How Asian Empires were Socialist

[Music]

[Music]

and there are single people

here we denies this

is there a single person here who denies

this see if you can debate me about this

by the way see if you could take me on

in a fucking debate about this see if

you could fucking take me on in a

fucking debate about this little bitch

anyone here wants to fucking challenge

me on this

[Music]

the dynasty was a transitional

rebellious dynasty that was not meant to

last for a very long time

[Music]

[Music]

no not byzantium

i'll tell you what unites all of these

and why not byzantium and why not three

modern ones i'll debate you on this 100

getting fucking vc right now

get in fucking vc right now

get in my fucking vc now get in dc right

now

get in vc right now we're going to

debate it right now

right now

hello

you came to debate it not to see how i

justify so debate it find it difficult

to believe that that uh you could

justify these countries historical

empires as being

socialist um

they are

or were autocratic regimes ruled by

monarchical disneys not

socialist societies oh my god so do you

know what the yuan dynasty was

hello

yes

can you not hear me

now i can hear you i'm sorry okay go

ahead okay which fam which family ruled

the yuan dynasty was it the yuan family

uh it was the descendants of genghis

khan right

yeah what does the so what about the

qing family

uh i have no idea about the qing but it

was the manchurians okay do you actually

think

that a dynasty necessarily means a

family

no i don't and i i think that especially

in the byzantine empire you could see

that many dynasties that historians

grouped together were not in fact

families

okay

so you used a lot of words and verbiage

like these were autocratic regimes or

whatever you're just superimposing the

prejudices of modern liberalism onto the

past which is completely meaningless

you're calling them autocratic regimes

as if the burden is upon them to

constitute themselves as states and the

default state of humanity is liberal

democracy civil society there's no

default state of humanity that

liberalism can lay claim to actually

liberalism is the most violent form of

abstractionism from the default norm of

humanity for thousands and thousands and

thousands of years how can you say these

are autocratic regimes as if you're

hillary clinton at the state department

ready to drone strike the fucking

safavid persia or some kind of shit or

the uh the zardom of muscovy as if they

don't possess proper legitimacy because

they're

regimes what what are you contrasting

autocratic regimes to if not modern

liberalism what are you contrasting that

to so are you saying that we have to

place them within their time in order to

no i'm saying every single real state in

the history of mankind was quote unquote

autocratic in one form or another so

like what unless there are periods of

aberration or something like the greek

city-states or

the roman republic

although that's really shaky actually

because that was marked by periods of

dictators here and there that actually

did do the heavy lifting and whatever so

what are you contrasting autocratic to

like what are you comparing that to

except a modern liberal society i guess

it would only be modern liberal society

because i can't find a regime so why are

you using this heavily charged language

of judging the nature of these states

why because they're not modern and

liberal therefore they're they're only

to be defined as like autocratic regimes

like you're not actually exploring what

these states were in any real capacity

you're just condemning them because they

weren't modern and liberal well why it's

the burden is on modern liberalism to

prove that it is the default standard to

which every form of society and

civilization must be held to

okay but then even if that is all true

could was it would it not be also true

to say that saying that these states

were socialist is in fact the same thing

as calling them autocratic no socialism

was a very

re it was a relatively recent invention

you know dating back to the 19th century

no i don't agree with that um why not

because

socialism arises from modernity and the

way in which modernity completely

uprooted and destroyed the sociality

that had priorly been taken for granted

so the abstraction of a common uh

common economic or social reality or you

know this common social reality that had

to arise before communism and socialism

you didn't have the word for socialism

or comments because it was taken for

granted there is some kind of common

social bond that unites us

so communism and socialism specifically

arises when there is a neces

specifically arises when the abstraction

of sociality becomes intelligible and

that abstraction uh of sociality only

becomes intelligible when it's somehow

uprooted or challenged or

uh

universally um

alienated from individuals

so specifically in the case of modernity

it's the specific relationship between

the mongol empire or the mongols as the

hidden origins of modernity and who laid

the hidden foundations of uh modernity

that's the reason i call these states

which are successor states to the

mongols that's what they all have in

common as socialists or communists so i

also i saw the other tweet you said that

said that genghis khan was also

socialist and

i just think that's kind of funny

because you know when we put that into

modern terms it's like why the like that

doesn't make any sense and i'm sure that

wouldn't make any sense in the past

either um

even if we are presuming that we are

using uh you know object uh sorry um

objective

uh

material conditions to uh

uh uh for describing objective material

conditions even if we are assuming that

um it doesn't i don't think that makes

any sense to call them socialist in

still in that context um yeah

socialism is a very weak word i prefer

to call them communists you prefer to

call them communists yes

i i guess i'm just confused because that

um it's not like these civilizations

were built as in for the people it

wasn't like they were literally

constructed they literally were how in

