producing

Capital it's only producing capital

when the cost of the reproduction of the

labor is what's supporting the Surplus

now you'll get to Capital volume 3 and

realize uh apparent contradiction or

Paradox which is that

the Surplus never gets produced

on any local level it's only being

produced on an aggregate level and that

is where the notion of general labor

becomes important

because it's only at the aggregate level

that this Surplus is being produced

which is aggregating the average rates

of profit across these industries

aggregating the production of surplus

value what is this aggregation amount to

some productive Industries

I think this is what Marx calls the

capitalist communism they're all drawing

from this Collective pool of capital

redistributing it across the various

different Industries a collective

capital a collective Surplus right

some

are producing the Surplus value

and others are just absorbing it

and so you get an overall aggregate

and a generalized rate of profit across

all of the industries

despite some being unproductive and just

absorbing

and others actually producing

and that is the central Paradox at the

heart of anglo-saxon Marxism

the undielectical kind that benberg is

subscribes to it's called

uh in traditional

terms the transformation problem

how do you get from

prices

to values or vice versa how do you get

from values to prices

how is the transformation actually

accomplished

because at the end point

it's Collective it's an aggregate

uh

Surplus value and it's a average rate of

profit

that's the nature of surplus value

but the prices are individual

so there's a discontinuity here

right

the idea that Marx would agree that

Starbucks workers or non-productive

workers

uh it's not that Starbucks workers are

non-productive workers it's that in

addition to being non-productive they

are not workers in any capacity

because the thing that what they are

doing is not labor

because they aren't engaged in

transforming the deliverances of nature

into human use values

and that it that means they aren't part

of the working class

or part of the important part of the

working class is bizarre for at least

two reasons first the kind of service

work Baristas are doing isn't even

remotely classifiable as non-productive

in Marx's sense

yes it is and I'll explain to you why

because the labor so-called labor

that is necessary to reproduce

the

um conditions of the subsistence

of the Starbucks worker is not what is

responsible for the price difference for

the differential profit

produced and accumulated and raked in by

Starbucks

's profits

derive from a brand Monopoly

it's the brand of Starbucks

just like Disney World

that is responsible for Starbucks as

profits if Starbucks was automated it

would make the same profit

it's based purely on the demand

and it's that demand

which is responsible for the

redistribution

of capital

to Starbucks

by the investment Banks

hedge funds

and other Financial capitals

that propelled Starbucks and irrelevance

in the first place

Starbucks didn't begin from scratch with

one Starbucks capitalist making a

massive amount of profit margins from

selling coffee

and just opening up another store and

then constantly opening up enough until

it becomes the brand that it is today

that form of accumulation

um

that primitive basic capitalist form of

accumulation even McDonald's isn't like

that McDonald's is a real estate company

for example right

so no

the labor has to the the way you can

measure whether or not the labor is

producing Surplus value

is whether or not it can kick start

an autonomous form of accumulation

and the the kind of work Baristas do

can't do it and if it could you would

see a bunch of Barista capitalists

doing this extremely profitable form of

Industry you'd see a bunch of these

coffee shops owning up and just growing

like wildfire because of the Surplus

value being produced by Baristas that's

not how it works though

how it works is that there's a large

demand for the coffee which banks will

take note of and invest in your company

uh uh because they're betting on the

fact that it's going to be popular it's

it's pretty much a socialized

kind of

uh information based economy you're

dealing with there it's not bait see

the thing I'm trying to say is that of

course demand has to be presupposed as a

factor

but

in the case of Starbucks and Disney and

all these other kinds of Brands you

can't just presuppose the the demand as

like a um social socially necessary

because it's not socially necessary from

the perspective of production

the production of Timber

is socially necessary from the

production perspective of production

because Timber uh is not is necessary

for other forms of capital and so on and

so on

constant capital

you could say okay well Marx always says

there's a relative form of subsistence

and a way of life that is culturally

relative and historically relative and

that all that is just being presupposed

but these ways of life in the 21st

century are the decisive factors in what

drives the redistribution of capital

across markets Burger King or McDonald's

Coca-Cola or Pepsi right

see Marx didn't write about consumerism

he didn't write about brands

and he had no reason to because

he was living under the capitalist mode

of production

we are living in a completely different

Beast

then

uh

the economy that is being described in

capital it's evolved from that yeah but

if you really think that Starbucks is

getting its profit from the Baristas

you're wrong just because Baristas are a

necessary cost of production doesn't

prove that they are responsible for the

profits Starbucks is accumulated

and Marx outlines this distinction

Capital volume 2.

