INFRARED'S THEORY OF MULTI-POLARITY

baby when you're high

Stone faces

[Music]

[Music]

thank you

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

thank you

[Music]

[Music]

there's no faces don't mind

thank you

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

thank you

foreign

[Applause]

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

thank you

fuck up

[Music]

I don't care

[Music]

[Music]

and will you be alive

[Music]

you do will I ever fall in love and if I

do will it be with you will I ever fall

in love and will you be the one for me

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

thank you

foreign

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

[Music]

I'm fine

[Music]

living things

[Music]

hey hey

[Music]

hey

[Music]

in

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

stay okay

[Music]

hey hey

[Music]

Big Time Ash

[Music]

es

[Music]

stay okay

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

next time

[Music]

this is

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

fuck up

[Music]

[Music]

I stick to some pointers in

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

come on

[Music]

[Music]

Boys in

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

ah

what the fuck is everybody doing

what is taking everybody so fucking long

to get some fucking energy in this shit

where are the goddamn Sun gorillas in

this fucking room why is there so much

low energy that I'm detecting holy shit

holy shit and everyone's gonna go why do

you take so long why did it take so long

what the fuck yesterday oh my God

someone donated 50 Subs

that's how Taco holy shit thank you so

much tactile Taco holy fuck holy fuck

why am I taking so long motherfucker I

started streaming at 6 p.m yesterday

God what did y'all show for shut the

fuck up

Street nice by the way

everybody here you have to do 40

push-ups either now or I'm giving you 10

more minutes to do 40 push-ups while you

listen to me

only you can only do it while you're

listening to me okay

second of all listen Okay

you I told y'all to do 40 push-ups I

gave you hours too I gave you two hours

to fucking do that okay no excuses no

excuses I'm sick of the low energy I'm

sick of the low energy needs to be high

energy high energy high energy constant

persistent motivation okay

we're gonna be doing a Theory stream

tonight we're gonna also be covering

some news where not only do we introduce

Theory stream we're gonna be also

covering the DeSantis interview we're

going to be watching some other stuff

we're gonna be watching the Trump speech

ah

okay everybody everybody just just calm

down home down get into the energy get

into the mood a bit all right we're

gonna be doing a late night stream

foreign

thing I'm sorry guys but holy fuck we

have a lot of

guys who who are the people who donated

memberships

uh tactile did 50.

