DEBATE: Stalin Was GOOD! 🚀 Infrared Content Catalog

foreign

[Music]

[Applause]

another

way

[Music]

we're looking to places

[Music]

Behind the Walls

foreign

[Music]

we're looking to face

[Music]

I'm alive

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

[Applause]

foreign

[Music]

we're looking to places

[Music]

Behind the Walls

I want to lose

[Music]

we're looking to face

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

I'm alive

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

[Applause]

thank you

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

we're looking to face

[Music]

I'm alive

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

thank you

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

[Applause]

another

challenge

[Music]

we're looking to places

[Music]

Behind the Walls

wants to lose

[Music]

we're looking to faces

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

is

[Music]

n't it

[Music]

Behind the Walls

foreign

[Music]

we're looking to faces

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

I'm alive

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

[Applause]

thank you

[Music]

enough

[Music]

all right

nice

[Music]

for us to love

[Music]

celebrate our loneliness

[Music]

I'm alive

[Music]

[Applause]

foreign

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

all right

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

away

[Music]

harder

time will come

[Music]

thank you

inside

[Music]

a prisoner Behind the Walls

I want to lose

[Music]

for us to love

celebrate Halloween

[Music]

foreign

[Music]

so guys I know it's been a hold up this

has been way later than it should have

been I just caught up in some bullshit

so without any further Ado let's just

get this debate started

let's just get this debate started so

pink Stalin

where they at

pink Tyrant is what their name is

I'm gonna drag them up and they I just

got an email pretty much and they were

like yeah I want to debate Stalin

I was like okay let's do it tonight then

you know so that's we're gonna be doing

tonight we're gonna be doing the style

on debate I was today I was doing a uh

really interesting I wish I would have

streamed this Twitter space

for a few hours about like I was kind of

debating Laura Loomer on Iran oh my God

thank you so much the mentor with the

other 50. holy shit man thank you

appreciate you man

damn that's too damn man thank you so

much and every anyone else I missed with

the super chats thank you so much

but uh let's get right into it

let's see if there's still even I hope

they're still fucking here holy shit

[Music]