talks about the clerks

foreign

so here's one of the examples I don't

think this is the only one but this is

one of them right

um division of labor and Assumption of

Independence do not make a function one

that creates products and value if it

was so not so intrinsically hence before

it became independent

if a capitalist invests this Capital

Anew he must invest a part of it in

hiring a bookkeeper and in a weird

refill of book keeping if his capital is

already functioning he's engaged in the

process of its own constant reproduction

he must continually reconvert a part of

his product into a bookkeeper clerks and

the like by transforming that part into

money

that part of his Capital was withdrawn

from the process of production and

belongs in the costs of circulation

deductions from the total yield

including the labor power itself that is

expended exclusively for this function

but there is a certain difference

between the costs incidental to

bookkeeping or the unproductive

expenditure of Labor time on the one

hand and those of mere buying and

selling time on the other

the process of production of Commodities

bookkeeping has the control and ideal

synthesis of the process

becomes more necessary the more the

process assumes a social scale and lose

this purely individual character

okay so here in the case of the clerks

attending to bookkeeping and and so on

and so on Marx is describing a case

where a capitalist is hiring an employee

who counts only as a cost of circulation

taking away from the Surplus value being

produced in productive labor

as a cost of circulation my basic

argument is that service workers count

as costs of circulation

because

the service economy

is a result of financial speculation

that is transferred over from the

massive surpluses produced in the

material industrial economy

basically gambling and wagering on these

various different forms of

servicing Ventures

that there is an expectation will be

profitable right

but The Profit just comes from a

transfer

of

money from workers to them

it's just a process of circulation it's

not actually producing a surplus value

talked about my marks now again why is

that I have to explain this why is that

right

the reason for that

is because the service economy has no

um autonomous process of circuit of

accumulation

it is reliant on

injections of credit

from the financial economy

now the real question you have to start

asking is what sectors of the economy

actually do produce Surplus and aren't

just the result of injections from this

Central socialistic Financial capitalist

planning mechanism of Wall Street which

is just an information economy Based on

data and consumerism well oil is a good

example of it

look at the close connection between oil

and banking they're literally called oil

Bankers for a reason

oil is where you get close to something

where okay we can't just

pump credit into the oil industry

because oil is the whole premise of our

ability to pump Credit in the first

place because the oil in the ground

is something we can speculate on and use

uh as a security

so that's an interesting thing to look

at right

and I think we are approaching

a circumstance where

in the case of Saudi Arabia it's like

you have

this oil based economy

and everything else is just Downstream

from the oil

and Saudi Arabia is just a microcosm of

the global economy and how it works

it's just based in oil

but

the ability to extract the oil is which

is what matters is based in the

industrial technical physical economy

and is therefore a proxy for the real

production of Marx's values thank you so

much Chris Morlock sticking to Marx on

this issue is confusing imperialism is

what synthesizes Surplus value slash

profit at this point purely from

abstracted Finance

yeah it's I it's confusing thank you so

much Chris it's confusing but I think

it's uh consistent

so he's saying uh first the kind of

service work Greece is doing isn't even

remotely classifiable as non-productive

and Marxist sense when you grind up

coffee beans strain hot water through

them in full milk you are transforming

the deliverances of nature into human

use values

but Marx doesn't Define productive labor

in terms of transforming the

deliverances of nature into human use

values he defines productive labor

in terms of its ability to produce

capital

but I'll level with you Ben

and just say you mean productive in my

sense the more other baggage which has

to do with the use value of

transforming nature physically right

the problem with this

Ben

is that you're only giving consideration

to the transformation of deliverances of

nature on an individual level of an act

of labor at an individual level you're

not taking into account that the process

of the transformation of the

deliverances of nature into human use

value

is something that is happening at a

social threshold encompassing the most

advanced means of technological

scientific knowledge

uh methods of production instruments of

production and relations of production

only there can you arrive at the

generality by which

uh humanity is transforming the

deliverances of nature into a use value

that's a definite threshold not just

someone you go outside and you buy some

Acorn it's like you go outside and you

pick up a fucking Acorn off the ground

and you start selling it

doesn't mean it's going to be productive

labor even if you're selling the acorns

oh you know what I mean it's like stupid

and by the way if you were smart Ben you

could just be like okay that was the

argument of the physiocrats

to some extent because they thought

agriculture was the only form of

productive labor and everything else was

Downstream from agriculture because

agriculture was the closest to Nature

uh but that's not what we're saying here

we're saying the transformation of

nature happens at an aggregate social

level

encompassing the entire wealth of

Mankind's knowledge technical abilities

yada yada yada

uh in fact even given the amount of

genetic engineering there are fewer

links in the chain separating what

you're originally given in nature from

the materials you're transforming beyond

the counter at Starbucks then tends to

be the case for example with the

materials you're transforming if you

work on an assembly line in an auto

plant

that's a really stupid argument that I'm

gonna wait for this donation to go

through to clarify why

oh God there's so much bullshit here

thank you so much emila by the way

foreign

interview with Tucker specifically and

at the start how he explains the GDP in

this fake economy and as he's done more

for Marxism than marxoids have done in

50 years

thank you so much Amelia yeah I will I

will get around to that

but you missed the point in this when

we're talking about the transformation

of nature we're doing so in a way

proportionate to the production of

wealth Ben Burgess

the production of wealth at a social

level grinding up coffee beans on the

counter

is not producing wealth

in a way material wealth in a way

proportionate

to the generality of human labor right

the general cost of human labor think

about it like the general cost of an

average American Consumer what kind of

Labor is worth that

that's what we're talking about here

right

I'm sorry but grinding up coffee beans

on a fucking counter

doesn't produce as much wealth

as the wealth consumed by an average

American worker

right

but on the other hand working on an

assembly line at an auto plant I think

does do that

you are producing

as much wealth as you're taking

it's not about how close you are to

Nature it's about how much you've

transformed nature

how can you miss this it's not about how

close you are to it it's about how much

your labor is actually transforming it

how much is it transforming it not how

closer you are to the given

um

the things originally given in nature

but how much you've transformed those

things

and you know that's what we're dealing

with it's such a and he links a meme

it's stupid

Aesthetics don't matter if you sell your

labor to live yeah but this is not just

about Aesthetics this is about

the value of this labor

from the perspective of capitalist

accumulation

does this produce Surplus value it

doesn't it's that simple

this is a cost of circulation

and this is not even the fucking point

by the way because Starbucks only exists

because of Aesthetics you dumb fuck if

Aesthetics didn't matter you would just

buy Folgers for 92 cents

what a stupid argument

Aesthetics carry Starbucks entirely

it's a fucking brand

Aesthetics what is this dumb posturing

I'm gonna respond to this shit

I'm gonna respond to this stupid fucking

shit

it fixed it's so stupid

if Aesthetics didn't

matter

then you'd

[Laughter]