and then William was it William who's

doing the other ones thank you so much

William I I saw five go by not sure

not sure exactly listen

okay

I just got into a fight with Nadia

I accidentally let one rip

is here she was getting my protein and

stuff giant one I let it rip we've been

fighting for 30 minutes about it that's

the truth okay you guys want to know why

I was late that's why

that's why okay

been a long fight

okay and what what can I say backtrack

this is this oh yeah by the way

backtrack I saw that original 10. thank

you so much for the 10 Nation appreciate

you so much backtrack appreciate you all

right and this is why there was a fight

because it wasn't like I did not

accident I let it rip it was really loud

super disrespectful

um and I'm I'm just not used to having

to hold in my parts for anyone but you

know that's hot that's life that's life

so y'all want to know why this shit's

been late y'all heard why it's late okay

y'all heard why it's like all right

anyway

we have an excellent Theory stream today

we have an excellent stream coming up

for you guys today it's gonna be a lit

as fuck stream and then we might top it

all off at the very end

depending on the energy level that I

detect in the chat with some ultimate

epic battle simulator doing that crazy

shit we were doing live thank you so

much backtrack

we're off to a good start today

I'm on that Mr Krabs grind set you see

I'm a greedy grifter

and I'm just I'm just like yeah there's

a lot of money to be made in this

streaming business give me money give me

money so listen

aside from the Mr Crab stuff aside from

Mr Crab stuff we actually have some

important theory that I want to talk

about and I want to discuss with you

guys

because first and foremost

I think I'm gonna just be in this right

now I'm not going to install any further

listen you know

we are witnessing events unfold and this

is fucking crazy right I should be like

a 50 viewer 50 000 viewers streamer

right now

with the recent meeting and landing of

China in Russia Xi Jinping meeting with

Putin

with the further consolidation and Rise

of the multipolar world I'm taken back

to when I did my first infrared streams

in early 2021 where we were seriously

discussing multi-polarity we were saying

Russia and China

are seriously challenging the unipolar

world order and we're entering into a

new era of multi-polarity and I had so

many fucking leftists in my chat

you know I don't want to name names but

I remember one guy from Germany who was

like so oh my God what do you mean you

mean Putin is actually fighting against

America no he's not

and there was so much like pushback from

with this angle we were coming from of

Marxism leninism in the age of

multi-polarity on the post-covered world

right so I feel like I should take this

opportunity as we're witnessing the

unprecedented consolidation of

multipolarity

a year after the special military

operation and you know within the few

weeks of President Xi Jinping

beating with Vladimir Putin

and and now everyone can see it's

happening right so how did we get here

and why is Marxism and Marxism leninism

in particular in the western context at

least

lagged so far behind

now before I have any further Ado guys I

gotta blow my nose

oh fuck's sake okay

looks like all right we're good so I

want to kind of take this as a throwback

going to the very beginning and I want

to start talking about infrared's unique

Theory and understanding of

multipolarity because believe it or not

guys as I've said multiple times before

infrared has been consistent from day

one we've never changed our views on

anything so far we have been pretty much

entirely consistent about what we're

about where we're coming from every

single controversy we've been embroiled

in and everything that makes us

contentious and controversial from

the whole uh culture politics thing to

the Maga communism thing all stems from

our unique understanding of Marxism

leninism in the age of multi-polarity

and the post-covered world now that one

we're not going to talk about that much

today because it's not really a main

item of today's discussion but

multi-polarity has a deeper significance

than most people understand so I want to

start this by pointing out some common

misconceptions about what multi-polarity

is about

cybernetics you want to come on to

debate feel free

get in show q and you can debate

getting show Q in the Discord and you

can debate gladly

I will debate I will debate you on this

topic right now no problem okay

now

um

a lot of people confuse multi-polarity

for simply the diffusion of power

the idea that instead of one hegemon

ruling there's multiple competing

hegemons a lot of people like to compare

multipolarity to the situation of the

world wars right the first world war the

second world war or even the competition

between the various European Empires and

the gunpowder age or Beyond

that is not what multi-polarity is

multi-polarity goes much deeper than

that to understand what multi-polarity

is you have to understand what a

polarity is polarities don't simply

refer at least in my understanding

of what distinguishes the current ERA

from past eras to centers of power

a handful of European countries

competing over the world doesn't

constitute multi-polarity it perhaps

constitutes for various Powers competing

for the mantle of a single polarity

but these are not different polarities

in and of themselves and in their own

right

to me

and within my understanding I'm

extremely congested right now guys so

you have to forgive me in my

understanding into my estimation

I'm so sorry guys I'm so fucking

congested you wouldn't believe

anyway

multi-polarity rather refers to

a more of a kind of uh in the same sense

that you're talking about the for

example magnetic polarities right

polarities that are created

um

in the sense even in the physical sense

of magnetism right so for example if you

if you believe in the traditional model

of the globe it doesn't matter if it's

real or not I'm not here to offend the

flat earthers

but if you believe in that

just as an abstract thought experiment

the idea is that under the Earth's crust

there are convection currents occurring

below the Earth's crust in the uh the

Earth's mantle

I get that correctly right

and those convection currents uh produce

a magnetic polarity between for example

North and South

and

to me polarity is about the way in which

the convection currents of civilization

are producing these

civilizational polarities right these

orientations polarity doesn't

necessarily refer to a center or I mean

maybe it refers to a center but it

doesn't necessarily refer to a state

it doesn't necessarily refer to a

country it doesn't necessarily refer to

a great power even a lot of the times in

my view a polarity can refer to a power

that has not yet asserted itself on the

political level

I think turkey might be a good example

of this I think it's very clear in the

Middle East there's some kind of post

ottoman polarity that has not really

been successfully given political form

right in some kind of great power or a

great Empire right so I want to broaden

the understanding of polarity in a

somewhat unconventional way

by taking polarity to mean something

deeper than just power it's not just

power it's not just geopolitical

hegemony

it can it's also that but it's not just

that polarity is referring to some

deeper Force right

some deeper compulsion or influence that

is higher than the politics of the

nation-state exerted by the organic

process of the reproduction of definite

civilization and civilizational spheres

so the reproduction process is clear

from Marxism right Marxism is talking

about modes of production

you know how social communities how

human communities reproduce themselves

materially

through these different relationships to

some overall process of social

production

and my view

which is coming from a Marxist lens and

a Marxist angle by the way if it wasn't

already obvious

is simply that polarity

um refers to not only the traditional

Marxist mode of production

which usually was only taken in the

sense of some kind of specific

technological Paradigm right is

something very unique to English

industrial capitalism

which served as the ultimate point of

reference for understanding all previous

modes of production right

to me

polarities

go beyond modes of production

in the narrow classical Marxist sense of

the word

by also referring to the ways in which

norms for example are reproduced

um culture gets reproduced Traditions

are reproduced that's why infrared seems

like it's so right wing when it comes to

cultural politics

because we don't just view things like

for example traditional gender relations

as arbitrary constructs

created for the purposes of Oppression

we think that there are Unwritten mores

unspoken rules of social intercourse

that are not reducible to some kind of

ideology or some kind of design or some

kind of Oppression but refer to some

deeper civilizational reality that's why

infrared seems so reactionary and

conservative because we're not on board

with the left's agenda or the left's

agenda you should call it

which is doing something pretty

psychotic which is trying to reduce all

of our spontaneous natural social

relations or sorry cultural relations to

some kind of Nefarious Ideology Now

Lenin by the way I think implicitly

agrees with me I think Marxist leninist

never took the time to address this but

I think they always took it for granted

I'll give you some evidence for that

Lenin in his State and Revolution said

that one the state dissolves and there's

going to be a withering way of the state

and the state will no longer be

necessary anymore

how will rules be enforced and he uses

the example of well if you a woman is

being attacked on the street obviously

people on the street are going to

intervene to to help the Woman based on

just basic Norms of civilization

Lenin was referring to the deeper Moors

and deeper Norms of civilization that go

beyond politics Beyond ideology and

Beyond

the state pers proper beyond the modern

State Beyond modern relations things

that are just deeper that were never

questioned or taken for granted if you

study Soviet culture

it's very clear they have an

understanding and a respect for that

kind of reality Soviet literary figures

even the Soviet state constantly makes

reference to the culture and norms and

traditions of the Soviet people in a way

that you you know makes it seem like

they're just natural and just should be

taken for granted completely

right

you know

um

the fact that women uh you know

for example

have longer hair

than men do

was not something that Soviet uh you

know

leaders were calling into question and

saying oh my God this is the result of

patriarchy I mean there is an

understanding there were cultural mores

and Norms that were deeper

than politics right these are the deeper

norms and mores of civilization

there are examples of Communists trying

to intervene at the level of culture to

make it more communistic of course there

are

but

the success or failure of that probably

depended on how much it reflected

again how much it was commensurate with

a deeper reality of the people that

could not in fact be controlled could

not in fact be completely decided and

determining this culminates in the

cultural revolution in China

where on the one hand you have in the

cities

this attempt to completely recreate

every aspect of humanity from scratch to

conform with the Revolutionary ideology

which was obviously a disastrous failure