um

thank you so much crack dealer

appreciate you man appreciate you so

much man uh Pink Tyrant I don't know

where the fuck they are I'm gonna send

them another email and just be like get

in VC based thank you so much

humiliation has reached its end the

Soviet Union was not the end of our

movement China has now risen to power

where it belongs thank you so much

foreign

hello

what

can you please speak up I can't hear

anything you're saying

come here

no I can't

you need to really raise your mic volume

or really speak up I could barely hear

anything

hello

how old are you

what is that

what

20 are using a voice changer

no

you're not using a voice changer

no I I

can you please speak I I don't know what

kind of

voice what is this

are you guys not able to hear me

yeah I can hear you but can you just

admit you're using a voice changer

because

how are you

you're 20 20. yeah

okay so what is it about Stalin that you

wanted to debate

will you talk to my friend the other day

and um

I think it was like a kind of a short uh

debate

I don't really know who you're referring

to

I think you guys were talking about like

dollar tomorrow or whatever

way so much rocks I appreciate it ten

dollar eggs this is for your eggs I

don't remember exactly what you were

referring to

okay well

the debate basically is that Stalin was

not good it's the debate that I'll have

okay sure so you can go ahead and begin

Make Your Case

so basically I mean I guess the common

knowledge is that

you know stalining his uh plans his

economic plans

sort of ruined and and you know he

created a family

I don't know what the argument against

it with me

okay well

um are you trying to argue that Stalin

deliberately tried to create a famine

which the famine was deliberate or what

so bad well to be clear it was not a

deliberate famine so are we going to

begin with because I think it's a

serious accusation to say that Stalin

intentionally starved a bunch of people

and I do kind of remember yeah I was the

anarchist

that I debated I kind of remember that

so you know we have to actually be clear

about what the accusation is before we

can argue about it

okay so I guess so what was your

argument against it being uh bad

regardless of it any again

uh it was quite it was very clearly bad

that a famine happened I don't think

anyone would deny that

how can we promised alone

how can what

and how can you be pro-stone

because you have to evaluate the

intentions

in order to judge whether someone's good

or bad you have to evaluate their

intentions you have to evaluate the

context you have to evaluate the

question of was did Stalin want a famine

to happen or was a famine a tragical

horrifically tragical side of side

product of the chaos the intense chaos

that comes with rapidly industrializing

and changing the institution of

Agriculture for purposes of

industrialization I should say in such a

short period of time

well it doesn't matter if it's

intentional or not because he chilled

millions of people

it is definite it definitely does matter

because for example famines could be

owing themselves to natural disasters as

they have for the majority of Mankind's

history and who do you blame in that

case right do you blame nature

but it's his decisions that caused the

famine

I beg to differ

I beg to differ that it was Stalin's

decisions that led to the famine I think

you could more broadly say that the

execution of the decision of the

Communist Party

to undergo the collectivization movement

and kind of fully accelerate the Coco's

movement the way that was implemented by

lower level ranking

um leaders particularly in Ukraine and

elsewhere

sure that there was there was a huge

mismanagement but

Stalin's decision was not for a famine

to happen and by by the way if you look

at the details of how the famine played

out I mean a huge level of caution was

demanded by the central authorities

which was regularly neglected by these

local kind of more corrupt people on the

ground

so of course it's a tragedy but how

could you justify it necessarily lays

the that stalinist to blame basically

because just one I know I'm kind of

going saying a lot right now but just

one last thing is that famines had

existed in the Russian Empire

and every Maybe

Century at least in which it existed

right every few decades you would have a

famine malnutrition was common

starvation was common

and they just said oh it's just the will

of God well this we're talking about

pretty much the last famines in the

history of Russian civilization except

the one that happened after World War II

but I you could hardly blame Central

planning policies for that

I mean there's conference throughout not

just Russia but other parts of the world

but it wasn't decisions made by one

person right so I mean there's like

books on this

I'm not denying there was it was a

horrific thing that happened but the

decision of Stalin

well to say it's the decision of Stalin

would be historically an accurate

decision of the central authorities in

the Soviet Union to accelerate the cold

calls movement was a directly necessary

prerequisite

in order for the Soviet Union to be

rapidly industrialized so you have to do

a kind of broader you have to look at

this from a broader perspective

all you're saying is that it's Justified

because they were trying to rapidly

develop no I'm no no tragedy is

Justified the reason it's a tragedy is

because it's an inevitable

it's an inevitable byproduct of a

situation out of your control but if you

look at the broader scope of things the

fact of the matter is that Soviet

industrialization

drastically improved the quality of life

for Soviet citizens the modernization of