that

civilizations being for the people was

the norm and it was taken for granted

long before the mongols the reason i

call

the mongol gunpowder the post mongol

gunpowder empires communist or socialist

is specifically because the mongol

invasions created the necessary

abstractionism

or abstraction from the immediate social

bonds that were proper to the pre-mongol

civilizations that allowed for some kind

of sociality in the abstract to become

intelligible the mongols brought with

them a type of universalism that was set

against all local and particular

realities which is why their successor

says states would form the largest

land-based empires in the history of

humanity the land empires right mongol

universalism is a hidden and alternative

lost form of modernity and the the what

differentiates the successor states to

the mongol empire from the mercantile

states of early modern europe is that

these were states that fall under the

umbrella of the so-called asiatic mode

of production where there are no real

property rights all property belongs to

the sovereign uh there is uh an economy

that is oriented toward communal

infrastructure projects and

economy that is to an extent even you

could say planned for the common social

communal purpose of um

the welfare of the people um

these states uh

differ from the mercantile ones in that

as land-based states they are based on

uh an economy uh whose goal is not like

at the apps making the abstraction of

profit but based on

the um

production of concrete things like use

values for example so

in that contrast with the mercantile

west where the the cycle of economic

reproduction ends with the abstraction

of money the opposite is true in the

asiatic empires now you could ask why

don't you just call every single

pre-modern society socials for

communists yeah i was about to ask that

that's true but what makes the post

mongol states in my view uniquely worthy

of being called this lies in the fact

that the mongol invasions represented a

form of type of

alternative modernity paralleling the

universalism and abstractionism of

modernity the only difference being that

instead of this modernity resulting in

something like modern capitalism

you had

this same level of universalism and

abstractionism leading to the

determinate land-based empires which are

based on the production and accumulation

of things

uh and not numbers and abstractions as

in the case of mercantile societies so

to me all of these empires lay have in a

sense their legacy has persisted and the

reason why communism

has been successful in the states that

have succeeded

these uh land-based empires post-mongol

empires is precisely because communism

reinvented or rediscovered

this lost modernity all right so you are

justifying that the mongols deserve the

term socialist more so than the

um

let's say like the greek city-states or

whatever because they were larger than

them i i'm not really sure i could you

recall a nice nice dgg destiny debate

tactic i didn't fucking say because they

were larger i specifically said because

they abstracted all of these local

civilizations and peoples and forms of

production from their immediate

sociality and subjected them to a form

of abstract and universal sociality in

the form of the mongol state the mongol

states if you actually study things like

the yuan dynasty and all the mongol

successor states what the mongols

introduced to civilization was things

like having definite territory definite

borders things like having some

conception of a truly universal state

that is impartial to religious and

ethnic differences

the universalism of the mongols is not

only comparable to the universalism of

european modernity it is actually the

lost material basis of european

modernity specifically european

modernity was just the kind of

subjective articulation of the

historical change that was ushered in by

the mongols okay um

that makes a whole lot more sense now

and i will concede the debate because i

just wanted to like clear that up

because i just i could not get my be in

my head around that

so once again

house is right infrared rising okay

that wasn't much of a debate for all the

haters and shit i'm getting for this

fucking tweet i'd expect people to put

up a better fight

but anyway

so a lot of people are asking me

a lot of people asking me yo what is

what is going on and like you know why

would you say how your heart is so

stupid

listen these are listen you know what

people are thinking when they see this

fucking tweet this is what people are

thinking they're not asking a question

of why is has calling them socials

that's the question

is haas trying to say that people call

these cells because listen twitter is

full of a bunch of dumb fuck idiot

brainless

unoriginal fucking

npcs who have never thought an original

thought in their life so whenever they

see a tweet they're gonna judge the

tweet based on precedent has anyone ever

said this before is haas referring to

someone else who said this is how is ha

saying that if i open a dictionary it's

gonna tell me this is hot saying that

someone said this no haz is not fucking

saying that has actually making an

independent unique fucking argument

believe it or not

anyway

every single person who responded

negatively to this tweet is

i can't say it mentally i can't say it

they are fucking stupid they are fucking

stupid as fuck

and they should not be allowed to drive

i don't think that should be a litmus

test if you reacted negatively to this

tweet you should have your driver's

license revoked you should not be able

to drive you are not equipped to drive

that's all i could say about it you

can't drive you're a fucking idiot okay

second of all if you just thought that

this was a troll you should also be

deprived of your driver's license and

not be allowed to fucking drive

i want people to just ask the question

of what the fuck socialism actually

fucking is

angles reactionary communism

reactionary social seeking return to

feudals yeah that's another stupid

fucking thing people do is they're like

[Music]