on the other hand in the countryside a

different thing was going on where

on the one hand they were taking the you

know traditional modern Revolution thank

you Psy op shorty traditional Chinese

relations for granted

while using and seizing upon the

cultural revolution as an opportunity to

create

peasant-based forms of political power

right so it was a completely opposite

kind of thing if you want to understand

more of that watch our video on it the

unknown cultural revolution

there's also an um a book written by

dong ping Han

so anyway

um by the way a lot of people will say

okay but Haas weren't there a lot of

other cultural practices but thank you

so much ben I appreciate you are you

referring to the ecological theory of

modes of reproduction how does the

Marxist leninist view of ecology differ

from the eco-feminist one thank you so

much Bernard it is it is ecological in a

sense now ecology was originally a

branch of cybernetics

ecology is not it sounds like a horrific

ugly disgusting word and it is because

of how it's used today but ecology comes

from the root word Oikos which was

referring to these Greek units of

household subsistence in the Greek

domestic household economy the Oikos the

way of reproduction the way of living

and cybernetics which is dealing with

systems and how systems can be

reproduced and how you know

um all the stuff about feedback loops

and how you know instead of just dealing

with

variables where you just have like okay

X variable versus Y and you just create

this

um

uh static binary opposition cybernetics

did with cybernetics

brought to the table was being able to

formally

conceive of how these oppositions could

be reproduced right

that's where all the algorithm stuff and

the AI stuff that's going on I mean it

all comes down comes back to cybernetics

so ecology which you is usually

associated with some kind of like

primitive environmentalism actually is a

branch of cybernetics which is also

associated with the most advanced

technology of humanity right which is

the information age or the computer age

so yes it is a it is a kind of

ecological view except my understanding

doesn't reduce ecology to some narrow

sphere of for example natural

reproduction outside of humanity and

outside of the social realm it also

isn't concerned with purely the domestic

household economy that the feminists are

concerned with

um because in the case of feminists it's

not really an ecological view it's it's

still this kind of pre-ecological theory

of

um domination and hierarchy which they

just try to kind of flesh out with

kind of hard to think right

with ecology but yeah more or less I can

get to how it's different in a moment I

just want to flesh out

wear this whole thing about Marxism

leninism in the age of multipolarities

coming from why that has gotten us into

hot water with the American left and how

you need to have a new understanding of

Marxism leninism can't just refer

blindly to the old texts of the past

which which never had to deal with this

issue because they always took a great

rest thanks so much meaningful future

U.S multi-polar strategy should embrace

a Pan-American sphere of influence from

Anchorage to Buenos Aires I agree I

disagree

um now I can explain why I disagree

in a moment uh because multi-polarity is

not just about geography it's about

definite relations and bonds of

civilization

there probably will be multiple polls

that Encompass the Americas because

they're all called the Americas doesn't

mean you can just amalgamate

every state on this continent into one

kind of polar sphere right

I mean I go so as far as to say is

there's clearly a different poll in

Central America than the one that exists

for example around Peru right so

with the Incan Empire and stuff so I I

would not be Reckless when it comes to

applying the theory of multi-polarity I

am not a big fan of pan-americanism

General very skeptical of it but thank

you so much for the five though I

appreciate it

but okay so to continue what I was

saying

continue what I was saying a lot of

people will try to call what I say into

question by saying well Haas didn't

Communists eliminate a lot of

traditional practices like foot binding

and other things that were simply taken

for granted and so that I would say you

don't understand how norms and cultural

mores worked the more or the cultural

norm is not necessarily about his or

that practice

by the time for example foot binding

becomes contentious it could no longer

be meaningfully understood as a you know

unconscious cultural more maybe it

served that purpose at a previous state

but when it acquires this new

significance amidst modernity where

people are like okay it's kind of stupid

that we're doing this to our feet

pointless the meaning that used to

inherent it is gone right so before in

the past foot binding may have contained

some

deep substantial unconscious meaning or

Chinese civilization but after the you

know the Modern Age

um where the Chinese for example are

taking a Critical examination at their

own civilization

that meaning is no longer bounded up in

that practice right

the practice ceases to be a necessary

medium for the reproduction of Chinese

civilization it doesn't mean Chinese

civilization gets eliminated it doesn't

mean the norms and culture and

traditions of Chinese civilization are

gone on the contrary the essence of

tradition gets to survive in a more

fundamental way because the foot binding

practice just as uses as an example no

longer becomes an essential medium

for the reproduction of the Chinese

traditional Civilization now what is

traditional civilization is it reducible

to every single specific practice that

exists across history no

I would say that I would try to Define

civilizational traditions

as

nothing more than the unconscious

relations

of association between people thank you

so much emila appreciate you you can my

teacher I hope you have a conversation

with him dug in base I I am I hope so as

well I've been trying to uh arrange that

for a long time and I'll I'll uh try

again one day but um yeah I I would love

to speak to Dugan I'm

someone who I have been openly very

inside

never been a secret

obviously

um anyway

continue what I was saying

uh

the unconscious what matters about

civilization is that it's unconscious

not that it establishes some kind of

unbroken relationship to the Past

obviously the Norms of civilization do

change but what doesn't change is

how civilization comes to be defined

by

the ability to reproduce a difference

between for example

the products of conscious thinking and

things that are unspoken and unconscious

it's not it doesn't matter necessarily

the content of civilization as much as

it matters the form

the content can always change of course

but the form doesn't change the form

meaning the fact of some kind of

implicitly and unconsciously recognized

way in which human beings associate with

one another and why we talk about one

Chinese civilization across history

despite all the various changes is

because

we are talking about the evolution of a

historically defined Community a

specific historically defined community

which can change of course but the way

in which it changes is part of the

history and that's what matters

that's the important thing about

civilization

civilization doesn't mean thank you so

much Sartorius appreciate you

civilization doesn't mean

that every single practice becomes

arbitrarily defended in the name of

historical

based tradition thank you so much about

how we should get a new understand of

Marxism leninism rather than focusing on

Old Marxist leninist texts all the time

is based yes and the reason you have to

do that is because the old Marxist

leniness did not write anything about

the new scenario we're facing today they

wrote nothing about it now it's

important to familiarize yourself with

the Canon of Marxism leninism to

understand how they responded to their

historical situation and derived from

there a logos a Marxist landiness logos

right but

there is no precedent for the

application of that logos to this era

today in 2023

so we are at a unique moment of

multi-polarity which no Marxist leninist

thinkers have ever written anything

about World War one was not a

multi-polar era World War II was not a

multi-polar era Lenin's theory of

imperialism didn't describe

multipolarity it described a handful of

European countries that were competing

for the mantle of a future polarity

there was not even any real polarity to

speak of

maybe until let's say the 1960s right

so

that's the important thing to recognize

and understand

so to continue

um

by the way we're gonna be doing the

patreon Q a sometime in the next few

days

uh

our reactionary politics quote unquote

and

the accusation I'm kind of repeating

things I've talked about before it's

just we recognize okay this is this is

uh what I want to speak to

so if we recognize that civilizations

can change and are clearly not Eternal

why are we so critical of leftist

progressivism why are we so critical of

all the progressive changes that are

occurring to eliminate these or that

norms and rules and so on and so forth

I'll tell you why

in the case of things like foot binding

you were talking about a specific form

of the physiological mutilation of women

right

and in the case of the destruction of

relations of domination and bondage and

slavery you're talking about

practices which infringed upon the basic

minimal modern freedoms of human beings

but in today's era leftists and liberal

progressivism doesn't actually concern

itself with

the conditions of the liberation of any

modern subject it's not like they're

saying yes we want to get rid of this

practice that is constraining people's

um ability to exercise

uh their freedom within the the modern

sense of the word

it's not like they're saying for example

we want to eliminate this

oppression

uh of people over other people

that is arbitrary and is a

obstacle

the people's ability to be the subject

of some Modern Universal State we

already have a modern Universal State we

already have the freedoms of modernity

and we already have a a full

the final actually I would say

consolidation of the modern subject

today's left Liberals are concerned with

imposing new norms and new regulations

governing the interactions between human

beings that are no longer about

eliminating old ones that stood in the

way of the Liberties of the modern

subject but imposing new constraints

on the basis of this idea that our

unconscious and Unwritten mores are

themselves

forms of Oppression

the very fact of them being Unwritten

and unconscious somehow makes them the

nefarious result of some kind of

Oppression or some kind of patriarchy or

something like that that is why we

reject the progressivism

it's not a form of modern progress

it's a form of the imposition of some

kind of like post-modern arbitrary

false and artificial Norms purely

contrived on a conscious basis which

have no concern or regard for how

relations between people actually

develop in the organic sense of the word

a good example of this is the pronoun

thing I know it seems Petty and kind of

um silly to base one's entire politics

or stance around something like that but

I'm just going to use it as an example

here right the whole thing about

pronouns

Okay so

thank you so much Patriot when it comes

to bolivarianism is this idea slash

movement distinct from pan-americanism

because it is specific to the context of

the Hispanic Caribbean Pole

polavarianism is clearly different from

an americanism include Canada

um