the you know their way of living access

to medicine and hospitals prevented so

many excess deaths that would have

otherwise happened and then the most

important part is that it was a

necessary prerequisite for the Soviet

Union to be able to defend itself

against the genocidal designs of the

Nazis who wanted to either enslave and

in the long run exterminate the Slavic

peoples as so-called sub-humans so when

you look at this from a broader

perspective the horrific tragedy

pales in comparison to the heroism and

the noble effort by the Soviet Union to

modernize its country in such a short

period of time

but I'm not saying that because there's

didn't it wasn't accompanied by horrific

tragedies it was but would it have been

better for in addition to regular

famines occurring the Soviets to have

become a sorry the Russians to have

become a colony of the West in which

case they would live in squalor and

degradation and indignity and that's

your assumption there right you don't

know that that would have been the case

the state often the markets up to the

West

well that's what they had been doing but

what that resulted in was the

indebtedness of the tsar's state to

French banks

okay but millions of people wouldn't

have died to a family

how do you know

because the market would have taken care

of the need need for food

again I'm asking you how you know that

where are you getting that idea because

the market is not taking care of the

demands for people's need for food in

places like you know in um uh the Horn

of Africa or even Yemen right now and

then moreover it needs to also be

stressed that in places like India for

the better part of the 20th century

excess deaths owing to malnutrition and

lack of access to food were extremely

common so what makes you think Russia

wouldn't have shared a similar fate what

about the Bengal famine for example in

India why do you think that something

like that couldn't have possibly

happened

in Russia were not for the Soviets

I mean

we just play hypertension

but dead all day but

stole's decisions killed millions of

people and this is

the information we know like I know the

Russian government has a lot of

information they haven't even released

yet so it could be even worse I kind of

reject this ref this vague allusion to

this tip of the iceberg of I just think

that's a pathological let's stick to the

knowable facts based in evidence and the

noble facts we have that are based in

evidence is that no it was not the

decision of Stalin that directly led to

a famine it was a whole host of

complicated factors and a whole host of

conflicting decisions and interests

within the Soviet state including

elements within the Soviet state that

were quite resistant to the command

directives of the central authorities

which we now very clearly can see and

know based on what Stalin I mean this

was brought up in the previous debate

what Stalin had written to Molotov and

vice versa about the incompetence the

treachery and so on of these Communist

Party leaders in Ukraine on the ground

so no you can't attribute something as

horrific and tragical as the 3233 famine

to the decisions of a single man it's

just not possible

I mean

all of the defense of Stalin that you

give what's different from Fiddler fans

protecting headquarters you can make the

same argument for Hitler sorry for

Hitler

yeah

he did it for the German people explain

why because Hitler was the leader of the

Nazi party

and the German government when it was

ruled by the Nazi party for example

directly issued the order for Jews to be

exterminated

that's on the books that was a direct

thing that so-called Final Solution but

he was doing it for the German people

right but he was doing it for the

journal he was doing it for the journal

people just like staling the stoner for

the Russian people so what's the

difference

the difference is that Stalin didn't

call for the wholesale extermination of

people's he deemed

um inferior by virtue of their ethnicity

or religion

yeah he's been in my class what's the

difference

actually it's not true Stalin didn't

call for the physical extermination of

anyone based on their class he called

for the elimination of classes but

that's no different than for example

calling for the elimination of slavery

in The Agrarian South which would in

fact eliminate the slave owning class so

that's an example of liquidating a class

it's what Abraham Lincoln did when the

Civil War came to a conclusion

the Emancipation Proclamation

what I'm saying is the same defense that

you give stolen I can give it to Hitler

too so you know they're both modern

neither one of them

quite patently cannot

use the same defense I'm given for

Stalin for Hitler for the reasons I've

just described

you're just giving a description

why they're fundamentally different what

makes

what establishes a fundamental

similarity between Stalin and Hitler

the wholesale genocide of a group of

people depending on how it doesn't

matter how they which group of people

are you accusing Stalin of engaging

genocide against

I mean a huge faction or a huge portion

of the Ukrainian population the polls

and then I can go on and on

okay but we already kind of covered this

ground with your friend about how in no

way could it be justified

that Stalin engaged in a genocide

against ukrainians or poles

I mean I don't I don't know how that

discussion concluded and I don't know if

there is evidence to the contrary

look even if I were to Grant you the

hula hoops that all of the Ukrainian

emigrade Community has to go through and

leveling the charge of genocide against

Stalin when it comes to Ukraine even if