this would be your coffee

you would get your coffee from this

instead of Starbucks did you see the

video about how Starbucks is actually a

bank LARPing as a coffee shop yeah I did

that's another thing

thank you so much voidberg appreciate

you

if Aesthetics didn't matter you'd get

your coffee from this instead of

Starbucks everyone go like my beautiful

tweet

thank you Jeremy appreciate you yes you

don't understand that cup of coffee is

going to fuel so many vice articles yeah

it's fucking stupid

second if everyone at Starbucks spent

most of their time doing non-productive

tasks

um well there's a few things wrong with

this

because this is not Mark's a sense of

what productive labor is and even more

broadly you're wrong about this as well

that's my point

but I love how people think this is just

about Aesthetics and it's not they're

like oh you just don't like that they're

not doing manly jobs

well have you ever thought about why

those jobs are considered manly in the

first place

because they are actually proximate

to the most fundamental ways we actually

transform nature to survive

you ever thought about that

Starbucks is just a matter of aesthetic

preference this is not a matter of

aesthetic preference this is not and

this is not

these are not matters of aesthetic

preference right

these will happen regardless

now how you package those and flavor

them and consume them

that's what the Starbucks guy does he's

just catering to an aesthetic and a

brand

he's not actually producing anything

these guys are actually producing

something

I think that's

kind of simple to understand right

he's like oh this guy's growing coffee

just to

fill the aesthetic

no but the type of work labor power he's

employed in even if the only coffee that

was ever grown was going to Starbucks

which is not true but let's just assume

that's true let's say this guy is like

let's let's assume there's a factory

worker assembling Mickey Mouse stuffed

animals

what counts is their labor power

if they were not doing the stuff to

Mickey Mouse stuffed animals

they would be using their labor power to

do something of some kind of equivalent

productive labor

so it's not strictly about

what they're producing it's where it

first of all where does it lie within

the supply chain is a big thing

the guy producing the Mickey Mouse

stuffed animal

has labor power

producing value

the Disney employee working at the

Disney Store the clerk selling the

stuffed animal doesn't

second even if everyone at Starbucks

spent most of their time doing

non-productive tasks

Marx's analysis of class relationships

is always laser focused on the idea that

the real commodity workers are selling

is the capacity yeah labor power

okay

and the value of the labor power

is exactly what is it's worth its price

of the wage according to Marx

that's why angles by the way says unions

are bullshit

but it's that's the irony you get paid

the exact value of your labor that

happens to produce a surplus

that's the source of capitalist wealth

there's an eternal kind of

contradiction

it can't be fully formalized right

whether your capitalist directs you to

spend an hour at the cash register

or making coffee

the key point is the dull this is you

know there would still be necessary no

it wouldn't shut up

given the current state of coffee making

and Technology no it's not if people had

more free time they probably wouldn't

need servants to make them coffee they

probably have enough time to just make

their own coffee if they were working

like two hour days or some shit or four

hour days even so you're wrong Ben

Burgess you're just wrong

the key point is that the dull

compulsion of economic necessity forces

you to sell those hours of the day to

the capitals instead of having it to

yourself

uh it doesn't

you can live off welfare

and

you can even live being homeless

what you're actually referring to is

the relative conditions of subsistence

and why that's relevant we're going to

get it to it later when Ben doesn't know

what the petty bourgeoisie is and he

fails to Define that

when Marx talks about a surplus produced

by workers and extracted by capitalists

sometimes talks about Surplus value

where values analyze in terms of average

socially necessary labor time

and perfectly reflected in the various

Goods

including the price of Labor power

no it's perfectly reflected in them

the imperfection comes from an internal

contradiction of the form

oh I'm sorry no he's right

yeah the labor time isn't perfectly

reflected in the various Goods but not

in this one it's not imperfectly

reflected in labor power

in other places like his discussion of

the variable Capital fund talks about

service value being extracted from

workers in terms of actual literal money

no he doesn't he just fail to understand

Marx's dialectical method

he doesn't talk about it in terms of

strictly money or even strictly time

because the Enigma of surplus value

and you can get in this with his Marx's

theories of surplus value

is that

by just reproducing the conditions of

Labor somehow as Surplus

is being produced

in other words give workers the exact

value of their wage

and they still are producing an excess

the source of real actual difference of

profit the difference of profit is not

beforehand stolen from workers in the

form of time or money

the difference of profit is literally a

profit is actually made in the form of

the way Society produces more wealth

than it had before

and only from the perspective of the end

point the end product of product

production can you then say yes the

workers were exploited and robbed of

their money

only at the end point of production

in the beginning point of production you

can't say this this is the

transformation problem

this is the transformation problem only

at the end points of production after

the Surplus has been realized in the

form of an average rate of profit can

you talk about how the labor value has

been

transformed into that Surplus

this it's it's happens after not before

I think Andrew Clement I don't agree

with everything about the tssi but he's

right that it's yes it's a temporal

system

you need to have the time it happens

after not before

that is very important

otherwise it's a stupid absurdity of

Marxism

it's the end point of production

that we can just talk about Surplus

value

Ben is doing the degrowth interpretation

of Marxism

where he's trying to say something like

you know

um first

the worker has all of this free time

which the capitalist steals

and that's the source of surplus value

well that's an absurd proposition

the worker doesn't have any the worker

has no

the worker only has Surplus time after

they've produced enough wealth

to render the time they put Superfluous

and unnecessary

you know what I'm saying like it's not

before the production it's after

and if you don't understand this about

Capital you I'm sorry this is an

absurdity right

but I go beyond Clemen because it's not

just temporal single system it's also

about the social nature of Labor is

retro causal

without retro causality Marxism is an

absurdity

it's an absurdity

because retro causality allows you to

understand how it is

that the sociality of Labor is all is

something anticipated in the future

virtually

um objectivized in the future retro

causually realizing Itself by

establishing its own premises in the

past

so retro causality solves the

transformation problem

my theory uh my contribution to Marxism

if I can be

arrogant enough to say I have one

is that

I believe there is a threshold of

um

social labor

a type of cataclysm

that's pre-exists they're real is its

own realization in the production

process so first there is this huge kind

of

um

separation of

the worker from their means of

production

separation of man from nature whatever

there is this construation

this uh

contracea of wave

first then

the contracea of wave is realized in the

process of production

the Paradigm the specific

techno uh economic paradigm

and the fact that it pre-exists its

realization in production

assumes a kind of logic of retro

causality

which displaces the object of Marxism

from an individual substance which is

also the object of classical political

economy into a social substance a

enigmatic objectivity

that resists being reducible to any

individual measure it's a virtual object

and the entire purport of the infrared

project

the whole fucking thing is about this

virtual object

from politics to political economy it's

all from the economy to politics to

culture it's the virtual object that is

what the globe fucking means

this is the source of Marx's value

this is the basis of the Soviet state

what's with it we're trying to symbolize

it at least

I'm lazy and I'm trying I'm sorry I'm

tired and I'm trying to give myself

energy to go through this okay guys

the immediate produces uh

uh would have to spend part of their

okay she's stupid doesn't know what he's

talking about here

with some equivalent to start okay it's

pointless

no one's talking about that you should

ask a parallel question say the three

factories owned by three competing

capitalists all main competing versions

of some disposable Bobble that mostly

ends up in landfills anyway what

uh a Christmas ornament

I kind of fucking was embarrassed to

admit I didn't know what a bobble was

but then I looked it up and realized it

was a Christmas ornament

and I don't know where

that came from

but okay

labor power as a service is not the same

as labor power as uh

an object produced in a factory

regardless of what the object is going

to be used for because as you just

acknowledged it's about the potential to

do labor that's being valorized

so no it doesn't matter that the the

Bobble is gonna

the Bobble is gonna end up in a landfill

that doesn't matter

a future Society might decide producing

any quantity

but you missed the point because I'm

talking about an industry as a whole

because

let's forget about a future Society the

present Society

will consider that those who work in

factories

are General laborers

and and why their General laborers you

have to read the pat sock split but a

tldr

um is that

the determination of general labor

has to do with contratia of waves

and specific

specifically the form of Labor that

emerges in the post-war period

which defines the economic social

contract between the working class and

the state

and that is the evolution of

the political and economic evolution of

general labor

and it has to do with contracea of waves

uh it was a form politically entitled a

set of regulations benefits and other

conditions these don't compound simple

labor of third world workers

they represent a definite threshold of

opposition toward nature and a definite

very real very material substance

something for in production which is

social in nature

a definite form of simple labor

simple flavor gets redefined the meaning

of what it means to have be simple labor

it's like for example a four-year degree

you know sorry just high school diploma

for example as opposed to having no

education

so the regulatory State the welfare

state changes

the

historically relative definition of what

simple labor is which Marx says is

always historically societally and

nationally relative

it is on this material basis that the

whole of the service economy and other

series of production remain both

derivative and parasitical as far as

they are taken in the material sense so

why is that important

why is the significance of general labor