um if these are just feudal feudals

they're not fucking futile there's

nothing feudal about any of the

societies i just fucking mentioned

feudalism is something very specific to

europe okay feudalism entails a

sovereign who recognizes property rights

feudalism entails things like serfdom

feudalism entails things like that when

you look at the case of russia no early

modern russia wasn't fucking futile you

fucking i can't fucking call you shit

i'm just gonna fucking ban you for

fucking mocking me that's what happens

on twitch you can't you can't call

people a fucking idiot i would never

call you a fucking idiot because it's

not allowed but i'll just ban your ass

no problem anyway destiny subreddit was

talking mad shit about me concerning his

tweet hypothetically hypothetically

every single participant of that

subreddit who's over 18 hypothetically

if i were to say that every single one

of them should suck my cock what would

be the legal implications of that i

would never say it without knowing the

implications but what would be the

implications if i said that what would

be the implications i don't know i don't

know hypothetically speak i would never

say it i would never say it anyway

um feudalism weren't rome or these

persian empire or the kin dynasty

universal states no they were not the

mongols alone produce universal states

and the reason for that is because they

were the only ones who had a beginning

and an end these other universal states

had no finitude and what i mean by that

is that yes they did want to the whole

world was their ambition right but they

never made the world something definite

they were always constantly expanding

and then they were humbled and then that

was it the mongols by contrast by the

end of their conquest and in

expansionism through their various

dynasties like especially the yuan

dynasty did actually establish a sense

of definite universalism so the the

distinction is between indefinite

universalism which is this ambiguous

projection of having the whole world and

a definite universalism where you have

the world but you also make account for

the world you have in the form of having

a definite sense of strict borders and

territories that define your

your your sovereign state right so

that's a very important distinction for

understanding what's meant by

universalism we're not just talking

about the vague universalism of every

pre-modern empire every single

expansionistic empire in history before

the mongols is universal in the sense

that it just doesn't have it just

considers itself the whole world but the

mongols did not only consider themselves

the whole world they also made a count

and measured this in a definite way and

that's the difference like for example

if you're an empire that begins from a

jungle let's say in some island in java

right and you're only on the eye of the

javanese island that island is the

fucking world that is the world right

you only arrive at a universalism

comparable to the mongols when you not

only consider your dominion the world

but you can prove it in some kind of way

with regard to an external measurement

for example with regard to your enemies

or other states that's how universalism

in the modern sense determinate

universalism arises you recognize the

finitude and contingency of your

universality that's what universalism

means and that is something that was

uniquely um created by the mongols i

want people to understand that socialism

is not based on some kind of subjective

implementation of a more moral system or

some kind of shit like that socialism

actually has a material and objective

history metabolism and orientation in

the same way that marx describes

capitalism as a mode of production that

is defined by this uh

development of the forces of production

in this almost fatalistic kind of way

socialism is the same way socialism has

a genealogy and a lifeblood and a

definite history

thank you so

much appreciate you so much um i

appreciate all the subs guys i lost a

fucked on a subs i mean not as much as i

expected i thought i was going to come

back to like 500 so i'm really grateful

for that but still i did lose like what

300 something like that it's okay i'm

not worried about it

thank you appreciate you anyway um

anyway uh

what i'm trying to say here is that

socialism also has an objectivity

it's not based on a voluntary and

subjective

and subjective uh creation of some

system socialism itself has an

antecedent and objective historical

being that is not reducible to some kind

of political or ideological project um

now once you understand that you have to

inquire into the question of what that

actually is and like what that actually

consists in what our exam what is it

what is meant by socialism and it's

almost as simple as the distinction

between mcm

and cmc

now in societies where cmc prevails um

the way in which marx and engels

described it was almost like a useful

myth no society has ever actually been

defined by cmc

rather no society has ever reduced

everything to a series of use values

this would be like some kind of utopian

utilitarian society actually what united

societies and anchored the ultimate

forces of production and mode of

production has always been some kind of

common sociality or common social

substance that was expounded in the form

of usually a religiously um

a religiously

conceived

state so it's in this sublime state this

is what the ottomans refer to this and

actually the ottomans didn't use the

word state they used a word that comes

from the arabic word the daola and the

adola is not actually having the

connotations of a state so in the west

you hear the word state and what does a

state mean it means a state of affairs

so it implies what it implies

um a static kind of thing right the

daola in arabic has a more cyclical

connotation of the time the good time

the the

the pinnacle the peak right

so you have to understand from the