I granted you all those Olympic leaps

and hula hoops and all those gymnastical

jumps and whatever

the fact of the matter is that in the

case of Hitler you have a direct order

to exterminate Jews when a final

solution and exterminate subhuman

peoples as far as the accusation of

Stalin against ukrainians is concerned

there's a whole lot of um you know

insinuations about how oh implicitly you

know they were

um not engaging in famine relief fast

enough because they thought it would be

a desirable outcome for ukrainians to

starve but nowhere do you see anything

you there's no even if we accept

the worst accusations coming from the

most fervent anti-stal and

anti-communist you know Nazi propaganda

even if we accept all of that it's still

not even comparable to Hitler

believe that Hitler didn't want a

genocide the Jews right didn't he want

to send him off to Africa

that was his ultimate solution no his

solution at least very clearly by the

start of the first second world war was

to exterminate the Jewish people

okay but I'll count is dead yes sir so

all you're saying is you don't have

concrete evidence that is Stalin wanted

to kill explicitly the polls and

trainings Stalin could have never either

in any private or public context

advocated for the killing of ukrainians

based on their ethnicity would have been

impossible for him to do that that's why

the

anti-communist propaganda has to has to

make all these mental gymnastic claims

that there is these vague insinuations

that this is what he wanted because the

truth is that the ideology to which

Stalin uh subscribed to and the

political aims that Stalin explicitly

pledged himself to

believed unequivocally and

unconditionally in the equality between

different nationalities and peoples

ukrainians could not possibly be bad

just because they're Ukrainian and so on

and so forth it is completely

antithetical for everything Stalin both

privately and publicly lived and died

for

okay I mean his ideology might have not

been externate a group of people with

his decisions still caused it It

ultimately his State even fails but hold

on it's just patently not true because

first of all obviously

neither the majority nor all of the

Ukrainian people died moreover it wasn't

just ukrainians but also Russians and

people in Kazakhstan

who you could argue had a more a

disproportionately worse

um

experience as a result of the famine in

terms of the amount of fatalities so to

say that this was the result of

an attempt to ex you know Target

ukrainians well how do you explain the

other

groups that also fell victim to the

famine it doesn't make any sense the

only thing we can parse from Ukraine as

far as its significance is concerned is

that Ukraine was the so-called bread

basket of the Soviet Union or it's what

Hitler wanted to turn into the Bread

Basket of of uh of Europe because

Ukraine was such a heavily agrarian and

agricultural country that's really the

only significance we have from Ukraine

it's not because they were ukrainians

that the famine

um

he's saying he wanted to kill them for

their ethnicity I'm saying regardless of

his intention it doesn't matter because

he still killed millions of people

again he didn't kill millions of people

he oversue he oversaw he led a state

which was itself the victim of a famine

that indeed did lead to the deaths of

millions of ukrainians

his decisions

it's a major

they directly did not directly cause it

the argument you have to stand on is

that they indirectly caused it

I mean like what's the point point of

Defending stolenly his State failed by

getting hit like you give two children

years of people in the Statesville I

think the record of History begs to

differs the state that Stalin presided

over defeated the Nazis it became the

second most powerful industrial nation

in the entire world it was the Rival to

the United States throughout the entire

duration of the Cold War the Soviet

Union oversaw the internationally LED

decolonization and anti-colonial

movement it propped up the movements of

the freedom-loving and true Democratic

people's movements of the world for a

very long time the Soviet state did an

immensely good job of providing for and

giving its citizens a basic standard of

living and a basic sense of dignity all

without having many of the evils we

experience here in capitalism such as

prostitution gambling and so on and so

forth so the Soviet Union I mean this

this Allen built a Soviet state he built

a state that would eventually come to

have nearly 300 million people living

under it almost an Empire if you will

you know that that is a pretty

um

immense accomplishment you're you're

talking about a state built on a

revolution to buy the Bolsheviks during

the October Revolution that was the

enemy of all the countries in the entire

world it was pretty much sanctioned by

everyone it was a completely landlocked

entity the Soviet Union a completely

landlocked country and they managed to

make it they managed to build something

out of that and make it I think that's

an immense accomplishment I don't think

they meant to build something out of it

and make it they served as the templates

and the inspiration for formally

colonized people across the world to

find their own alternative way to

industrialization including China

if it wasn't for the Soviet Union we

wouldn't have modern China either and

the accomplishments of modern China

are indeed unquestionable when it comes

to raising the standard of living of its

people and basically breaking out of

that Century of humiliation

if they would have fooled if they would

have done better or not it could have

been like any faction of Revolution and