but I think let's before we get excited

about finding different polls let's get

more clarity on what a poll actually is

because not a lot of people understand

that a lot of people are quick to assume

again that a poll is just referring some

aggregation of power just some kind of

regional power at just some kind of big

Power right and that's not what a poll

is a poll needs to be more carefully and

understood and more precisely understand

give me a moment because my Noise Gate

is fucking disgusting right now

okay

all right

I got rid of that stupid Noise Gate now

I could talk better without having to uh

worry about not being heard okay

so

the whole pronoun thing right

clearly that's different than

getting rid of foot binding practice

foot binding for example was a form of

the physiological mutilation of women

okay

whereas pronouns are forcing people to

uh

disclose their pronouns before meeting

them is a completely artificial and

arbitrary new norm and new practice

that is

it's like wanting your cake and wanting

to the two you're fantasizing about this

existing as a social Norm it doesn't

actually exist as a real organic social

Norm it's something purely artificially

contrived

on the conscious level

that is supposed to Signal some kind of

um

some kind of uh

political loyalty it's a completely

contrived arbitrary practice it would be

the it's like the equivalent of trying

to create a new foot binding practice

and imposing it on people right

so that's the problem I have and we have

with the liberal left progressivism of

the current day it's not the same thing

as the progressivism of the Communists

in the 20th century it's a type of

progressivism that is trying to invent

civilization from scratch

in a way that just doesn't work it

functionally doesn't work marxistent

Communists never tried to create

civilization from scratch on a conscious

and contrived basis

and if you're going to do that by the

way you may as well go so far as the

Soviet and Russian avant-garde which did

actually try to kind of do that and

really mean it like they were think like

let's completely create a new man from

scratch from a pure zero if you do that

at least the result will be interesting

but what you have today with the liberal

left is this confused attempt to

selectively decide

which Norms are going to be completely

invented from scratch and which ones are

going to be overturned not on the basis

of any responsible or Earnest attempt to

experiment with what it's like to create

a new man as in the case of the Soviet

avant-garde

but in an opportunistic way that when

you actually analyze it ends up

mutilating and decapitating

the masculine component of the

proletariat the masculine ability to

Rebel the masculine ability to question

authority

and to challenge the ruling Elites and

the ruling power that be

they will never go so far as to do what

the Soviet avant-garde did they're only

going to kind of

blackmail us with an alleged arbitrary

it's like it's like an arbitrary

cultural dictatorship

they're basically saying okay all of our

cultural norms are completely arbitrary

they're completely bullshit

but on the other hand they want to pick

and choose which ones they're going to

overthrow

denounce as oppressive oppressed sorry

oppressive

now if you go so far in Academia

you end up getting people who say things

like math is an oppressive Colonial

construct

and they will go so far as to literally

say every single thing you can think of

about humanity is some arbitrary result

of Oppression

the problem with this is that you're not

even getting any coherent notion of new

man you're not getting a coherent notion

of a new Humanity

you're getting a

preservation of the Bourgeois form of

humanity

that merely makes various arbitrary

improvisions it's almost as if we live

in a liberal democracy

that wants to constantly make arbitrary

emergency dictatorial Provisions like

what macron is doing in France and then

when you call them and they say oh well

this is just like the proletarian

dictatorship no it's not a proletarian

dictatorship is a singular open

dictatorship it is openly evolving

itself as a proletarian dictatorship

it's not saying that we are a liberal

democracy it's a proletarian

dictatorship that's the Baseline

but in Liberal democracy you

increasingly see this constant reference

to improvisation these constant

arbitrarily contrived

transgressions over the norm

and that's what liberal leftism is it's

a state of transgression over the basic

Bourgeois subject it's still the

Bourgeois subject but it has all of

these creative universities it's

supposed to be the Ultimate Logos but it

just represents the final extension of

the their will thus completely separated

from Universal reality very true thank

you so much Chris for the donation by

the way I really appreciate that

but yeah that's kind of what we're

talking about you know

um

it's kind of what we're talking about

but

all right I'm gonna wrap this lecture up

because clearly there's not a big uh

interest in it

based thank you so much what about Che

guevara's concept of the new man though

is it different from the Soviet concept

I'm not really familiar with Shay's

concept

per se but um

I'm gonna wrap up this lecture let's say

in the next 20 or 10 minutes and then

we're gonna go over to the new DeSantis

interview and just react to some content

because uh

it's pretty clear to me that it's not

that interesting to people

but anyway

to kind of get to the point of what I'm

getting at here

so much cross multipolarity is a

futuristic project for organizing the

world order on completely new principles

and axioms on which modernity is based

on

I somewhat agree that that is what it is

for powers like Russia and China

but multi-polarity is not just a project

and it's certainly not something based

on principles or axioms

I understand with the spirit of what

you're saying and in the spirit of what

you're saying is true

but I'm trying to understand

multi-polarity in a deeper way in a

deeper sense

anyway

to sit to try and continue to simplify

what I'm saying

when we infrared began this as Marxism

leninism in the age of multi-polarity in

the post-covered world

what is the real significance of Marxism

leninism here

well and and why are we so different

than Marxist leninus like the Communist

Party of Greece or like red lips like

Hakeem who I don't even know if they

claim to be mls in their Trotsky is for

something

well I'll tell you why

communism

has always been understood Marxism has

always been understood as

internationalists it's always been

understood as concerned with the

withering away of the state

the withering away of classes the

withering away of

uh

basically the arrival of this new

reality right a completely new and

unprecedented future

over the past the elimination of

religion and so on and so forth it had

always been understood that way right

now as far as Marxism and legendism was

concerned

around

1928 in the Soviet Union

there was a spirit of

acceptance

because throughout the entirety of the

1920s the Bolsheviks were basically

coping with the failure of the World

Revolution

see in Orthodox Marxism there was always

a theory that the proletarian Revolution

was going to be this mythological event

as outlined in The Communist Manifesto

that would result in this simultaneous

worldwide Global Revolution

happening in all the capitals of all of

the advanced capitalist countries where

it in fact it was expected to take root

and the proletariat was going to take

charge

and completely conquer

the world right beginning in the most

advanced countries where the proletariat

was the most advanced and there's going

to be this worldwide simultaneous

proletarian Revolution

so in the October Revolution when many

of the Bolsheviks were planning on the

October Revolution after

the February Revolution

and Lenin wrote his April thesis there

was an expectation among the Bolsheviks

and this was part of a lot of their

internal polemics

that the October Revolution was going to

light a fire and that fire was going to

spread all across Europe and that's

going to create communism basically and

that's what a lot of them were banking

on

otherwise the revolution is going to

fail okay well uh a very bloody and

gruesome Civil War was fought after the

October Revolution

again a revolution that's beginning in

the most backward

country in Europe by the way

and in the 1920s

there's the establishment of the Soviet

Union

and Lenin immediately before he dies

says

look it's clear we're not

going to see any Revolution happen in

Europe

and it's a situation of total

hopelessness but Lenin says what if in

this

situation of total hopelessness

the requisites of civilization

can be pursued in a way different from

modern Europe what if we can build the

requisites for civilization and Lenin

always understood civilization in the

sense of modern civilization modernity

what if these could be found in the East

and in Asia in a diff What if we can

pursue a different path to civilization

than the European one he said what if

out of the total hopelessness of the

situation

we have found the very key

to a new future

so Lenin dies and Bolsheviks are dealing

with this despair Revolution didn't

spread it's contained Soviet Union is

totally isolated in front of the whole

world

and they don't know what to make of the

situation so there emerges multiple

factions in the Soviet Union that are

trying to respond to the situation

Trotsky is still coping trotsky's a

fucking mad man that guy's crazy Trotsky

saying nope there's no hopelessness this

the the the revolution's not lost

what we need to do is double down on

this Urban dictatorship we need to reign

in the peasants in the countryside

establish a super industrialization

which is basically we're going to

basically enslave these peasants at

gunpoint using the military to keep them

at Bay and forcefully industrialize them

totally at gunpoint from the top down

and then use Soviet Russia as a

launching pad to forcefully export the

revolution thanks so much Todd polarity

exists wherever there is civilizational

dissent against post-liberalism as a

universal practice a it's not some

inevitable phenomenon your lectures are

your best content infrared Rising thank

you so much talk I appreciate you

appreciate you for that

uh let me

so Trotsky is copen Trotsky thinks

that hold on we can still keep going

with this

the October Revolution is not over

basically the revolution's not over we

need to spread it spread it spread it or

else the whole thing is a failure

and

that becomes the left opposition

within the Bolshevik party after Landon

dies right I'm gonna let this donation

go through before I continue

I hate streamlabs so fucking much I just

I fucking hate it so fucking much

right

it's such it's so fucking takes so

fucking long to register these super

chats through stream labs

thank you so much I'll take appreciate

you everything everywhere all at once is

a trotsky-eyed movie yeah I'm not

watching that movie I fucking hate it

so trotsky's coping he doesn't think the

revolution's over

so on the other hand I'm not going to

get into bukharan

because that's a whole uh

it's not necessarily relevant here

because the Karen also understood the

Revolution was over right

but bukharans if you want to know

bukharan's position in like 10 seconds

bukharin basically thought I agree the

revolution's Lost

so we need to basically surrender

to International capital

and hope for the best and that's pretty

much bukharan's position forget about

building socialism let's just totally