important

because this kind of work in factories

will be necessary and the minimal

program of an immediate program for the

emancipation of Labor

generalized demands by a working-class

dictatorship to organize and Implement

economic policies around the interests

of that class will indeed

Target these kinds of these forms of

Labor

forget about the output just the form of

Labor is what matters

service industry will be abolished

entirely the argument I'm trying to make

is The Story Goes Like This Ben Burgess

The Story Goes Like This

in the post-board period

there is a economic implicit economic

social contract created between the

American working class and the American

state which inexorably intertwined the

meaning of what it means to be working

class with the definite entitlements

economic social and Welfare entitlements

coming with American citizenship as a

result of the industrialization

neoliberalism and the rise of Finance

capital

and as a result of the increased

material wealth unprecedented material

wealth Society the interest of the

working class

were sidelined

and

what this wealth was used for is the

pure accumulation of capital

and a fictitious capital in particular

and to keep this engine this monstrous

engine going of the production of

fictitious capital

the interests of the working class were

repressed massive de-industrialization

occurs and you have the rise of the

service economy so my argument is that

the service economy emerges in the

proportion it it does in America at

least

as this kind of auxiliary weapon almost

of the financial and oligarchic

dictatorship of the bourgeoisie

increasingly and almost purely

maintained by political force of

imperialism at the gun otherwise

the American working class can have a

better deal

given the state of technological

advancement that includes for example

shortening the work day

um decentralizing

and socializing in many ways information

technology and copyright laws and things

like that that you know instead of the

service economy we could have had a kind

of

you know uh with all those Tech

Bohemians We're Dreaming of an open

source

free Society where people are spending

their free time being artists and

sharing their ideas and sharing their

cultural stuff and

baking food for each other and these you

know putting it on the web and it's kind

of digital database economy

open source kind of style right so

we are making the argument that the

service industry is a new form of

slavery

instrumented by the financial capitalist

class against the working class

so that's why you didn't I wasn't just I

was saying oh Starbucks would cease to

exist in socialism

it's more about

this idea of upholding the service

economy as the epitome of the demands of

general labor the only demand of general

labor in in regards to the service

economy is getting rid of it

because general labor as it has been

hitherto defined

since the post-war period which is the

last time we had an economic social

contract during a new deal right

is epitomized by a relationship

to real production right

real material production the production

of material wealth society's changed

since then I agree

but

did those changes necessarily result

in the rise of the service industry only

from the perspective of fictitious

Capital now you could say that well the

heavy Industries also only emerged from

the perspective of fictitious capital or

Capital but you're wrong if the U.S

became

a socialist soviet-style planning

economy in 1950 the automotive

Industries and all these heavy

manufacturing Industries would have been

preserved

and they still would have existed or

they still would have been developed as

similar ones developed in the Soviet

Union because they are prime they are I

don't know if that's the primary the

agriculture is primary right

they are I forget which sector of the

fire

they are the industrial sector of the

economy

the consumer sector the um

the whole Barista nonsense

service sector that is a result of the

information age in the digital age it's

a purely result of rent

doesn't even obey the logic of

capitalist profit

this is rentier monopolies in the

digital age almost futile like

okay so this is the second even deeper

more telling way in which Haws misses

the point in capital

in his original Amigo communism

subscribe essay

I'm gonna wait for this don't know thank

you so much emila appreciate you

guys did you guys hear me I just farted

but yeah I'll admit it thank you don't

starve and die homeless and jobless with

no solution in return these people have

no alternatives for your loss did you

get did the camera pick that up I think

it did because I saw it

I saw it did you did it pick it up we

got it I finally caught one

I've been waiting to catch one

every time I have a I have one and the

camera never picks it up

did this one pick it up

yes

they never pick them up

and it finally did

that's guys turn that into an nft I

swear to you that'll be worth millions

one day you know how fucking rare that

is

make that an nft

this is my this is the best day of my

life okay I've been waiting for so long

for my mic to pick one up they've it's

never picked one up ever in history it's

never happened

and I sometimes I try and it doesn't

work ever

make it an nft guys it'll be worth a lot

okay so this is part two of Ben's

argument I'm being so charitable here

relative to what he's actually read from

me

but he he said I kept waiting for him to

bring this up in the debate but he never

did no don't wait for me Ben bring up

your thing in the debate and uh

and we could address it there instead of

having to do this sadly the guy

approaches debates more as exercises and

performative point scoring sort of like

WWE without any trace of physical harm

and has a chance to explore the

substance of the issue in dispute bet

you had no

um interest in doing that

the only reason you're engaging in the

debate is because of clout

and the only reason you are at priori

calling Maga communism ridiculous is

because of convention prejudice

which is all just a more complicated

form of the same pathology of WWE

performative coin scoring

foreign which is another reason I said

that doing these debate stretched my

limits of the value of doing these

it's more interesting than what he

presented verbally he says

so he quoted a part of the Maga

communism sub stack that was not

theoretical it was

polemical and propagandistic I was

saying something to appeal

to the common sense of

both conservatives and teaching you guys

how to communicate what we are trying to

say in an ordinary commonsensical way to

conservatives the dense theoretical

rationale behind this which can be

scrutinized on a theoretical level is in

the pat sock split but there is a

discontinuity as Mark says between the

method of inquiry and the manner of

presentation

this makes sense to Ordinary People on a

common sense level but Ben if you want

to put your glasses on and scrutinize my

polemical arguments

do so by scrutinizing the theoretical

basis for them not the output appearance

that's a result of that basis

like this is the superstructure Ben this

is the base

you're doing something stupid and cheap

you're putting on your fucking glasses

scrutinizing a polemical few paragraphs

as if I'm avoiding the implications of

this from Marx's Theory

when I have already addressed this from

like I am tar I am trying to communicate

something to ordinary Maga people you

find this objectionable from the

perspective of Marxism but I was not

addressing you as a Marxist I was

addressing normal people who have a

false view of communism

if you want to dig into the you know

canonical

significance of this we can do it but

why do you scratch the surface why not

just go to the basis of it in the theory

which is here

so what do I say

the reign of the institution of private

property isn't what guarantees people's

Liberty to have their own homes land

farmsteads businesses or things that

they actually use in the pursuit of

happiness

it is what destroys them the ruling

class deceived the American people into

thinking private property means having

your own shit what it actually means Are

banks and BlackRock stealing your shit

so here's something I say that should be

uncontroversial even for someone like

Ben Burgess

the ruling class made American people

think that all of the use values

involved in their conditions of

subsistence

are what constitutes private property

but what I was trying to say

is that these are as a matter of fact

taken away from them in the name of the

Sacred private property by Banks and

BlackRock

again

things they use in general in the

pursuit of happiness not things they use

to arbitrarily make money for money's

own sake not things they use for

purposes even necessarily of

accumulation

but things they use for their pursuit of

happiness

so this should not be controversial

Communists don't want to socialize

people's actual belongings or even

businesses now this

uh seems controversial from a Marxist

perspective because businesses are based

on profit and accumulation

but I am a Deng Xiaoping

communist

I don't think that businesses

or Enterprises can necessarily be

qualified in the 21st century

exclusively at least as forms of capital

accumulation

I think as far as businesses operate

Enterprises are just units of they're

just economic units of some kind in the

information age

um businesses that actually kick-start a

autonomous process of capital

accumulation

don't exist

um

on any uh

popular level those are Co all

monopolized right and part of the whole

black rock kind of the highest levels of

society

that's where the actual Capital

accumulations happening

someone who's starting like uh I don't

know a coffee shop

a small monpa business

that is more uh instrument of

subsistence

than it is an instrument of accumulation

today

but a business is just an Enterprise

it's a unit of

it's not a business is not necessarily

like um

four purposes only of exchange values

that I'm trying to say

a business also refers to an independent

economic unit

even within a socialist economy like I

reject the view that in China a business

is

a traditional capitalist Enterprise I

don't think so

I think the Enterprise

assumes a new significance

in this period of transition between

modes of production

but Communists do not want to socialize

people's actual belongings or even

businesses

this is also true

Under The Mao era when my when the

Communist Party took power they didn't

even socialize

all of the capitalist businesses either

this is something else Ben is woefully

ignorant of is the fact that Marxism is

not just uh classical social democracy

it's also Marxism leninism and that's

where we're going to school him

the way in which the actual relations of

production will develop will be a matter

of History

Marx and Engels thought

the course of actual development of

production forces but

uh the institution of private property

will become Superfluous yeah that's true

because productive relations will

develop as forms of free association

which is kind of what we're seeing with

the rise of the digital era but

unfortunately it's all being monopolized

by the rentier parasites

production will have a substance of

human quality based on relations between

people rather than abstractions like

money

Communists do not want to force this

outcome on people but allow it to happen

it could not happen at the expense of