we could have been saying the same thing

so I don't know why specifically okay so

that's a great thought experiment can we

name any examples of anarchists not in

Russia but anywhere in the world coming

to power and overseeing a net

Improvement for the livelihoods of the

people

at all

it could be anywhere in the world

I think there was like a Chinese commune

uh that lasted like five six years like

during like the 1920s that did pretty

okay which cartoon in China

I think it's like

I think it lasted like five six years

um they were all right I mean anarchists

in general all right so saying they were

all right is not

it's not really

a meaningful thing to say I mean well

then yeah you can argue anarchists have

never been in power but that doesn't

necessarily mean that if they were

inquiry

Stalin will that anyone else could have

done that but what examples do we have

of anyone doing that

in history or in in the 20th century at

least

most people would call the USSR a

failure so and that's like that's like

common knowledge right but does the USSR

lasted 70 years right so to say it was a

failure because it didn't lie it's not

that long it's not that long

I think as far as 20th century States is

concerned it's pretty long as far as

newly created states in the 20th century

I I have to remind you there were plenty

of newly created states in the 20th

century I don't think it's unfair to say

a huge proportion of them no longer

exist

but so so you accept the millions of

deaths that stolen indirectly caused but

you still think he's a good person I

don't necessarily think that I would say

I would accept them but I would say that

their preventability is tragic because

it's only something you could do in

hindsight like now we could say okay we

could have prevented it but at the time

it was a Confluence of impossible of

circumstances that were impossible to

mitigate or resist unless you already

knew what was happening

again but I just said the same thing

about Hitler like he I guess decisions

were also I don't think you could

because in the case of Hitler we have

direct orders

um to exterminate the Jewish people but

so what if he was helping the German

people

as a chairman leader what why would that

I think you're not seeing he's in here I

think you're not

how fallacious your argument is here

because you're trying to make it seem

like my argument on behalf of the

Soviets rests upon oh well so what it

was on behalf of the Soviet people but I

didn't I've never said that once you see

the problem

we're talking about the magnitude of

guilt

on Stalin's part compared to Hitler well

in Stalin's case there was an indirect

horrific tragedy that happened

in Hitler's case

there is a direct order to exterminate a

whole group of people

so there's just nothing comparable about

those two things

still say that what would you say it's

Justified the only reason why you're

disagreeing with that decision is

because it failed

no I think I can confidently say that I

would disagree with the decision to

exterminate an entire group of people

wholesale

uh regardless of whether it was

successful or not

okay well I think I could say that about

the whole of the more and the other

atrocities

because it precisely wasn't a decision

to exterminate an entire

people but Lillian started still a

million still alive right sure but okay

listen you have the benefit of just

saying okay yeah the Irish Potato Famine

the Bengal famine all the famines of

European colonialism throughout history

oh I'm also against those don't get me

wrong those are equally as bad but

they're not right in your view they're

really not in practice because you don't

indict those events with the same level

of detail and ferocity as you do in the

case of Stalin in those cases you're

like okay yeah I'm against all of that

but in the case of the Soviet Union when

it happens on a much less drastic scale

and as for similar factors by the way

organization

that we all have a bunch of people

defending it so that's the difference

yeah but what I'm trying to say is that

modern every form of the modernization

of a country right unless it's going

unless it's getting its investments from

more advanced Capital Estates

and taking advantage of differentials

and the capital accumulation unless it's

doing that every single instance we have

of modernization that is occurring on

the backs of some kind of primitive

accumulation of the services of

Agriculture has led to disruptions in

the food supply

how people grow food and distribute food

and there's not one exception

it happens at in every single case now

that is the whole Saga of what we call

European colonialism whose

industrialization was on the backs of

these colonized countries which bore the

brunt of this immense popularization and

famine right the fact of the matter is

that industrialization is not something

easy to do because it requires you to

make a sacrifice it requires you to

concentrate a previous form of

production Agriculture and basically

accumulate

the surpluses of that agriculture in

such a way that get transferred to

Industry which requires an immense temp

not only an immense temporary sacrifice

but also an immense level of instability

and disruption in the traditional way in

which things are produced consumed and

distributed

that is a problem no one has really

solved now we're hoping that in this new

belt and Road initiative China's

building that countries May

industrialize themselves

without on the one hand having to no toe

to an imperial power politically or on

the other hand never industrialize at

all because most countries I mean

believe it or not most of humanity