perspective of language what this in

order to understand the history of

states and what states are you have to

understand how they're uh

translated into different languages

because they end up meaning different

things

right instead of some kind of static

institution

it refers to a

like almost kind of like a badousy ellen

badu the thinker he has the concept of

an event right it's almost kind of like

that anyway

um continuing on

this common sublime social substance

which is expounded in the form

of the state or through religion

whatever we want to call it that is

actually the driving force of production

it's not simply the accumulation of

commodities it is the reproduction of

this common social substance

that ultimately defines the mode of

production and the reproduction of this

common social substance specifically

takes the form of i i'd hate to call it

this but you're middle class right and

by middle class i just mean your bread

and butter default

citizen or constituent of the state

whether that's some kind of peasant or

some kind of whatever some kind of like

unit of society reproducing that is the

ultimate ends and aim

of state uh

of the economy i should say rather so

you instead of thinking of it in terms

of cmc just the production of things and

commodities you're what you're really

dealing with is the reproduction of ways

of life and these ways of life glued

together are the units of civilization

this is what defines civilization not

only the unit but the way in which the

unit relates to other units relates to

governors and administrators and

ultimately the sovereign that is what

defines a civilization um so it's very

important to understand now this common

sociality this magical glue that is

holding the society together is

expounded in the form of the sublime

state itself this fundamental unity of

the people and why it is that i call the

this is true for almost every society

before modern capitalism or you know

maybe before the greek

um

city-states i don't know how you want to

look at it i'm always iffy about

privileging the greek civilization as

like the turning heidegger does this

when he privileges plato's idea as the

beginning of the west's forgetting of

being right i am make mixed feelings on

that right i haven't fully resolved what

i think about that but however you want

to look at it for most overwhelming

majority of societies and civilizations

that have existed for the history of

mankind the reproduction of a specific

way of life was the ultimate ends and

aims of the economy and the mode of

production um now

what's unique about the mongols though

and their specific contribution to

civilization so all empires have played

the role of abstracting individuals and

communities from their immediate

sociality and subjecting them to a

higher form of subjecting them to a

higher community right specifically in

the form of levying taxes and

all that and whatever all that kind of

stuff right and and you know

uh enlisting them in a corvae core v i

don't know how you pronounce it to

produce common infrastructure which is

actually how the pyramids were built a

lot of people think the pyramids were

built by slaves no they were not they

were built by corvy labor

people who were enlisted basically

um by the solver to get off your ass and

let's build this pyramid guys that's

basically what happened now anyway um

what's unique about the mongols though

and why i call this the socialism or

lost origins of communism

if you will is

instead of having this cycle of kind of

at mere you know kind of abstractionism

uh from the immediate social reality and

then that itself becomes a form of

familial social bonds which are then

uprooted and on and on the cycle goes

across history the mongols were created

empires of end times and by end times i

mean final kind of uh

a final kind of

universal abstractionism from immediate

social bonds instantiated into the very

form of the state the state itself

became a permanent uh

abstract universality in regards to the

rest of society and it measured itself

on this basis it measured itself as such

all of the whole basis of modern science

which consists in this kind of ability

for

abstract measurement regardless of um

you know regardless of substance

substantive instantiations it's all

there with the mongols universality

modern universality remember is not

it's different from all precedent

universality because it has a beginning

and an end it doesn't just have a

beginning it also has an end it defines

itself as such it

it has some kind of cognizance as to its

contingency that's the whole source of

things like certainty don't have

certainty before modernity before

modernity nobody can be certain about

anything because no one's making the

pretense to proving things with

certainty everything is in the in the

hands of the gods or of god right

whatever happens whatever it happens

there's no way of like securing or

guaranteeing with certainty some if you

guarantee something with certainty you

are holding the entirety of being on

bond you're holding that whole thing on

hostage you're basically saying

if this does not happen the whole of

being is somehow false right the whole

world is somehow false you're holding

everything hostage in the name of the

certainty right you're making a bet and

you're putting money on that fucking bet

right what the fuck are a bunch of

monarchies doing in a list of socialism

every socialism is inherently

monarchical in the correct sense of the

word every great socialist leader was a

monarch now

in modern communism socialism whatever

uh is this hereditary monarchy no not

necessarily but call a fucking spade a

spade people like stalin and mao and

today ji

these are princes these are

kings

in the real sense of the word and

there's nothing fucking wrong with that

no society can have every real society

is united by some kind of monarch the

united states president believe it or