what the People Want it could only

happen as the result of people's own

historical development again I'm not

getting into detail on how that works

but Ben is very generous to make many

assumptions about what I mean

in the meantime What communists seek to

overthrow is that of the monopolists the

banker is Big Pharma big agriculture big

Tech and others which have hijacked the

American Republic in the name of the

Sacred institution of American Property

uh of private property this is almost

like

uh

this is only uh this is basically just

kind of traditional

Marxism leninism let me find the place

this is just Marxism leninism

where is it specifically

give me a second let me find where it's

kind of like in parallel something Lenin

directly says

maybe it's here

give me a second

because this is uh something I provided

for something else but I'm trying to

find the exact

all right give me give me one moment

give me one moment

because I'm trying to explain to Ben

Burgess the logic of um

uh

the the pro the basic uh logic of

leninism but I'm trying to find a

specific part

it talks about

okay let me find this

where does Lenin talk about this

oh my God I just had it here

oh wait I think it's here

yeah it's here

it's here

here it is here it is okay I found it

here it's it was a different plea thing

okay

so

after winning Liberty it will abolish

the rule of the landlords and

bureaucrats in the administration of the

state

after securing land it will give the

land to the peasants

now Lenin is saying this is the kind of

democratic

uh Petty Bourgeois impulse of the

peasantry they want to get rid of the

landlords and they want to get rid of

the bureaucrats and the state okay these

are

uh economic formations that are based in

rent and direct parasitism not based in

production or capitalism

now Lenin and this is his 1905 Petty

Bourgeois proletarian socialism where he

makes a specific argument which Ben Burg

Burgess doesn't appreciate now to me

analogous to the landlords and

bureaucrats today

is uh sorry this is the wrong one is

the monopolists the bankers the big

farmer the big Agriculture and the big

Tech now why why is this from a leninist

perspective because in Lenin's theory of

imperialism

Monopoly Capital represents capitalism

in its reactionary form

Monopoly capital

um

corresponds to the era of political

imperialism which infringes even on the

basic Democratic rights and the

Liberties of the people it's reactionary

even with regard to the classical

Bourgeois Democratic capitalism and its

demands so Lenin says that in the era of

imperialism where capitalism has become

reactionary the task is to fight

Monopoly capital okay

and

why is that important fighting Monopoly

capital

because Monopoly Capital assumes

this is the uh paradoxical significance

of the Russian Revolution

the Western

democracies became just as reactionary

as the Russian Empire basically like he

is saying we are backward because we

have all these landlords and bureaucrats

getting in the way of basic Bourgeois

democracy and then his analysis of

imperialism he goes wait a second in the

west you have the rise of the monopolist

the bankers and whatever

and it almost turns out that we

discovered something here in Russia

fundamental to the entire situation of

the capitalist world not just backward

Russia so it goes from a situation of

exclusively Russian backwardness to

unveiling the future of advanced

capitalism in the west this kind of RKO

modern a lift elliptical structure that

Dugan talks about explicitly between

Russia and the West

where the past kind of

paradoxically can foretell the future in

some way right

Russia's backward but it's the future of

the advanced Europe

by defining its definite limits and so

on

so what was Lenin's logic all I'm doing

is applying leninism

Lenin's logic and this was also Mao's

logic and this is what defines Marxism

leninism this is why its Marxism

leninism not just the old Marxism

because it's a dialectical temporal

logic that'll give you a headache if you

don't think about it carefully

that's not just inherent in plain old

Marxism this is Lenin's contribution

the idea is that the basic Bourgeois

Revolution

will abolish the rule of the landlords

and bureaucrats

that the peasant movement is a

democratic Bourgeois movement because

after destroying the bureaucrats and the

landlords it'll set up a democratic

system of society without altering the

Bourgeois Foundation of set Society now

Burgess makes a stupid argument later

where he accuses me of trying to protect

the reactionary classes but that's not

true these Monopoly capital and

imperialism is itself what's reactionary

and these classes represented by Maga of

yes including small business people

but even the you know young crypto Bros

this is just the tendency of the

proverbial peasant trying to break free

from the shackles of the landlord

trying to break free of the shackles of

Monopoly Capital which try to immiserate

and bound them by debt by means of debt

right

so this is the Michael Hudson angle this

is like about the Forgiveness of debts

right

so

Lenin basically says that

it's a democratic Bourgeois movement

because after he destroyed the

bureaucracy in the landlords it's just a

normal Democratic capitalist system of

free entrepreneurs competing in a free

market and that's capitalism now look

that based on what I said that's also

how you can think of this too if

immediately when you think about it at

first okay destroy the monopolist the

bankers and big Pharma and big

Agriculture and big Tech cause then you

have the petty proprietor and the petty

capitalist and that's just going to be

the normal Democratic capitalism and the

whole thing's just going to start all

over again right

so it's a twin logic here right the

underlying logic and forget about the

differences of the historical situation

just appreciate the logic of

the Democratic Bourgeois movement

destroying the power of these landlords

these renters will just lead to a normal

Democratic capitalist system okay keep

that in mind

that is a Prejudice Lenin questions

and that is how Lenin

christiologically forgave the sins of

the Russian peasantry

how did he do it

Lenin said

what should the class conscious worker

the Socialist regard the designate

present movement he should support this

movement help the peasants the most

energetic fashion help them throw off

both the rule of the bureaucracy and

that of the landlords

at the same time

he should explain to The Peasants that

it is not enough to overthrow the rule

of the bureaucracy in the landlords when

they overthrow that rule they must at

the same time prepare for the abolition

of the rule of capital rule of the

bourgeoisie

and for that uh for that purpose a

Doctrine is fully socialist

should be immediately disseminated

so there's this primary contradiction in

maoist terms between the peasant

movement and the

Monopoly landlords right and then

there's a secondary class struggle

within the peasants

in the form of this peasant bourgeoisie

now how does kind of gromsky and

hegemony which is an outgrowth of

Marxism leninism fit in with this right

how does that fit in within it within it

now to continue here's what Lenin says

the Democratic struggle is raised by the

workers together with a section of the

bourgeoisie especially the petty

bourgeoisie

especially the petty bourgeoisie is what

he says

on the other hand

the Socialist struggle is waged by the

workers of the whole of the bourgeoisie

the struggle against the bureaucrat and

landlord can and must be waged together

with the peasants even the well to do in

Middle peasants

so this seems paradoxical how can you

fight the bourgeoisie while also working

with the bourgeoisie

to overthrow

the um

the landlords

and the same thing can be said about Mao

Mao defined in terms of primary and

secondary contradictions but a lot of

people don't understand that logic they

just think okay these are your

priorities it's not just the ranking of

priorities it's something deeper well

how how does this dialectical logic

resolve itself into something coherent

and sensible well it's simple and this

is what defines the legacy of Marxism

leninism go back to two tactics and hear

what Lenin has to say

I know

this is where it's going to get

interesting

no one will be able to blame the

representatives of the proletariat if

having done everything their power their

efforts were defeated by the resistance

of the reaction the treachery of the

bourgeoisie

and the ignorance of the masses

oh

oh

oh oh oh

what is Lennon saying

because he's kind of breaking out of the

eurocentric stages linear Marxism and

we're getting a warped kind of strange

temporal logic

look what he says

let the Bourgeois opportunists

contemplate the future reaction with

crave and fear

the workers will not be frightened by

that thought that the reaction promises

to be terrible or by the thought of the

bourgeoisie Rose to recoil

to set up the Revolutionary Democratic

dictatorship of the proletariat in the

peasantry

huh

what

what does that mean

what does that mean

you talk about it here

what does that mean

well I'll tell you when concrete

practical terms what it meant in history

something strange happened

at the level of historical temporal

linear logic

the bourgeoisie that existed in Russia

so happened to actually side with the

landlords

and with the

autocracy

when all was said and done

the Bourgeois Democratic Revolution

couldn't be fulfilled by the bourgeoisie

the Communists played a decisive role

the Communists being the organization of

the proletariat played a decisive role

in accomplishing the tasks of democratic

Bourgeois capitalism

the bourgeoisie couldn't do it

now

you look at a a half a century worth of

experience at least of Marxism leninism

and you begin to see the picture only

the Communists can do this you may think

that this is just oh this is just

traditional democratic capitalism you

can call it that but even a traditional

democratic capitalism

even being able to establish something

close to that can only occur under the

leadership of communists and that's the

role Communists have played in history

forgiving the debts destroying the

parasites and allowing the productive

forces to develop

according to their inner historical

necessity including the relations of

production

and as it so happens while these

relations of production that emerge

afterwards after this decisive communist

leadership

they may mirror or seem similar to

capitalist relations but they're not

like China's relations of production

today seems similar awfully similar to

capitalist relations but they're not

there's the decisive elements for

example of this proletarian dictatorship

this Central socialist planning State

the Socialist sorry state-owned

Enterprises

State ownership of all the land

five-year plans all of these capitalist

relations of production are undercut by

this thick texture of

socialism socialist planning mechanisms

and Rule such that is there a

bourgeoisie in China no there's no

um

there's no uh such thing every single

class owes its existence to the

proletarian dictatorship and to the

Socialist mode of production in some way

there's no autonomous bourgeoisie

there's no Universal subjectivity

Democratic subjectivity it's a partial

stance and position economically and

politically

with regard to the proletarian

dictatorship so the basic ability for

civilization to continue even in a

natural normal way according to the laws