are living in conditions of existence

that are not modern they're not actually

living in modern industrial developed

countries they're living in countries

that are

you know

in engaging in these pre-modern

pre-industrial economies lack of access

to Medicine lack of access to basic

standard of living I mean it's still a

problem worldwide

so the fact that the Soviets decide to

pursue their own path without becoming

the colonial dependency of Britain in

America

and experienced on their own terms

similar tragedies that Britain and

America themselves experienced no I

can't condemn them for that what would

have been the alternative for them to be

a slave of the West

that's what you're saying but you don't

know it would have happened just like

you said that to me I want in good faith

I want you to explain to me how a

sovereign country can industrialize

itself

at this time at least in the 1930s

without having to take on debts

and special relationships with capital

Estates that will basically they would

have probably still existed unlike the

SSR so

and jimin get paid

still be around and the SSR doesn't

exist okay then be honest about what

you're advocating for you're saying it

would have been preferable for Russia to

continue to be a dependency on the west

I mean isn't there other Europeans that

are in the same situation or other

countries in similar situations and

they're doing a lot better than Russia

what incentive does the West have to

industrialize Russia

I mean I don't know there's just

industrialized other countries I mean

the French were already doing and all it

did all it led to was an indebtedness on

part of the tsarist state to French

banks it wasn't changing the conditions

in the countryside you were not seeing a

rapid industrialization occur and a

complete change in the 90 majority

Russian lives yeah you did see an

urbanization occur among the coastal

ports and centers of the Russian Empire

but for the most part in the in the

whole Russian Hinterlands not really a

dent is occurring right so I think the

record is very clear as far as the

West's ability to industrialize

uh non-european countries just look at

India look at Africa look at what about

Japan and South Korea what about Japan

South Korea Hong Kong Japan is a

separate case I can talk about Japan in

a second but I can speak for South Korea

and for Taiwan and for uh Germany you

had a deliberate plan on part of the U.S

Brentwood system to intentionally

develop those exclusively those

countries so Russia could have been one

of those too you don't know that right

why would they have been that's the

thing South Korea was chosen South Korea

Japan and Taiwan and um uh Germany were

chosen to be those countries because the

U.S decided Well you know these are

relatively geographically smaller

countries they have a history we already

have a precedent history besides South

Korea of industry and you know it it

would be preferable to set these up as

shock absorbers for you know um

financial crisis so we don't just have

to bear the brunt of the next recession

they can absorb that and it you know

it'd be a kind of international safety

net there's no reason to think Russia

would have been included in that system

by the way a huge incentive for the

establishment of the Brentwood system

was to counteract the very communism

that was being spread by the Soviet

Union so how do we even know there would

have been an incentive for the Bretton

Woods system in the first place I mean

if the Soviet state didn't exist what

pressure would there have been on the

western capitalist countries to even

give a fuck about developing anyone's

standard of living whatsoever why would

they care right it's not like people

have this idea of an alternative that's

possible there is none the Soviet Union

was a huge boot on the neck of Western

capitalist countries because it

basically forced them

to reckon with the fact that now your

own workers and more importantly the

people of the world have an alternative

model

how did Europeans give out themselves

before Europeans no one else had so

someone had to start

sorry what

how did the Europeans develop who forced

them into devotion

uh on the back of colonialism as I just

said

yeah but I'm saying why were the

Europeans the only ones able to develop

that well because they were the first to

praise basically discover the new world

and there's a lot of factors we can get

into it but they were the first to

colonize the world and the way they did

so what you're saying is that

non-european countries may have been

able to develop themselves

no I'm not saying that I'm just saying

for historical reasons Europe was the

first to unlock the key of what we call

modernization where industrialization

which immediately gave him an advantage

over you know these other Empires the

gunpowder Empires are primarily

land-based Empires

it was really yeah

I think you want to cause less deaths if

if the obvious like European would know

Europeans like Russians you know so and

so forth trying to develop themselves

rather than have the countless like try

to they did they did try to develop

themselves and that's what communism was

actually

yeah it didn't work right because then

it was so fast hold on it did work

though and that's why there was a cold

war that's why the Soviet Union

lost

well you can but there was a war that

lasted throughout the second half of the

20th century the Cold War precisely

because they did industrialize and

develop themselves now the question of

why weren't they able to last well you

can ask Mao or Denzel ping about that

right that's an intercommunist dispute

that's going on and that was going on I