not is a monarch the founding fathers

intended for the president and for the

executive power to be even stronger than

the british monarch and by the way term

limits were something imposed rather

recently because it is rather recently

that the deep state took over our

government and ruled from behind the

scenes so the reason you have this like

always changing terms or whatever going

on in the united states this cycle of

democracy that the media celebrates is

democracy every four years there's a new

thing the reason why we have that is

because the deep state rules behind the

scenes regardless of who the fucking

president is

okay that's something that happened in

the mid 20th century more or less um

every other resident in like for example

if lincoln lived longer he probably

would have served many terms every time

presidents were not able to serve

multiple multiple terms it's because

they were not good presidents roosevelt

how long did he fucking last he lasted

like what a decade or something like

more than a decade well yeah there's a

reason for that because he was actually

a good president he was a good king he

was a good monarch and the ritual of

democracy originally or or voting as it

was originally intended was a way for

the people to verify if you know if this

is the true monarch instead of thinking

of it as the people electing the

president think of it as is this still

the king because remember every true

king does have the backing of the people

every true king

bases their power

on popular sovereignty in the history of

humanity every real king bases their

power on the sovereignty and will of the

people and in the

yeah some kind of mandate of heaven now

originally the founding fathers in the

united states election of the president

was a form of is this still the monarch

because if they don't have popular

support they're not the monarch it's not

the real king you understand so

all the people losing their fucking head

over oh monarchy monarchy let me tell

you what monarchy is actually based real

monarchy is based every great revolution

in history was against fake monarchs if

louis the 16th was a fake monarch the

king of england a fake pretender mana

okay every real monarch in history was

like stalin and mao and they had the

support of the people and they were

fighting against the nobles and the the

boyars

and the you know the whatever the the

lords

and they were helping the

the people right i mean julius caesar

for example why do you think julius

caesar represented the poor and

represented the the working class quote

unquote of his time because he was

subverting the well he actually wasn't

but he was going beyond what the

institutions of the republic could do

because those institutions led to a

corruption where only the ruling elite

were represented in carthage ancient

carthage hannibal carthage believe it or

not was not a monarchy to the extent of

mine it was a republic right and these

aristocrats

and senators i think you would call it

of the carthaginian republic conspired

against the would-be monarch hannibal

barca because he represented he was a

champion of the people fighting against

the corrupt elite you just see this

pattern everywhere in history okay so no

monarchs are not really antithetical to

socialism uh

you have a bad thing about monarchs

because you're talking about the

european monarchs of the modern period

of history which were extremely decadent

corrupt fake rulers pieces of shit

whatever or maybe you have in mind fake

monarchs like the king of saudi arabia

or the king of jordan or they're kings

of the recent whatever these are not

authentic monarchs and like officially

formally they're monarchs

but in reality they are modern

presidents with absolute dictatorial

powers they're they're prime ministers

they're bloodthirsty prime ministers

with absolute dictatorial power you know

what you don't even say it's not even

possible for a king to officially be a

king in the modern sense there's no way

of like securing with absolute certainty

that this is the king the conqueror

tamerlane for example he can't enshrine

in some constitution or in some kind of

official way that yes i am the king and

everyone must respect me as the king

there's no way to make that certain you

live by the sword you die by the fucking

sword right you live by the will of the

people or you lose by the will of the

people that's how it was in the past

there's no way of like making that

certain or or enshrined or guaranteed

and that's something that happens with

modernity in a way

modern democracies with their prime

minister

sorry

neo-liberal democracies i should say

they are far more dictatorial and

tyrannical and despotic

than the monarchies of these dynasties

because those ones base their existence

off of a type of modern absolute

dictatorial power backed by the

certainties of modern science and stuff

like that right they're far more

tyrannical in dictatorial i mean think

about it could you have anything like

australia's lockdown in the fucking

ottoman empire if you think you could

you don't know anything about the

ottoman empire you think you could have

biden's coveted mandates

in

uh

safavid persia if you think you could

you don't know anything about safavid

persia right there's there'd be no

fucking way for that to be possible what

about the british royals the british

royals were false monarchs who were

instituted after the glorious revolution

now if you know if you don't know the

history uh with the english civil war

parliament led by uh cromwell and the

new model army overthrew

the catholic monarch um and replaced

themselves in the monarch stead and

cromwell acted as a kind of monarchical

dictator whatever then cromwell got

stabbed in the back something like that

and the

um

the bourgeoisie and the land owners and

nobles in um

they propped up the

modern british monarchy that that it

traces its lineage to as their puppet so