of History

Communists play a decisive and necessary

role there

is the entire purport of Marxism only

Communists can unleash the productive

forces but more specifically only

communists

can rescue the people the whole people

and we're going to get to that too

because Ben seems to be confused about

that

from the bloodsuckers who are federing

the forces of production and even

fettering the development of the normal

relations of production

even if they appear to be just the

normal Democratic Bourgeois capitalism

the Communist critique of pro see this

is something no one's ever done and this

is just what infrared does we are trying

to apply the logic of leninism to the

advanced capitalist West there is no

formal peasantry here

but I think the lesson of leninism

is more essential

it's not about more backward or more

advanced there's a fundamental logic at

the core of leninism

that has never been absorbed in the west

and that's all infrared is saying

the Communist critique of private

property allows for pro-people policies

including lowering taxation ending

government subsidies for the monopolists

and removing red tape to actually happen

because it places the interests of the

people above the interests of money and

so-called private property

Communists want the people to have more

things not less more wealth more

businesses and more Prosperity if the

people have more of these things then

the productive forces accelerate faster

unleashing human prosperity and

creativity to the point where things

like Wall Street the city of London will

have a chance to gain power again so

Marxism believes that the relations of

production will develop in such a way

that leads to a different mode of

production and different relations or

production it but it doesn't say you

should voluntarily change the forces of

production listen to Marx's words

closely it says the proletariat should

seize political power to oversee the

natural development of the relations of

the forces of production

which is something material and economic

so it's I'm not saying a reformism of

Edward Bernstein where oh let's just

wait for the economy to happen because

Bernstein's evolutionism was political

he was saying let's wait for the state

to reform it's not you need a fucking

Revolution with an iron fist just to

oversee and break the power of these

monopolies so it's like what Michael

Hudson says you need this strong power

to forgive the debts

just to allow the normal continuation of

History

that's what Marxism leninism introduces

like you need basic

dictatorship and revolutionary

dictatorship just yes for things to be

as normal

there's no natural Bourgeois Democratic

Revolution that's going to happen in

Russia marxists are the only people who

saw a objective historical achievement

of the Bourgeois Democratic revolutions

so it became their responsibility just

like when Marx was disappointed during

the 1848 revolutions what happened the

bourgeoisie betrayed them

Marx was surprised he said well I

thought the bourgeoisie was the

progressive class no

that essence you perceived in the French

Revolution wasn't led by the bourgeoisie

it was led by the uh

the petty bourgeoisie

the bourgeoisie is in cahoots with the

establishment they owe themselves to the

hegemony and the significance of the

gromskian hegemony here

which is Again part of Marxism leninism

I don't know if I got into detail when

it comes to that

is that

the class struggle doesn't get waged

strictly at the level of policy or

even even strictly at the level of

expropriation class struggle is waged at

the level of hegemony

so for example

how is class struggle waged in China

today

class struggle is waged simply by the

implementation of the plan if you're

against the party and you're against the

hegemony of the proletarian dictatorship

you represent interests contrary to the

proletari yes it's that simple

that's the gromskian logic of hegemony

class struggle is not this direct fight

over people fighting for things

those for I'll explain what class

struggle means

this program for the overthrow of the

monopolist the bankers big Pharma big

agriculture big Tech and others

the overthrow of the ruling hegemony is

objectively a form of class struggle

and

it's a form of class struggle because it

can only be led by the proletariat the

proletari is the only class capable of

doing this or leading it

okay so he says all this is fascinating

for a couple of reasons first I find it

amazing that someone can absorb so much

marks missing the basic and obvious

point the passage shows

it admits the staggeringly obviously

fact the hardest score of the Maga

faithful isn't made up of workers

whether in manufacturing or other sector

but the small business owners he's

reassuring here

no that's not true you dumb fuck

because you yourself acknowledged from

that Cohen guy the analytical Marxist

that most of the actual real blue-collar

working class own instruments of

production

that augment their labor that they sell

and that's how most people most contract

laborers see themselves as small

business owners so in no way am I uh

saying that small business owners are

the core of Maga but people who believe

that they are either small business

owners or aspiring small business owners

of course they are but that's the mecca

proletariatry that's the same cab

drivers that Cohen is talking about

people who have some instrumental

production that augments their labor

which they still are ultimately selling

okay

not people who own Ma and PAW shops or

you know small uh people engaged in

small forms of accumulation those are

not the hardest score of the MOG of

faithful the hard score of the manga

Faithful is the blue collar working

class who indeed are very sensitive

about this idea of their shit being

expropriated like I'm sorry dude

you just stick dude you have to

acknowledge this is why I'm bringing

this back up for Marx Marx isn't fucking

out here saying

that uh the proletariates only the

people who sell their labor to survive

because you can survive being a fucking

homeless guy

it's to support the relative conditions

of subsistence well in American culture

relative conditions of subsistence as

established formally even through the

housing reforms and all that kind of

stuff in the post-war period yeah it's

like having a house with a lawn and a

white picket fence and a car having shit

that's not Petty bourgeois that's the

relative conditions of the subsistence

of Labor that's what workers expect to

be able to fucking have

for the price of their labor they don't

just want to be slaves in some

institution in a pod eating fucking bugs

um so when they hear the word communism

during the Cold War they were told we're

going to take all of your shit and

socialize it and they they're running in

the other direction

because they don't want to be

institutionalized that's not a petty

Bourgeois impulse because

the stalinist rank and file

stachanovites were resisting the

institutionalization of the managerial

Soviet Elite

and so were the maoist rank and file

if you read dong ping Han's unknown

calls were Revolution they were trying

to do the same thing set up their own

Alternative forms of Association to

escape the tyranny of the institution

socializers and institutionalizers

so working class people who don't want

to be cooped up into these

institutionalized forms of sociality are

not Petty bourgeois

it has nothing to do with the actual

social character of Labor which happens

at the level of production not at the

level of culture not at the level of

telling you what you can can't do not at

the level of an affront to your fucking

dignity and being controlled and so on

and so forth so let's start with what he

gets right about capitalism

it's correct that uh capitalist property

relations involve Banks taking away what

small scare Proprietors have built up

with their Blood Sweat and Tears that's

not really what I'm referring to here

I'm for example referring to the fact

that Banks and BlackRock take away

people's homes they take away people's

cars and they take away their trucks the

trucks they need to sell their labor for

example they take away their instruments

they take away their tools

they take away everything even just uh

even things that aren't even involved in

any process of accumulation whatsoever

gets taken away

and they don't just get taken away to be

aggregated into some efficient

large-scale capitalist Enterprise Ben

they get taken away as an instrument of

debt and that's what you're fucking

missing this is not something

Progressive when Banks and BlackRock

take away people's shit they're not

aggregating it into some higher

socialized form of production they're

using it as a form of financial Capital

as a form of debt to to make people debt

slaves and Serfs

so they're basically just recreating

conditions of serfdom now Marx talks

about this as early as the in the 18th

Premiere when he talks about

The Peasants the small holding peasants

right and what does he say about them he

says

the peasants

because they've been indebted to the 4

million poppers

who have been popularized because

they've been expropriated and indebted

in the countryside the interests of the

peasants are no longer as with Napoleon

in accord but are in now in opposition

to Bourgeois interests to Capital they

find their natural Ally and leaders in

the urban proletariat whose task is to

overthrow the Bourgeois order

the strong and unlimited government and

this is the second appalling idea this

was the rule of the financial parasites

right

how does he describe what's going on

here

this small peasant smallholding is now

only a pretext that allows the capitals

to draw profits interest and rent from

the soil while leaving it to the

agriculturals to see how he can extract

his Wages that's the condition of the

small farmer in America today that's the

condition of the truck driver that's the

condition of the mecca proletariat in

general

The Mortgage Debt burdening the soil of

France imposes on the French peasantry

and amount of Interest equal to the

annual interest of the entire British

national debt small holding property in

this enslavement by Capital toward which

its development pushes it unavoidably

has transformed the mass of the French

nation into troglodytes

now why is this even relevant

especially because it's what Lenin cites

to justify his program of the

dictatorship of the proletariat in the

peasantry because Marx refers to his

what he thinks should be the strategy in

France is what

a people's Revolution on the continent a

people's Revolution to destroy the

bureaucratic military machine Marx is

not saying that these peasants are

reactionaries getting in the way of

progress because these fucking

landowners and bankers are blood suckers

just extracting rent from them producing

nothing

he's saying the interest of the peasant

aligns with the proletariat and they

need to join together and form a

people's Revolution and Lenin cites this

polemically in his polemics with the

mensheviks and fake marxists

to justify Marx's point the need for a

real people's Revolution

and the mensheviks were rejecting this

oh what do you mean at people's

Revolution we're just talking about the

proletariat no Lenin makes it clear

why it has to be a people's Revolution

because look

we need a complete class Independence

for the party and that's why we're

saying we want a Communist party for the

working class if you don't know that's