surrender and let the laws of Economics

carry us forward even if it destroys the

proletarian dictatorship that's the will

of history and so be it so that's

bukharan's position

and on the other hand the Stalin line

which in my view

is the successor to the spirit of Lenin

that's

that's Lenin that's Lenin's contribution

so Trotsky and bukharan you could say

come from some Twisted reading of the

classical Marxism or the Orthodox

Marxism but they all neglected Lenin's

unique contribution to Marxism and my

view is that Stalin was the only one to

take note of the fact that you know what

this is not just the old Marxism

Lenin made an independent contribution

to Marxism

and that's why he called it Marxism

leninism

so what was Stalin's heresy what did

Stalin do

Stalin looked at the failure of the

Revolution to spread

and what Stalin said is yes

it failed

and because it failed now we can finally

succeed now we can actually give an

expression to its real purpose we can

derive its actual purpose

Stalin derived the theory of socialism

in one country

that

socialism is not going to be

simultaneous and Global and all

happening at once it's going to be

something

that is built within one country

and

there can be an anticipation that in the

future it will spread but that's owing

to the internal laws of

history as they find expression in each

and every country

Stalin was skeptical of the idea of

exporting the revolution he was

skeptical of the idea of exporting the

revolution because he was a real

leninist

he understood that yes communism may be

inevitable and yes it will be an

international Revolution but it's not

going to happen all at once why because

each country has different levels of

development and each country exists in

different stages of development and

there isn't one simultaneous Global

state that is an index of global history

so if you want Stalin is a a forerunner

to the theory of multipolarity just in

terms of his understanding of how

socialism is going to be an

international Revolution he doesn't

interpret it that okay it's all going to

happen at once simultaneously for Stalin

the revolution will result as the inevit

uh as a result of the inevitable laws of

history but those laws are National

informed those laws will find their

expression independently

in each and every country so Stalin's

basically saying we expect that

eventually

for example France will become a

communist country

but we're not going to force it on

France we expect it to happen because of

the laws of history but we're not in a

position to forcefully make that happen

by exporting the revolution because why

because the French country is embedded

within a specific history

a specific civilization if you get where

I'm getting at right that

uh possesses its own inner logic

and

the terms and conditions of the

development of Communism will obey that

logic okay

so that's Stalin's contribution with

socialism in one country

now where does infrared come into the

picture it comes from a specific

interpretation of Marxism leninism where

we're looking at the Historical

experience and we're saying okay there

was also this idea

in this anticipation that the family was

going to be uh reorganized in a communal

way

that did not happen

so in countries like the Soviet Union

and other Communist States what happened

they surrendered

they surrendered to this reality just

like they surrender to the reality of

socialism in one country

and then you go so far

as

to get to someone like Deng Xiaoping

where okay look

we thought

that by transforming culture

we were going to guarantee

you know the um

permanent revolution internal revolution

of socialism

right we already had our socialist

revolution in China we already have our

proletarian dictatorship in China

and the cultural revolution

was supposed to answer the question of

where is socialism what is socialism

right

in China

many people don't know this but as a

result of the organic development of the

commune system that was established

under Mao okay China was heading to the

direction of

forms of small accumulation happening

now that's different from bukhari

bukharan just wanted to surrender the

proletarian dictatorship what I'm trying

to say is in in China after they did the

Great Leap Forward after they had the

proletarian dictatorship totally

consolidated

there was an organic economic tendency

emerging that

saw to the rise of smaller forms of

accumulation

and many interpret this this to mean the

restoration of capitalism and a lot of

the cultural revolution was about

preventing the restoration of capitalism

in its later years

especially Mao who said you know right

now in China it would be easy to make

capitalism quote unquote he thought of

it it was capitalism because the

tendency of Market relations small-scale

accumulation and so on and so forth was

emerging in China so Mao said right now

and this was like the right before he

died in the

in the 70s and this was the end of the

cultural revolution he was saying it

would be easy to make capitalism right

now right

and that's what he was saying

so

Mao started this campaign within China

called what does it mean

for

the proletarian dictatorship

to oppress the bourgeoisie when we don't

have a bourgeoisie anymore

and Mao basically because Mao was

looking at a um a quotation from Lenin

and Lenin was saying something like the

purpose of the proletarian dictatorship

was to repress the Bourgeois element in

capitalism and this is the end of the

cultural revolution and Mao's sitting

there he's going okay we've gotten rid

of the bourgeoisie there's no

bourgeoisie in China anymore so what's

the purpose of the proletarian

dictatorship and Mao was saying this

question we need to answer it because

the implication is that there is going

to be a bourgeoisie under the

proletarian dictatorship there will be

some kind of capitalism under the

proletarian dictatorship and that the

proletarian dictatorship will serve the

purpose of just keeping the Bourgeois

element at Bay

and Mao was disturbed by this conclusion

and he started a national campaign for

people to study this sentence basically

and its implications because he said

right now in China it'd be easy for

capitalism to be created right

and that was disturbing Mao to some

extent

so Deng Xiaoping comes to the fore and

what does Deng Xiaoping do he does the

same thing Stalin did just as Stalin

understood and we need to have socialism

in one country the revolution's not

going to spread elsewhere Deng Xiaoping

also understood that we cannot

permanently keep at Bay the tendency of

small accumulation we have to unleash

the productive forces not only in the

sense of unleashing Technology but

unleashing the actual organic Tendencies

inclinations and economic relations

occurring at the smallest microscopic

level we need to unleash this instead of

constantly repressing it and

artificially keeping it at Bay with this

cultural

Revolution

stuff right

we need to allow this Force to unleash

it's almost like China right the

cultural revolution was like this great

dam and there's a lot of water that the

dam is blocking right

that water is the Tendencies of the

market forces and small accumulation

happening in China

the gang of four and you know

um Mao's wife

including Mao's wife wanted to just keep

not only keep that Dam but even

Consolidated Deng was seeing that you

know this is killing our country

we're on a road to nowhere China can't

survive like this

we're gonna end up just like the Soviets

and

you know the Socialist block of total

stagnation forever so dang said we need

to bring the dam down unleash the water

and somehow control it

in a cybernetic way instead of a direct

way of just stopping it

so dang was saying unleash

the relations of production

that's what releasing the productive

forces meant unleashing the productive

forces also entailed unleashing the

productive relations

that

unleashing the ability for the

productive relations to actually

Express themselves in a way reflective

of their actual material state

China's material relations of production

were being repressed they were being

artificially repressed right through

these artificial systems like for

example the donway system which was like

a system of workers control

in the cities that was a totally

artificial managerial construct that

didn't actually reflect the actual

subconscious relations of production

that existed in China at the time

relations of production which did entail

a specific

economic relationship between people

that you saw for example in Black

markets and under the rug and with

various you know informs of corruption

and so on and so forth real material

relations of production are not things

you can establish by Fiat politically

they exist unconsciously okay

so Deng Xiaoping

with his notion of unleashing the forces

of production and his Market performs

the reform and opening up that's really

what the opening up meant many people

think opening up is about the open

Society of Soros no opening up is about

unleashing something we've kept closed

that's what opening up means it doesn't

mean let's absorb

uh you know um

the progressive West it means let's open

up our potentials when we've been

keeping them artificially straight

jacketed in the name of ideology

so that's the important thing to

understand with Deng Xiaoping

so

where does infrared fit within this

scheme why are we called fascists so

often and in terms of theory at least

what do so Stalin Deng Xiaoping and then

has Aldine the three heads I'm just

kidding I'm not I don't have that

pretension so just to be clear that's a

joke

but I do think that I am at least on to

something

that

uh

is comparable to

socialism in one country and what Dang

Xiaoping did but for me it's political

Theory right

I'm gonna let Chris's donation go

forward first so I don't lose my track

my train of thought

foreign

Village policy that already had started

in the

1977 on time frame it was a spontaneous

form of accumulation that came directly

from the communes it was already the

basis yep that because I I because I

read the economic history of China to

understand this years ago and it's very

clear it was an organic development

but um

okay so for me

this is where Hazeldean enters the

picture

with the rise of the so-called

authoritarian autocracies

many Marxist leninists are reluctant to

acknowledge the legacy of the

proletarian dictatorship to be clear

the tradition of political autocracy

that we're seeing in China and in Russia

it's called autocracy I'm just vaguely

authoritarianism right

that is directly the result of the

legacy of the proletarian dictatorship

now principled Marxist leninis who are

really distrosky is

we'll say something like okay

the proletarian dictatorship was

something

that

we had safe sorry the proletarian

dictatorship was this necessary evil so

for example under Stalin yeah there was

a proletarian dictatorship but the

content that wasn't a form in it for its

own sake the content of it was the

eventual withering away of the state and

having the anarchist Chas commute the

stalinist dictatorship is just a means

to an ends it's just some kind of

blemish it's some kind of embarrassment

some kind of necessary evil right rather

than something reflective of any

objective

laws of history or anything on the

nature holy shit thanks so much for the

Ray jackson appreciate you so much

we're in the middle of a really

really boring political Theory stream

right now so you're gonna have to

forgive me for that