the british monarchy that exists today

was propped up as the puppet of these

conspiratorial bourgeois

and uh landowning elites at the very

least the catholic monarch that reigned

i don't even i don't think the monarch

was catholic i'm sorry i i'm losing my

train of thought here the old monarch

because with henry

he breaks with the catholic church the

old monarch though at the very least was

not a tool of the um the ruling class in

the elite right he's he's he somehow

represents a popular sovereignty oh on

his deathbed he was catholic i didn't

know that yeah i don't yeah yeah he

created the new church church because of

the divorce um

so actually there has never been a

monarch a real monarch in

so-called united kingdom it's a fake

monarchy

that was put in place

by the ruling class there right and and

they they controlled it as a puppet the

monarch had no power parliament still

had all the fucking power it was a it

was a prop it was an illusion right for

the masses to feel like they have some

kind of

some kind of leadership

that cares about them

right because otherwise with parliament

you have a leadership

that has no that doesn't answer to the

people right he doesn't care about the

people fuck the people right we're going

to represent our particular private

class interests directly and shamelessly

i should say right

so they propped up the monarch

so there's a semblance of unity for the

dumb masses whatever

and there you go so that's the thing

about england the jacobites the scottish

rebels who wanted to return to the old

monarch they were actually correct

believe it or not they were actually

correct it's just that their cause was

vain and impossible but their cause was

pure of heart right that they wanted to

return um what the fuck is his name was

it

what what house was it

jacobites wanted yes after the glorious

revolution the common communal socialist

whatever the crown land was stolen by

landowners actually if you king james

yeah there is if you um if you know

something a little bit something about

history you know one of marx's first um

in ways inroads into politics was about

how he was writing about how the common

i don't know if it was kremlin but the

common land um

in prussia was starting to be kind of

privatized because

before peasants would just kind of go

into the forest and collect wood and

they'd just be like this communal forest

we collect wood but political structure

that existed in in prussia i think it

was analogous to a parliament of some

kind got together and they were like

this is theft they're stealing wood

they're stealing wood right and marx was

talking about how this was a commons

that you know so you basically uh

you have to understand why it is that

marx and engels were writing about

reactionary socialism and stuff it's

because socialism was in a way evocative

of the past

feudalism and most people have a lot of

confusion when it comes to what

feudalism was because of serfdom but

serfdom now you can correct me here but

to the extent of my knowledge serfdom in

its ugliest manifestations was itself a

product of as much in the same way as

slavery was was itself

a product of early modern capitalism

before then it was more ambiguous i know

for example in the zardam of muscovy

there was not really a serfdom right

only after peter the great the

enlightened reforming westernizer did

you have a very brutal slave-like type

of serfdom that was imposed upon the

russian people under the reign of ivan

the terrible you did not have that okay

so a lot of the ugly things that we

associate with feudalism actually came

from capitalism it was a form of

capitalist primitive accumulation of

money-grubbing selfish

rather unnoble nobles who were in a

utilitarian kind of way you know

squeezing

uh

labor out of the peasants ignobles i

guess that's what you call it but anyway

um

back to what i was saying i kind of got

off track with england what was i saying

before that fuck what was i saying i got

really off track

true monarchy sure yeah oh yeah napoleon

i want to talk about napoleon a little

bit too yes napoleon was a real monarch

if there ever was one in the modern

period fuck yes it was napoleon i mean

napoleon is the predecessor to the these

great communist leaders

no and napoleon didn't come from royal

blood a lot of people get too caught up

in the whole blood thing

but this whole obsession with blood

purity again a product of modern

capitalism or early modern capitalism

for example all sovereigns and monarchs

will care about lineage right lineage

does matter but for the greatest of

monarchs and princes in the history of

humanity you had people they were

self-made genghis khan what is his royal

lineage none tamerlane zero royal

lineage the dude was like a bandit in

afghanistan who just took over the

fucking world

basically right

and then he later claimed some kind of

noble lineage through marriage

um and he also claimed to be the

reincarnation of genghis khan

and ali but

most great monarchs were it's the the

beauty of the story of the french

revolution and of napoleon is one of the

negation of the negation it's like you

beheaded the monarch then somehow you

rediscovered the essence of monarchy

through napoleon monarchs aren't people

who

are wearing powdered wigs and claim

lofty titles based on their bloodlines

monarchs are people who arise out of

some kind of common popular will and

that they have this heroic um

fulfillment of some kind of common

destiny right and that's why napoleon

it's beautiful how napoleon was even

more reactionary than the ancient regime

that was overthrown by the revolution

napoleon he skipped the whole fucking

house of bourbon and

whatever house of war whatever he

skipped all that bullshit he's like he

he wanted he went back to charlemagne he

went back to julius caesar he went back

to alexander these are the monarchs he

compared himself to and and kind of