what we've emphasized so fucking often

but it divides the people into classes

not in order that the advanced class May

shut up within itself confine itself to

narrow aims and emasculate its activity

for fear that the economic rulers of the

world were recoil but in order that the

advanced class which does not suffer

from the half-heartedness vacillation

and indecision of the intermediate

classes made with all the greater energy

and enthusiasm fight for the cause of

the whole people at the head of the

whole of the people

that is hegemony that's what Mark that's

what Lenin's saying

he's saying yes it's for the proletariat

but the proletariat is there to lead the

whole people through the Long March of

modernity

it's not to shut itself off and say oh

you're you're you're a fucking small

business owner being indebted by these

fucking Banker parasites well fuck you

you're reactionary and we're Superior no

they're saying we do have a general

people's interest the interests of

general labor represent the interests of

the people we represent the future of

the people we represent the soil of the

people we represent the material bedrock

and the basis of the people and we're

going to lead the people to Victory

that's what Maga communism is about and

that's why we're saying it's about the

working class it's not exclusive to the

working class Mao talked about allying

with the Patriotic bourgeoisie it's just

that it's the proletarian hegemony that

needs to be established at the head of

the whole people the people include the

bourgeoisie

the people include Petty Proprietors the

people who include the small business

owners the people include all these kind

of things but the decisive thing

is that for it to be a general people's

interests it has to be led by the

proletariat establishing that hegemony

leading the whole people while

simultaneously waging an internal class

war not antagonistically as Mao said

but by establishing the hegemony of the

proletarian working-class dictatorship

in other words I mentioned earlier that

in China I refuse to say that

enterprises are Bourgeois or

capitalistic why do I refuse to say that

because every Enterprise in China that's

ever established is established under

the hegemony of the proletariat

that matters

that matters

it's the proletarian hegemony that

undercuts the divide the petty

proprietor vacillates as Lenin said but

under the leadership of the proletariat

the interests of the petty proprietor

are fully aligned with the whole people

not to the hegemony and the ruling class

why does this so important for the

history of Marxism leninism because

oftentimes the history of Marxism

leninism was a history of

Anti-Imperialist and anti-colonial Wars

of Independence where they were fighting

against comprador classes that were

getting rich off of sucking the cock of

the colonists and the imperialists so

the proletariat led the whole National

people against the colonizers the

Invaders and the imperialists all of

them to Victory

and that was nationalism so what that's

what communism's about leading the whole

people

the proletariat is just establishing the

proletarian hegemony because without the

proletarian hegemony it's not a

universal class you're not giving

expression to the universal interests of

the people

so Ben Burgess is fucking wrong

it's true that Marx's theory of History

the transition from one mode to the

other has nothing to do with the

developmental productive forces but

hazard's vision of this other than the

duress of Interest or to the finance

capital is a kind of Marxism oddly

detached from any real notion of class

Struggle No it's fucking not Ben you

just don't know shit about Marxism

leninism

class struggle takes a definite form Ben

even in the Communist Manifesto they say

the class struggle is National informed

while Marxism leninism updates that by

saying that the class struggle takes the

form of anti-imperialism the class

struggle takes the form of the

democratic struggle the class struggle

takes the form of the anti-monopoly

capital struggle that's the actual form

the class struggle takes the form of the

class struggle doesn't take

it's not just a cultural revolution

where people say I identify as the

proletariat you identify as the

bourgeoisie so let's shoot each other

that's not the form it takes that's a

vulgar Coincidence of content and form

the form is all of these other things

you would think are just Democratic

Bourgeois revolutions but the whole

point is the bourgeoisie can't fulfill

them the bourgeoisie can't fulfill or

attend to the basic needs of History

so when the Communist Party decisively

fulfills the concrete interests of the

people that is the class struggle the

enemies fighting against them

fighting the proletarian hegemony are

waging a class war against them

by establishing class hegemony that is

class war you don't know anything about

gromsky and hegemony it's the fucking

vulgar fake Marxist so all of this is

very new to you but you're so bafflingly

fucking ignorant when you're trying to

say that this is the case of us trying

to fucking sell people the story of oh

yeah

um you can preserve your prior form and

relations of production without the

modernizing transformations of the

forces of production and we're we're

going to support reactionaries no dude

because that's not what's going on we're

not witnessing the actual fourth

Industrial Revolution being the source

of immiseration it's the bankers and the

fucking blood suckers who produce

nothing at all the rentier landlord

fucking parasites with a new form of

feudalism

that are bringing the people down it's

not like there's a new efficient

socialized form of production that's

that's replacing it

only Communists can do that

hell even Trump is is a fucking

communist here according to you it's

like Trump is like we want freedom

cities in the rural Midwest brand new

cities

more technology more socialization

yeah you don't think that's gonna

outmode some of these other primitive

forms of relations or production it will

but Trump's forwarding it because it

benefits the people

that's not what the current hegemony is

doing when it's emiserating people

taking their shit away and putting them

in debt it's turning them into fucking

debt slaves it's not leading to any

progress and any meaningful sense that's

why Lenin says imperialism is

reactionary maybe that used to be the

case in the 1800s or something that's

debatable by the way

and Marx and Engels made a lot of wrong

assumptions in The Communist Manifesto

and that's why they were so disappointed

by the springtime of Nations they

updated and changed their views anyone

can fucking see that and you can see

that especially and how Marx he doesn't

just change his views or history changed

and he updated accordingly with what

happened to the French peasantry

he talks a lot about the people in

general in a way that's radically

foreign to Marxism

dude have you ever read any Marxist

leninist literature it's it's foreign

Marxist literature except London who

says literally responding yes Ben

Burgess the people's Revolution social

democracy has fought and is fighting

against the Bourgeois Democratic abuse

of the word people it demands this word

shall not be used to cover up failure to

understand the class antagonisms with

the people we don't fail to understand

that because we also insist yes on the

hegemony of the working class and the

establishment of a Communist Party

we're not saying that these bright we're

not saying Elon Musk is part of the

working class

in a fantasy Universe could Elon Musk be

part of a counter hegemonic movement led

by the hegemony of the working class

maybe what if he was a patriotic

bourgeoisie I don't think he is by the

way

but I'm just trying to explain to you

the specificity of the terms we're using

here

like Lenin is literally responding to

this studio Marxist jibber jabber this

menshevik stupid bullshit Marxism

leninism is already responding to this

the role of Marx sees the development

which people the whole oh just read

Lenin if you want to know which fucking

people the whole mass of people standing

outside of the establishment

which is rooted in

just the pure form of the people not the

real people themselves the anti-social

interests of the establishment as

opposed to the whole people and their

interests Ben were ruled by a fucking

Monopoly a one percent

it's a fucking complete Monopoly

it's a one big club and we're not

fucking in it that's a real thing Ben

there is a real people the people

the real ones not fucking MSNBC

and not the fucking uh Brooklyn I'm on

fucking YouTube

the role that Mark sees the development

of productive forces

does the transitioning without humans

having to fight about it dude what the I

had to fight you in a debate about Maga

communism you don't think Maga communism

is a declaration of war against a

fucking State dude

how is that not a fight

Trump fought more than you ever had in

your whole fucking life Ben

he was under attack more than the DSA

ever was

it's particularly exciting that

capitalism is hyper developed means of

production with the possibility of

achieving a more egalitarian and

Democratic this is just about fucking

liberal Jibber Jabber

if we can organize the working class to

overcome capitalist resistance to the

transformation what form do you think

that fucking takes now Ben

its capitalists resisting Trump's

Freedom cities

if you don't like that example it's

capitalists

who are trying to resist and China and

Russia's rise

and their way of

developing the productive forces they're

literally resisting it

they're literally resisting the fourth

Industrial Revolution yes they are it's

not the ma and PAW shops of Maga which

are eager eager to have a new Bright

Beautiful future

that they can be a part of

they just don't want to be fucking

slaves of the banks does that make them

reactionary they don't want to be slaves

Haas manages to miss it entirely no I I

you miss it entirely Ben that's what my

whole fucking MO is about actually you

want to preserve the capitalist

resistance because you want to preserve

the monopolies Ben you want to preserve

the red tape you want to preserve the

managerial welfare state you want to

preserve the fucking government

bureaucracy and you wanna I wanna

destroy the taxes destroy the big

government let the fucking forces of

production flourish but it's the

Monopoly bourgeoisie that's fucking

resisting it because they're in fucking

bad with big government which fucking

secures and protects the fucking

Monopoly and we all know it

Marx

X

accelerates the capital's effect

without Farthing of compensation

he doesn't want to turn back the clock

to give Petty Proprietors their shit

back

are you fucking stupid Ben because he

doesn't want to turn back the clock and

restore relations and forms of

production that were objectively

outmoded by history that's not what

happened recently when people lose their

fucking homes people didn't lose their

fucking homes because home ownership was

outmoded by history if you think that's

the case how the fuck do you explain how

in China not over 90 percent of people

own their own fucking homes has that

been outmoded

China's way more futuristic and advanced

than shithole America right now that's

fucking rotting and crumbling

infrastructure stuck in the 20th century

you don't know a damn thing you're

fucking talking about

we're not trying to give Petty

Proprietors they're older outdated form

of