thank you so much for the Ray jackson

appreciate you so much man

anyway

to continue what I was saying but if you

guys like the stream if you can I'd

really appreciate if you like the stream

you know but it's up to you

but uh

Okay so

my contribution to this is that the

proletarian dictatorship

reveals

and this is why I am so associated with

fascism by Western leftists this is why

they're always accusing me of being a

right wing whatever because I can

finally come and admit that yes the

proletarian dictatorship

reflects some tendency of statecraft

that is objective

thank you so much Patriot to be true to

the spirit of Marx and Lennon we must

embrace the future world that's been

born in front of our eyes Communists are

the oracle's who Embrace and submit to

the coming future appreciate that fire

fire thank you so much so

Pro turn dictatorship

was not just some necessary evil

nor just some transitory stage

that you can just

um see as a tool a utility the

proletarian dictatorship is the

successor to the tradition of scientific

statecraft of Prussian statecraft that

is my diabolical

conclusion

and I understand this in the same vein

as the socialism in one country or dang

xiaoping's reforms it seems like a

retreat from traditional Marxism

According to which we're not a big fan

of authoritarian States

um we want the cacao being commune in

the third world indigenous tribe but my

view is different my view is that

the state

while I guess yes eventually it will

wither away it's not going to wither

away and dissolve into indigenous

Amazonian tribes Distributing cacao

beans it's going to wither Away by

becoming Superfluous but State as the

common

Humanity the common sight of humanity

real state by the way and the objective

sense of the word

uh

is

the external reality of humanity itself

the state has a primary reality even

before individual rights and

individuality and so on and so forth so

what I'm trying to do basically is

formalize the actual experience of 20th

century socialism not as a necessary

tragedy but is an actual objective

feature so to me the proletarian

dictatorship in the 20th century wasn't

just some accidental mishap and now we

need to be more democratic in the future

I mean to me I am against the Cuban

revisionist and the Vietnamese

revisionists because they're Gorbachev

socialists because according to them

the proletarian dictatorship was a uh

necessary evil and it was a mistake and

now we need to go into Democratic

socialism now we need to go into the

direction of democratic socialism I

reject that I reject the notion the

revisionist notion that Western

democracy

is historically more Progressive than

authoritarianism

to me the authoritarian proletarian

dictatorship

reflects some authentic objective

reality of the state

so I am returning Marxism leninism to

its Prussian Origins because Marx was

coming from the Prussian context himself

the by Prussian I mean depression

uh

statecraft theories science of

statecraft from klausvitz who directly

inspired Marx Engels and Lenin all the

way to the German conservative

revolutionaries like for example Carl

Schmidt and Junger who admittedly yes

made the mistake thank you so much I'll

take appreciate you

Deng is so important for Marxism

leninism it's so glaringly obvious why

he is denounced or erased by Western

Marxism why the Chinese Revolution in

its entirety till today is distorted

hordes of anime saturated leftists hate

the dialectic exactly thank you so much

Hearts I appreciate you so much yes then

Xiaoping is so so important and I will

have to do streams in the future really

kind of

hitting home and driving deeply into his

significance but

I reject the Gorbachev revisionist even

Brezhnev Khrushchev revisionist

presumption that we have to be

authoritarian thank you so much Chris

morog geopolitics is the primary because

I'm sorry I don't hate Cuba I don't hate

Vietnam I don't want them to surrender

to Liberal democracy but you need to

understand the basis of my criticism of

these revisionist states

they are saying things like we're only

authoritarian because we have to be

because uh we're forced to be at

gunpoint we're victims we would prefer

to be Democratic liberal countries like

you but we can't because we're victims

of imperialism

and I reject that fundamentally I think

the authoritarianism

of the proletarian dictatorship reflects

something let's say for lack of a better

word metaphysical

about the nature of the state I think

all states are authoritarian by nature

and they can either acknowledge that and

thereby seize upon their own sovereignty

or they can do what Gorbachev did

and suspend the responsibility to be an

authoritarian State and thereby allow

some other authoritarian power like the

globalist institutions of the West to

come fucking rob your country and take

it over see Gorbachev was a fucking

coward because he was sitting here

saying oh we don't want to be we want to

be Democratic now we want to be

Democratic socialism you motherfucker

there's going to be authoritarianism

either way it's the sky they're going to

be the authoritarianism of the

neoliberal west or it's going to be you

taking responsibility for the defense of

your own state

right so that's where I'm coming from

with when I and by the way when I say

authoritarianism I'm not talking about

macron and just oppressing your own

people I'm not talking about that I am

talking about an unabashed

People's State a Central State right

that will not surrender its sovereignty

to the open Society

I'm talking about a state

which has a determinant which is not

scared of having a determinate biased

and partisan character instead of the

democratic state which pretends to be

just this neutral medium and neutral

vessel of the people an authoritarian

State insists upon its particularity for

example the North Korean State we are

North Koreans

we are nothing else we are not some

abstract modern democratic subject we

are the Koreans

we will die for Korea along with Korea

that's North Korea that's why they're

authoritarian though because they insist

on their particularity

that's what the proletarian dictatorship

means it means we're not just some

random mishmash of people we are the

workers state to be the worker State you

need to have a state that makes

decisions without even

speaking on it let alone having an

election for it you need to have a state

that makes a decision based on the

perspective of engaged subjective

partisanship like we as the state make

this decision because it's what we are

we don't need any fucking election for

this we don't need any open institutions

and ngos to keep us in check we insist

upon our determinant in a particular

character and that is how we act as a

state to me that is the significance of

the proletarian dictatorship

it's a inheritance of the Prussian

in a Twisted way in some sense the

Prussian tradition of statecraft

it's like the Prussian response to the

French Revolution

oh you're the universal Republic no

you're not you're fucking friends you

are the French people

that's why you had to have Napoleon

because the French people need one

leader

the French people cannot simply have a

republic as their leader they need one

lead if there's one people there must be

one leader

right

so my opposition to the Hakeem marks

this leniness and all these other

Marxist Learners even before it's

cultural it's political

I don't think the proletarian

dictatorship is a fluke

just like Stalin understood socialism in

one country

I understand

that

I don't know a slogan that would be

equivalent but the state is an objective

reality look

the tsarist state

was an objective reality the Soviet

state inherited a lot of the objective

realities of the Russian Empire today's

Russian Federation despite not being

communist formally has inherited a lot

of the political realities of the Soviet

Union why because the state

is not just Skin Deep it's deeper

there's a reality of statehood

just like there's a reality of the

country that's deeper the state has a

history

just like the country has a history

now do I believe in the eventual

withering away of the state I do but

that withering away will obey the

internal logic of the internal

development of the state

I'm not talking about the state

bureaucratic Machinery by the way and

that's where the theory of

multi-polarity steps in because I think

when I'm talking about the objectivity

of the state I'm not talking about the

objectivity of its institutions and I'm

not talking about the objectivity or

even of its laws necessarily

I'm talking about the objectivity of the

state as a realization of a polarity

a definite orientation for the unity of

a people a determinate Unity of the

people a Unity of the people

that is somehow cognizant of itself

and Sovereign in the sense of Defending

itself

based then you said appreciate the state

emerge form class relations and have its

own objective independent reality

yes that's that's what it is

it's the Marxist Dogma According to

which the state is merely a tool of the

ruling class I reject that view

on the one hand that holds true for the

actual institutions of the state in

their functional reality yes but the

state let's say as this externalized

organ of the people

the unity of a people is not a tool that

is the site

of the common

reality of the people it's just like the

Anna look at krodstat after the October

Revolution

when the Bolsheviks crushed the

crowdstad sailors the anarchists

reproached the Bolsheviks and said wait

a minute I thought you're the workers

dictatorship

how can you crush the workers when

you're a worker's dictatorship

it's simple

a worker's dictatorship is a state

it's not actually the workers

individually as like the sum total of

individuals coming together and voting

on

themselves

that's not what it is it's the

externalized unity

of a working-class dictatorship that's

not reducible to individual workers at

all so if individual workers

even if all of them let's say

take up arms against the workers

dictatorship

they are assuming a partisan position

they're not simply saying oh we are the

workers no you're taking a political

position you're not just acting upon

your class reality

class is an IM is a contradiction

imminent

to the State subject

meaning

there's a subjectivity corresponding to

the state in this case it's the

universal citizen the modern citizen

right class is just a contradiction

imminent to that subjectivity class

doesn't exist at the individual level no

individual is a class okay

you are not the worker you are not the

worker you are not the worker

individually you're a guy who likes

peanut butter sitting in your underwear

and watching WWE that doesn't mean you

are the working class

you're a guy who masturbates in their

spare time and you know

who knows but you're just some

individual is what I'm trying to say

you're just an individual

class exists at the same plane

of existence as the state

it's a collective reality right

irreducible to the individuals that

comprise it

so that is my contribution to Marxism

leninism

the proletariat is a political

subjectivity

is it a Class A scientific class

relation yes but relations of production

are not even reducible to the actual

relations of production you see the

actual relations of production that

exist within Society

are the result of a more fundamental

complex of relations of production that

result from

the relationship between the state and

its premises for example now all I mean

by the state

is the common sociality of humanity for

Marx the state is the alienation of