fashioned himself as the return to right

um he didn't have to claim like

legitimacy from the lineages of

the house of uh

bourbon or orleans or whatever right

so that's the beautiful story of the

french revolution yes napoleon was a

real monarch he was like he was like

timmer right he's a guy who came from

corsica no royal bloodline and he earned

it he earned the title of being a

monarch was julius caesar socialist

again socialism is the default for all

history of humanity okay why it is we

have to use the word socialism or

communism is because

sociality in the abstract becomes

intelligible so for example in the incan

empire is it socialist well yes and no

yes in the sense that yes it's it's it's

the substance of so socialism a common

sociality yes but no

because there's

this the common sociality of the incan

empire is immediate in the form of the

incan state it's an immediate sociality

not an abstract and universal social

only when sociality has can be

abstracted from the immediate

instantiations of social bonds do you

arrive at a concept like socialism that

becomes intelligible listen you can keep

listing off people when you're just

wasting time where the phoenicians yes

everyone was fucking socialist and

communist in a sense yes they all

fucking work you can keep listing them

and i'm gonna keep giving you the same

fucking response okay socialism is the

default the question you should be

asking is not uh why why are we getting

to a point where we we have this

communal conception of of an economy or

whatever that's the default for all

human history the real question you

should be asking is what the fuck

happened with capitalism because

capitalism is the the the um the

deviation from the norm and it's

actually because of capitalism that we

even need a concept of socialism or

communism a concept of socialism or

communism had always been taken for

granted before capitalism it was always

something taken for granted okay the the

fact that you need a concept of of a

common social substance sociality is

because it was somehow taken away with

capitalism and this is something marx

describes it's actually really what marx

means by alienation a lot of ugly fuck

dumbass people i'm not gonna name that

because it's not allowed to call people

that a lot of like teenage dream

dream

marxist let me let me actually show you

the dream leftist

so dreams this is what most leftists

think uh marx means by alienation

so most leftist thinks marx means this

[Music]

with a smile

yeah anyway what i was saying is that

most western leftists think that's what

marx meant by alienation my feeling i'm

really feeling down a lot and my

feelings are it's not what marx meant by

alienation by alienation

marx meant a very mechanical methodical

and violent process of uprooting

um whole swaths of people peasants

families and ways of life

from these

original and immediate social bonds i

mean that's what alienation is referring

to it's not referring to the fucking

i feel disconnected

angles lenin dream i feel really

disconnected from the world guys that's

what the mask is that's what the mask

it's not what fucking marks meant it's

not what he meant at all okay

it's it's really funny how

western liberals interpret alienation in

a very hyper individualistic and

psychological way right russian issue

with the mongols prompted the soviets to

ban asiatic mode discourse during

stalin's time yes so

even in the stalin years

of the soviet union the soviet union

always had a bias to uh

sedentary and settled civilization and

never once acknowledged nomadic uh

nomadic forces as being anything but

parasitical so the soviets would

describe all nomadic forces in history

as basically parasites off of the

sedentary and settled civilization and

the reason they do that is because at

this time the ussr is a popular state of

the narod it's a state of the north

right it's a state of the whole people

and the people being you know

farmers and people who are sedentary for

all intensive purposes peasants and

things like that and those are not

people who are moving around and doing

crazy shit a lot right um they're a

settled civilization uh

and and that's a big source of the kind

of stalinist uh historical conservatism

in that regard but interestingly mao was

very different now mao was a guy who you

know was fighting

all over china with the long march he

was moving around a ton he created an

army that was for all intensive purposes

a nomadic army

um he engaged in a civil war with the

nationalists and he wasn't able to ever

really settle down ever and he was

really getting to the contingency of

statehood right and there's a level of

chaos and instability that's defining

the history of communist china that you

didn't actually see

in the founding of the soviet union the

founding of the soviet union was

extremely chaotic make no mistake of it

but there was still a semblance of order

and continuity even in the worst years

of the civil war at least from some

cities right

um

peasants were still tilling their land

and shit like that i mean it's true in

china as well but the political chaos

that existed in china was just far more

um far more chaotic

now uh

mao believe it or not

was a big fan of of genghis khan and mao

was much more sympathetic to these kind

of nomadic conquerors and you can

probably guess what the reason for that

was it was because of the differences

between the experience of um

i quote once more mao the nomadic system

of mongolia in central asia has been

directly linked with socialism did he

really say that that would surprise me

if he said that but

yeah it's like

this is some shit like mao would say you

know and and no one would bat an eye if

he said it because they're like oh this

is how mao is

but

when i say it it's a big problem in on

contradiction no fucking way he says

that a non-contradiction why would he

say it there let me see

on contradiction mom

uh

[Music]