means of production and their shitty old

infrastructure we're trying to give

people a semblance of human dignity like

China's doing right now for its own

people but apparently Ben Burgess knows

more about Marxism than Xi Jinping and

the Chinese Communist Party

like I'll give you an example of this

right in China smallholding Agriculture

is the main form China wanted to move

toward more of a industrialized form of

Agriculture recently so what they're

doing is a deal they make a deal with

these peasants we will give you your own

apartment buildings fully in these

communities Anna Anna means to get a new

job poverty alleviation and then we want

the we want the land for the farming

so there's a case where Petty

Proprietors lost their old shit but they

got their shit back because they got

their fucking way of life back

not the exact form but they got their

shit you see the key word Ben they got

what's theirs their stake in the Chinese

State and in Chinese Society they got it

back after it was taken away

and it it was an exchange you know what

I mean

he certainly do you think you Trump

literally just promoted Freedom cities

you think Trump is sitting here being

like Oh Yeah

we want fucking diners from the 1940s to

be preserved actually Ben it's fucking

sentimental hipsters living in fucking

Brooklyn that are all about this fucking

quiche kind of like oh that's so old

everything old is good and cool and hip

they're the ones who aestheticize and

get sentimental about that shit it's the

fucking people you're calling

reactionary that want a turbocharged

hyper accelerated futurism so their life

gets better so you've got everything

backwards it's fucking Baristas that are

sentimental about

restoring the past they want to restore

the past so much that they're on board

with Greta thundberg's fucking Return To

Nature Avatar fucking bullshit we're

running around fucking naked with Spears

the fuck are you talking about

he certainly doesn't want pro-people

policies like cutting taxes

how do you know he wasn't even living

today

he wants more than cutting taxes Benny

boy Benny boy Benny boy you know what

Mark's fucking wants he wants to smash

the bureaucratic military machine

you know what Benny boy

the social services you're referring to

are a part of that machine

if you didn't know it they're part of

that fucking bureaucracy Marx wants to

smash it

he doesn't just want to cut taxes I'm

being generous Marx is the guy with a

big fucking Hammer who wants to smash

the entire fucking thing I'm just saying

let's cut taxes to start

by the way I don't want to cut Social

Security I want to improve it expand it

make it more efficient and make it more

simple

we don't want to cut Social Services we

want to reform them so they're not

Consolidated and bettering the forces of

production in the way they are now which

they are

cutting red tape

smash the military

bureaucratic military machine

you're saying Marx doesn't want he's so

sensitive to red tape and yet he says he

wants to smash the whole fucking thing

into itty bitty pieces shut the fuck up

quite a bit of capital was spent

celebrating the introduction of red tape

to the labor process

thanks so much hate Ben got a PhD in

chipper chapter 10 is all about the

struggle over working hours and the

introduction of laws limiting the amount

of capitalists can force their employees

to spend at work

what you're saying that cutting red tape

means reducing saying cutting red tape

means rolling back uh

limiting the hours we want we are the

ones who want to reduce labor time with

the government by the way

when people refer to red tape they're

not fucking referring to all the things

we take for granted from the New Deal

that we all like

we're referring to the fucking

bureaucracy that is overgrown

inefficient there is a real thing to go

to the fucking DMV it's a real thing

nobody's talking about getting rid of

Social Security and getting rid of

fucking basic labor protections and

child labor laws we're not talking about

that

we're talking about the laws that have

put it have been put in place to serve

monopolists

and Fetter the growth of the productive

forces to serve the monopolists

and achievement enforced by Factory

inspectors you know they admit yeah dude

Ben you just don't understand dialectics

we want to smash the state and build a

new one and instead will that state have

administrative

yeah it will but it'll just be clean and

efficient and simplified

and up to date

we're we're we aren't against FDR's new

deal I'm not certainly

so you're saying oh Marx praised

the uh cutting the the labor hours

okay I praise it too

is that the same thing as breaking the

bureaucracy no it's not on the contrary

it's something that accelerates the

development of the forces of production

I think Marx noted this directly

because it forces the capitalists in

that case to innovate around it

it's just that the

fucking big government bureaucracy right

now is a big waste

you know I can't fucking believe this

dishonest fuck Ben Burgess

this is the one rev always likes to

share which is valid

Ben

hey Ben Burgess

is this Justified

really we need this this is what we need

thank you Lodi he's not to derail but

how do we make sense of a great nation

like Iran with elements of the irgc

calling for trumps being redacted as

soleimani Revenge uh dialectics that's

how Lodi

because we're not Iranians we're not

living in Iran don't be a Trotsky light

and believe there's a simultaneous

co-temporal Universal subjectivity

because there isn't

things mean different things in

different contexts it's a web of context

let's be post-modernist here it's a web

of context there's no Universal

simultaneous subjectivity encompassing

how every single fucking person feels in

the world at the same exact time what's

right in Iran is not the same thing as

what's right in America where stalinists

not trotskies

the dialectical point marks is that uh

the Hideous process

of expropriation

we're not even talking about small-scale

producers we're talking about the

conditions of subsistence that are not

being commoditized

as much as they're literally just being

assimilated into new forms of serfda

and he's Ben is basically making

apologia for his BlackRock socialism Ben

more or less is saying

that he wants a feudal socialism

where the way Banks make people debt

slaves and serfs he wants to add a

supplementary kind of institutional woke

control which already is happening

that he wants to call socialism by

augmenting the terms of the debt by

making it more fair or making it more

amicable to people he doesn't want to

just forgive the whole fucking debts

completely

a vastly more positive process of

expropriation yeah like only fans

in the interest of more prosperity for

the working class dude what you're

missing is that this might have been

true for the 1800s but it's not now

because the bourgeoisie is not again

since Lenin's imperialism the who's

reactionary Ben

they're not overseeing any advances at

all in anything they're reactionaries

what part of that do you not fucking get

the footnote In this passage

could have been a prophetic attempt of

running Maya communist expropriation

based on what lower middle classes the

small manufacturers small shopkeepers

fight against the bourgeoisie to save

from Extinction their existence as

fractions of the middle class

no that's more like fucking small coffee

shops in fucking Brooklyn

hipster fucking coffee shops or some

shit

dude that's the DSA

fighting Jeff Bezos

we we side with Jeff Bezos rev literally

made a tweet saying Jeff Bezos was more

of a communist than all the fucking

American leftists combined we agree with

him

we're the ones who side with Jeff Bezos

against the fucking Portland hipsters

who hate him Ben

yeah these

small people of the middle class the

Philistine middle class that's not Maga

that's not Maga those are fucking

Democrats in your DSA

these other forces are reactionary for

they try to roll back the wheel of

History yeah they're environmentalists

they like Greta thundberg

they love the key schniche Brooklyn

scene the LA scene oh let's preserve

this no Jeff Bezos you can't develop

here AOC is preserving it yeah I agree

they're reactionaries you just got the

people mixed up a little for the Mago

Trump wants to build flying cars at

Freedom cities I don't know what the

fuck you're talking about sounds like

some shit AOC would be on the side of

yeah these other forces AOC DSA and the

progressives in America they are

reactionary and they are trying to roll

back the wheel of History

I agree

that's why I'm a Maga communist because

we want to go forward not roll back

anything

what part of we want new beautiful

bright

cities towns homes modes of

transportation ways of life we're not

selling people on some fucking idea that

they can Preserve

you know shitty rotting infrastructure

and outdated things forever

Trump never said that we never said that

you're that's an assumption you pulled

out of your ass I don't know where you

got it from didn't come from us

one thing I'm ever unward about is mod

comes overcoming a mass movement

this is a stupid article to what it said

fucking Garbage Guys this stream has

outlived is intended length by millions

of years

like this such is such a long stream

but I put a lot of work in it I hope you

guys liked it

hey guys beautiful day beautiful time

um don't ever say I don't try to put in

work for you guys all right I'm

exhausted energy wise

I'm like oh

you know I mean

oh man

okay one's in the chat if you learned

something or you benefited from this or

clarified a few things I just hope you

got I didn't do it in vain I hope I

didn't do it in vain

I just I hope you guys took something

away from this with all my heart

and I'm not I hope you understand how we

are the marks of slightedness

we are the we are the fucking real

Communists we're not adding some new

it's not we're not revisionists we are

literally Marxist learning this in the

American context

hope you guys can understand what that

means now

and I hope I've clarified a lot of

things beautiful stream guys don't I'm

gonna tear up how emotional beautiful

stream guys

I'm so faithful in what we're doing I

believe in it with all my fucking heart

and soul like I really I really really

fucking think

we're on the right track we're gonna

lead the people to Victory

I I think this is what communism is all

about it's it's always just been about

this we're not trying to create a new

wacky system pulling out of our ass

we're trying to realize the laws of

History itself we're trying to feel the

Winds of History be faithful to them not

shirk in the face of them and

courageously fight forward into the heat

of battle leading the American people to

Victory against their enemies against

the forces of reaction

and the real forces of reaction are in

Wall Street and Washington

not in fucking Idaho and East Palestine

Ohio

the forces of reaction are in Wall

Street and Washington not the people in

East Palestine Ohio the people of East

Palestine Ohio have real progress

beating in their fucking hearts a real

transformation and unleashing of human

ability human potential and the forces

of human production and it's the fucking

bloodsuckers and parasites and Wall

Street and in Washington that are

holding us back and keeping us in the

past that's my message to you ladies and

gentlemen have a good fucking night and

don't you ever fucking forget it that

truth and Justice is on our side to the