man's common sociality but so many

liberals misunderstand Marx

they make the fundamentally wrong

assumption that Marx was trying to say

that on the one hand you have the state

and on the other hand you have

individuals no Marx said on the one hand

you have the state on the other hand you

have an organic human sociality meaning

Marx understood an objective reality of

some common unified social reality of

the people irreducible to its parts

he thought the state the modern state

was the alienated expression of that

so I'm talking about an aspect of the

state that I regard as objective not the

institution of the modern State per se

but the fact of the externalized common

Unity of the people

which exerts itself as a polarity among

individuals why because it divides

people into partisans

listen to me now

if the reality of humanity is some

external common reality

then the only way we as individuals can

relate to it is through some kind of

partiality we have to have some

partisanship that orients us toward a

position not given in our individual

existence so I'm an individual sitting

around eating peanut butter in my

underwear watching South Park

fine

what is my political subjectivity it's

partisan I have to orient toward a

position not reducible to myself

that partisanship is what defines the

social being of humanity

not just when you're sitting around on

the toilet on your phone watching tick

tock

polarity if you unders even in the sense

of magnetic polarity polarity implies

difference right polarity implies One

Direction as opposed to another right

that is what polarity is

that is what polarity is

polarity is referring to a specific

orientation when I say the reproduction

of a civilization I'm referring to a

specific

orientation of the common some specific

common sociality of humanity so to to

sum this lecture up to you okay

in Old Marxism

the idea is that okay it's all

capitalism it's all one mode of

production no I reject that to me the

mode of production is in one country

which means

the polarity implies

that our embeddedness within some

specific social community

is not give it there are different

histories there are different social

communities there are different modes of

production there are different logos of

production it's not one only one world

there are different worlds it's what I'm

trying to say

in some sense like

in Old Marxism the idea is simply that

okay it's one mode of production

everyone's within the light capitalism

or something right and then I'm here

saying that's not how modes of

production work

they're not given a historically

constituted people is not given

and not today in today's world is taking

the form of

the historical constitution of humanity

takes the form of different polarities

China is not living in the same mode of

production as Russia because it's a

different historically constituted

community

more importantly it's a different poll

it's a different polarity polarities are

different forms of the reproduction of

humanity human history Human Society

everything about Humanity reproduced

differently

in a different poll okay

so

to me authoritarian politics is just

politics in the age of multi-polarity

because what makes these politics

authoritarian is the fact that they act

in a determinate way without for example

having a formal Democratic mandate like

for example

the Chinese Communist party doesn't need

to create some facade of a fucking

neutral unbiased election to make the

decision that we are going to defend the

interests of the Chinese Nation

that's a given

they don't need to have an election

where they're going to pretend they're

not living in a country with a bunch of

Chinese people who have Chinese

interests that's a given it's the

People's Republic of China it's a given

that the interests of the people take

precedent they don't have the facade of

some purely neutral election

that sees people as this tabula rasa

blanks slate where they're going to say

okay like imagine the absurdity if China

was a democracy

in the western sense they would say okay

we are neutral we're just gonna have

these purely neutral Democratic

institutions and it doesn't matter if

you're Chinese or if you're um Brazilian

or if you're Arabic or if you're French

we're all the same Democratic subject as

long as you're a citizen of our country

and it doesn't matter what your views

are in relation to our historically

constituted Community you can run a

political party saying that you want to

balkanize and dissolve China you can run

a political party saying you want to

serve the interests of the oligarchic

Elites at the expense of the people you

can run a political party saying you

want to commit Mass genocide against

Chinese people and our democracy is

blind it's Blind Justice we don't care

it's all neutral fuck no they're not

going to say that the Chinese are

authoritarian they say we are Chinese we

are China this is the Chinese nation and

we are here to uplift and serve the

interests of the Chinese people and that

is non-negotiable

that's what makes them authoritarian

that's also what makes Russia

authoritarian you think Russia's

authoritarian because no one's allowed

to vote of course they can vote but

there's non-negotiables about the

Russian State like one non-negotiable is

for example this is the Russian state

we will not submit our sovereignty to

the West we live in a different sphere

than the west Western values cannot be

imposed on us we are our own

civilization our own State and we insist

upon that and that insistence

is what makes Russia authoritarian it's

not that Putin wants to hold power

at the expense of other people oh I'm a

greedy bully I want to hold power at the

expense of everyone else no what makes

Russia authoritarian is because it says

we want to go this way without

negotiating on it it doesn't matter that

Putin is the authoritarian strong man

there's an authoritarian will for Russia

to insist upon itself as a determinate

and specific

Paul a specific civilization

that my understanding of this in

scientific terms within the framework of

Marxism leninism is What Separates Me

from every other Marxist leninist even

globally Marxist leninists have not

arrived at a proper Theory to make sense

of the proletarian dictatorship in the

20th century that's what I'm here to do

I want to do what Stalin did

with socialism in one country applying

it to the proletarian dictatorship

thank you so much the king in regards to

this thinking did macron take the same

approach except instead of serving the

needs of the French it's in the needs of

the elite

thank you so much amila Mecca I would

not say so and well yes in this

the obscene thing the obscene Paradox in

France is that it's similar to Fascism

because

friends from the perspective of the

institutions of liberal democracy which

are abstract blank institutions macron

was a fucking Banker macron's insistence

of some kind of authoritarian will which

is what he's doing

is on behalf of the amorphous abstract

indeterminate universalism of the open

society and that is what makes it so

obscene and yes dangerous because macron

see the key thing with authoritarian

leaders is that they're populists

they're based in the fundamental will of

the people

macron has no basis in the fundamental

will of like the French farmers in the

countryside for doing what he's doing he

is not a traditional Prussian

authoritarian if you will he is a

vampire acting uh purely on the basis of

the vampiric interests of some abstract

Capital some abstract Banks which have

no National Allegiance have no specific

civilizational character have no regard

for any reality of the people at all

just some pure form right

macron's terroristic dictatorship is the

epitome of the anti-human fascist

dictatorship the Klaus Schwab World

economic Forum has in store for us

because it is the imposition finally of

the authoritarian Democratic will we are

going to be forced to be Democratic

which means we will be deprived of our

national character we will be deprived

of our civilization we will be deprived

of our Humanity grind it into worms and

everything within us will be squeezed

out

so the bankers and the capitalists

can squeeze out everything they fucking

can from us

in order to reproduce the open Society

the global open Society

so it's a big big difference with what

macron is doing then what I'm describing

here he is not giving expression to any

authentic objective reality of the state

he is resorting to an obscene psychotic

emergency mechanism of the vampiric

liberal Democratic oligarchy

which is a crude mimicry of authentic

dictatorship just like Hitler's regime

in Germany was a crude mimicry of the

Bolshevik dictatorship same with

mussolinis it's a crude and obscene

mimicry of the objective tradition of

Prussian authoritarianism

I think there is an authentic kernel of

Prussian authoritarian statecraft that

only

the Communists were able to inherit

and again the key thing is rooted in

some basis

in the people Stalin's dictatorship was

based in the Russian peasant the

subjectivity of the Russian peasant

Hitler's dictatorship was not based in

the subjectivity of any popular strata

of the German people

it was an adventure from the top down

same with Mussolini's just a pure vain

Adventure

it had no roots in the soil of the

people

same with MAO mouse was based in the

roots of the Chinese peasant

subjectivity it was truly telluric the

Nazis and Italian fascists only aspired

to be telluric they weren't actually

tell Eric though they had no basis in

The Peasant subjectivity of their

respective countries that's how I'm

combining

German conservative Revolution with

Marxism leninism

because to me

Schmidt younger and all those guys got

it totally wrong they thought Nazism was

the Zeitgeist of their Theory and they

were so so disastrously wrong they

should have seen communism as the

Zeitgeist of the true German tradition

of

political science

and conservative Revolution

as a France's idea of startup Nation by

macron is like Hitler's idea of a Hitler

swastika for example

was a symbol that meant nothing to the

German people

because of some theosophists Mystic

people they said oh this is an ancient

symbol of the Aryans you think a fucking

German peasant

can derive some meaning from the

swastika he can't it's a pure

abstraction it's a pure startup from

scratch Hitler's Germany was a startup

Nation a pure vain experiment and

adventure

the Soviet Tamarin sickle was very

simple sickle is what the peasants use

hammers what the workers use very simple

meaning right

anyway

you see

the macron's notion of a startup Nation

the basic thrust of this is that we want

to liquidate the French civilization and

make France a startup from scratch

everyone will live in a pod men will

have wombs there will be no more gender

it'll be startup everything right

complete from scratch

this is the vanity of what macron is

doing with his authoritarianism quote

unquote it's a vain authoritarianism

who wants to make friends a start-up

Nation

but you can't start up civilization

that's the problem that's why I disagree

with the liberal left you cannot start

up civilization

I want to make some final comments

there's some dumb ass I don't even

remember their name on Twitter

they were saying something speaking of

France like oh

I wonder why the Western left is talking

about the protests in France rather than

what's going on in South Africa

first of all to give this a response you

just discovered the South African eff

the infrared Collective

has been writing about the eff since

2017.