what the fuck he does say it

this is pretty fucking crazy look at

this guys uh i guess you can use this as

ammunition because

why is it

why is the bouzou democratic favorite

link with the proletarians was

revolution while in france the buza

revolution was not linked to the social

illusion of the paris commune why isn't

one hand that the nomadic system on

mongolia and central asia has been

directly with socialism why is it that

the chinese revolution can avoid a

capitalist feature not be directly

you know interestingly i should say

something more on this that's pretty

fucking crazy right i didn't know he

said that but there you go i'm sure you

can find much more evidence the most

damning and incriminating evidence

yes he does that is in favor of my

argument and that's what i'm going to

get to

is well it's straight out of the horse's

mouth

actually

there's a guy named karl marx i don't

know if you're familiar with that guy

karl marx he's a famous naz bull crazy

haas guy

um but karl marx actually directly wrote

about how intriguingly the russian mere

mirror system and mind you the mers

system is the inheritance of the zardom

of muscovy

it was able to survive peter the great's

reforms of uh instituting this kind of

brutal form of serfdom but

uh the merge system that existed in

russia which was a kind of communal

peasant

form of production mar

marx wrote about it and he he was

repudiating some of the russian marxists

and

he was siding with the russian narodniks

actually marx was

because he was saying that nerodnics are

correct it is not necessary for russia

to pass

through capitalism you can leap directly

to communism and the reason marx said

that was because there were features of

russian civilization

that were already communist all that was

added remarks

and when it came to that

was

technological modernization

but in terms of the social structure

it's not necessary to pass through

capitalism it can leap right into

a modern scientific social society now i

should be very clear with my words

because these were not scientific

socialist societies

their socialism was still conceived in

you know

i should

i guess obscure i don't want to use that

heavy word obscure i should just say

unscientific forms right but it still

was a form of socials um

but yes marx referred to the russian

merge system

as indeed

uh

indeed

already basically communist hegel

interesting said that india and china

were outside the world's history and the

reason he said that and he was correct

actually

was because by history hegel is

referring to a very specific process

which put in materialist terms refers to

the development of private property

private property was never developed in

asian societies because the notion is

kind of absurd how could you have

private property if you're not the

fucking king only the sovereign owns it

owns things i mean you can you can i

mean you can have your you can be

respected to use things i guess and own

things but like let's say you know i

have a little farm is it really mine i

mean the if the king rolled up and

wanted that shit it's his right it's i'm

on his land after all and i'm in his

dominion

so it's not really mine i can't just put

my foot on the ground like this is mine

you know you can't really do that but

with

the historical process hegel is

describing

you do have the increasing development

of this kind of right to private

property and the way in which this

enters into tension

with the sovereign i mean the greek

city-states the roman republic

so-called feudalism right

and obviously capitalism all of these

things

um

are corresponding

indeed

to um

all these things are not happening in

the asian societies they're not

happening there every dynasty in asia

took it for granted that you know

it's stupid to think you can have

private property it's still they're

correct it's it is actually fucking

stupid which is why communism

is winning and china is winning because

yes history as described by hegel was in

a series of misunderstandings mistakes

and um

accidents

one sec

isn't it nice to learn some shit for a

change isn't it nice to learn some shit

for a change i mean like in a week i bet

you guys haven't been there's no

streamers that are taught you know well

now there are there's like you know

jackson jimmy door those type of people

but besides that and especially on

twitch there's really nothing going on i

mean hassan is not gonna teach you shit

he's just gonna fucking watch hell's

kitchen or some shit or master chip

right

yeah engels said that the ruling class

in the asiatic motor production was a

political administrative elite yes very

true another thing

one of the reasons the soviets repressed

and discarded marx's notion of the

asiatic mode of production

it is speculated to believe actually

because scandalously

it actually resembled the soviet system

itself

it actually resembled the soviet system

itself believe it or not the more you'd

entertain this notion of an asiatic mode

of production the more you have to kind

of

come to terms with the irony or the

paradox that this very much resembles

what we consider to be socialism but how

could it be socialism when it's

something that existed in the past this

defies the rigid sense of linear

progress which was actually inherited by

western social democracy it doesn't come

from marx and engels it comes from the

orthodox marxism of social democracy

which the soviet union and official

marxism leninism soviet marxism leninism

did in fact inherit