one of my unpublished books

it's not that long

although if I publish it I'm going to

add a lot to it is about the South

African eff

so you just discovered what the eff was

yesterday

if you lived in South Africa you would

call them fascist Pat socks like you

call us and how do I know that because

we were inspired by the eff our notion

of politics came from the eff

by the way

finally

of course westerners will pay more

attention to what's going on in France

because we are Western we are not

Africans

these diaspora

tropical leftists calling themselves MLS

simply want to maintain their Bourgeois

class privileges within America they

live in America or Britain they come

from Rich families which is in itself

not a crime but instead of humbling

themselves to the working class they

live a lifestyle of pure elitism within

America or Britain saying oh these

hillbillies are so gross I'm such a

stylish PSL PLC woman I'm gonna read

France fan on you are the bourgeoisie in

America

if you want to be a true communist go

fuck into whatever third world country

you are

using as a justification to spit on the

working class of the country you're

living in you're living in America you

Scorn the working class of your own

country in the name of the third world

but if you lived in the third world

could you really humble yourself to the

people and go down to the people and

actually lose all of your petty

Bourgeois class Privileges and humble

yourself I doubt it I've seen these

Petty Bourgeois leftists in South Africa

they are not eff types okay they hate

the eff why

because it's all about class eff is a

proletarian Mass organization and the

same things that turn them off about

Maga the same shit about eff oh eff

they're like toxic and they're just like

fascist and they're loud and scary same

shit okay they hate the people and their

Bourgeois subjectivity knows no borders

take these leftists who are trying to

use the eff to cuddle any solidarity

with the French proletariat send them to

South Africa they will not be friends of

the eff in South Africa the eff has none

of that nonsense

so it's stupid

why would you

oppose the French protest to what's

going on in South Africa we are living

in the western world

America is a Western Country

and plus we're in similar political

situations if you didn't fucking know we

don't have a history of militant

socialism like South Africa does we

don't have an advanced socialist

organization like the eff I'm trying to

build one but we'll never build anything

like that here if you see the eff is a

popular party they're not sitting in

South Africa shitting on the majority

you're doing the opposite you're saying

oh I want to shit on all the fucking

white people and just make it a party of

indigenous people and black people you

are a petty Bourgeois minority party

then you're not like what the fucking

eff is in South Africa you want to know

what the what the equivalent to the eff

is in America it's Maga if anything is

that's a mass popular National Party of

the working class

it's not some moralizing petty Bourgeois

minority of petty Bourgeois academics

trying to maintain their class privilege

over the great majority that's what

you're doing here you have nothing in

common with the South African eff

nothing that's a popular party rooted in

the masses you have nothing to do with

that when you did some Jay Sakai shit

excuse me does this D at the table

appeal to folks and they're not

allergies that's stupid

an American eff

will probably be majority white because

majority of people in America are white

see it's about class politics it's not

about the color of your skin eff is

black because it's African in a African

country we're not living in an African

country so stop trying to LARP like the

eff is going to be this indigenous POC

organization in America no it won't will

it include

non-white people of course it will but

it'll include them proportionately

to the American working class

probably even disproportionately to be

honest at first but when it becomes a

mass party it's going to have a ton of

white people in it

because we are a mostly white country

when you assume a politics of the

minority

and not from the perspective of

secessionism or self-determination but

you're like oh I wanna I wanna con I

want the interests of the minority to

rule over the majority

you are just a petty bourgeois

liberal you're not sent you're not a

revolutionary in any meaningful capacity

a revolutionary humbles themselves to

the level of the people comrade number

three will join the CPU soon thank you

so much nowhere a revolutionary lowers

themselves and humbles themselves to the

people you don't fucking go to the

fucking gas station ew this white

hillbilly so gross you humble yourself

to the people that's the working class

of the fucking country you live in

you're not better than anyone humble

yourself that's the proletarian stats

you are a brat a diaspora brat sitting

there sitting on the working class of

your country it's nothing more than that

if you were really this third world this

revolutionary you'd move to the third

world and go fight your gorilla jungle

war there

stop using it as a cudgel to be an

excuse to maintain your classroom and

see how consistent

first I heard of them was when I started

following you couple years ago Bosch

calls them fascists and melamine yeah in

South Africa malema is called Hitler by

the petty Bourgeois leftists in South

Africa

but I'm sick of these PSL diaspora brats

maintaining their Petty Bourgeois class

privilege in the form of scorning the

working class majority in their country

see I come from a privileged background

myself you know how easy it would be for

me to just not have to examine my class

Privileges and just sit here and go you

know what I uh as I come from a

relatively wealthy background yeah I'm

just I'm just the third worldest yeah

give me my Frappuccino oh yeah I'm gonna

I'm just I can't be so easy to do that

growing up right I mean probably not

because I wasn't raised like that

because I was always told by my parents

be grateful you live in this country be

grateful for everything you have and

you're not better than anyone

that's how I was raised and I thank my

parents every day for raising because my

parents are so down to earth you know

because my parents Came From A working

class background you know

I was never raised with that but so I'm

not just gonna say it's because I'm a

good person I'm gonna attribute it to my

parents but

that's what these diaspora leftists are

they're just Petty Bourgeois radicals

Bourgeois radicals

using their POC background

as a way to maintain their class

privilege

the majority of the working class here

is not politically correct and is

not

only POC it's a majority white okay you

don't like it then fucking leave you're

not a revolutionary

majority of French people it's like when

these stupid articles I saw why are the

French yellow vests so white why are

there so many white people in France I

don't fucking know because it's a

majority white country they're they're

mostly Europeans of European descent

it's so stupid

you want to have solidarity with the

South African eff then build

working-class power in America and

defeat the imperialism at home so that

when they come to power in South Africa

and they will our government doesn't go

fuck with them

that's what you can do for the eff they

don't need you to be cheerleading in

America assuming a defeatist petty

Bourgeois anti-popular position

that only means preserving your

Bourgeois privilege

build a mass movement

third if you're a third world that's

living in America get the fuck out

you fucking LARPing bitch

someone wanted to make me react to the

bad Empanada video where he's uh

posturing about his knowledge of Marxism

in relation to Baristas there's nothing

to react to because he will never

fucking debate about it because he's a

pussy he'll never fucking debate about

it forget me debate anyone from my

fucking Community especially people like

rev and they will wipe the fucking floor

with you

on this question

he he tried to make the argument on

Twitter

that

every

markup

that um oh baristos are adding value

because the price is sold for more

except value happens at the aggregate

social level not every local profit

that's being made actually refers to the

creation of surplus value why because

there's an average rate of profit which

means some Industries are not only not

producing any value whatsoever but are

parasitically transferring Surplus value

created elsewhere to themselves Marx

describes a bunch of these kinds of

Industries and capital volume two so no

oh but but the coffee was less valuable

before the barista's labor was

contributing to it you don't understand

what labor is labor just doesn't refer

to any manual Act Right upon the world

labor for Marx is has a social substance

it's not an individual act it's a social

substance

no Baristas are PSA when Baristas are

putting coffee in the fucking coffee

machine that's not the same as a factory

worker assembling components into a

product big surprise Baristas are not

Factory workers in any meaningful

comparison no Baristas are not the

modern form of the factory workers Marx

was talking about they're not performing

any kind of industrial labor whatsoever

and by the way Starbucks's accumulation

cannot be explained even in terms of

ground level profits Starbucks could not

have spread into a global transnational

corporation based on the profits gained

for example by one Starbucks cafe most

coffee shops are subsistence shops for a

reason because the profit margins they

produce is not enough to generate the

necessary amounts of capital to initiate

a process of accumulation

now I get most businesses can't do that

and you need loans from the bank but I

digress

the whole financial Capital comes from

somewhere and the only meaningful

Marxist analysis has to be that it comes

from physical real material production

Starbucks just is credit injections from

Financial Capital betting that it's

going to be popular among people not

that it's producing or initiating the

process of capital accumulation itself

it's not see for Marx capital

accumulation is something that

gets initiated by modern industry so

there's a ground level kind of

accumulation

that is the result purely let's just

focus on for example a factory the way

factories accumulate capital and thereby

spread and spread okay

when you get to the point where that's

not even really possible

anymore

you can't just say oh yeah these workers

are just producing Surplus value Marx

was trying to explain how industrial

capitalism emerged he was trying to

describe the source of Industry the

source of industrial profits okay he

wasn't trying to describe how a local

business makes more money than it did

before

labor as a necessary cost of production

is not the same thing as labor which

generates Surplus value again read

Capital Volume 2 Marx describes a lot of

different kinds of employees which are

just costs

of capital

expenses which produce no Surplus value

in and of themselves they are just costs

of production being unnecessary cost of

production doesn't make you a productive

laborer pretty fucking simple stuff that

Empanada is a pedo and a stupid bitch

self-admitted pedo by the way and a

stupid bitch who has never ever

committed

to defending any of their positions in

relation to this stuff

through a debate right calling the bluff

they're gonna they're gonna posture and

Bluff about oh yeah uh I'm gonna I'm

gonna use a mocking voice yeah but your

position can't be taken for granted

because

you can't subject it to any scrutiny

without humiliating yourself in front of

the world as a dumbass who doesn't know

shit about Marxism

okay anyway guys

I hate to cut the stream short

it has been a late stream and uh

I streamed five hours for you guys

yesterday right early stream tomorrow

it's very possible

but I hope you guys enjoyed the lecture

I hope you learned something and I'll

see you guys tomorrow goodbye