mean but the fact the record is very

clear that the achievements of the

Soviet Union are indisputable

I mean I think that's like a common

scope to be honest because the

university doesn't even exist anymore

and they lost like 60 70 years

and they killed millions of people

like I mean I think most people would

see that as like a failure even if the

Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore the

basic infrastructure that Russians use

today most of it in Rural and agrarian

Russia sorry rural Russia Today is still

from the Soviet era the very

infrastructure even in Moscow the subway

system people use was built in the

Soviet era the Soviet Union represents

the primary form of modernization that

even modern Russia and other

post-communist states rely upon as

they're like the Bedrock infrastructural

Foundation if in the main they have not

been able to replace so to say that oh

just because the Soviet Union doesn't

exist anymore means its achievements

aren't still

clear today is just I think you're

coping actually and it's very clear that

the Soviet Union's achievements are not

a matter of dispute

but the West still stands so how can I

be coping

well what do you mean the West still

stands the East still stands too just

because it's not ruled by the same

government doesn't mean it doesn't stand

amazing you're saying to be good faith

you're saying NATO the NATO block still

stands but the Warsaw Pact doesn't

exactly well then why are people like

you complaining about what Putin's doing

in Ukraine or China's rights right

because very clearly the East is not

done with its conflict with NATO and the

U.S Empire because if it was

we wouldn't see a conflict at all we

wouldn't see anything going on in

Ukraine wouldn't see the rise of China

we wouldn't see a conflict over Taiwan

we wouldn't see this new cold war with

China at all right so very clearly no

it's not the the Soviet Union

its Legacy isn't finished very clearly

not finished and if it was again you'd

be living in the New World Order that

George senior promised when he was

giving his speech at Congress the

fukuyama end of time we've all been

living in international liberal

democracy we don't we have Iran we have

China we have Russia we still have North

Korea which still manages to make a

capitalist World tremble

right

sorry

and the North Korea is a shithole

okay you can call it a shithole all you

want but they have nukes and that is

cool enough food why are you bothered by

the nukes then if it's just a shithole

well I mean that lives they have no food

for their citizens so why'd it be scared

is that actually true that they have no

food for the citizens

I mean I think one of the poorest

countries are you kind of just vaguely

alluding to like Prejudiced and

stereotypes instead of actually

expressing education over the facts like

are you actually educated about North

Korea or are you just making these vague

Illusions to these common tropes you're

used to hearing when you just told me

that they don't have food in North Korea

you're probably referring to these huge

headlines from the 1990s about the

actual famine that occurred there but

I'm supposed to now believe that because

North Korea earned the reputation of a

country that had a famine in the 90s

that right now as we're speaking

citizens in North Korea don't have

access to food

you see how stupid what your say sounds

like like how can you really justify the

claim that people in North Korea don't

eat I think that's a really stupid thing

to say I mean they do eat they just

don't eat much I mean and have you seen

the country

have you seen it

I mean from what we can see perhaps but

I know people who've traveled to North

Korea and plenty of people actually and

they give me a different story than you

do

yeah but they're probably Communists

only protonas support North Korea no

even non-communists who've been to North

Korea will say yeah the West

clearly is making up a lot of things

about North Korea and it's not as they

describe I'm not saying North Korea is a

rich country we could both probably

agree that it's relatively poor but

to say that everyone's Starving in North

Korea I mean now it's just not true just

because why is all the communist

countries poor why aren't they all poor

I would not describe China as a poor

country

they know the fact that their comments

are not you know but then but then you

would go ahead and call every other

communist state not real communism so

what's the point

all right is it only real communism when

they're poor or are they are it can it

not be real communism when they're like

China

well I mean China's name the global

market they're one of the largest

players in the global market so they're

not the same type of Communism how does

China participating in the global market

preclude it from being communist

I mean many Communists would call it

would call them deviators so it's not

just me

okay why would you call them deviators

well because it from the original

um socialists sort of Lane that that

lenient and stolen talking about

can you explain specifically how they

did that

well I mean many would say including

myself that things Xiaoping

um sort of opened up when he opened up

to the West he changed something about

the Marxism that mother marches about

Marxism that was in contradiction to

what Lenin and Stalin said

I mean play installing what would not

have company never opened up to the West

for a particular reason otherwise they

would have why wouldn't they have opened

a market you know their markets

economically to the West yeah yeah

yes they did Lenin did do that under the

period of the New Economic Policy now

thank you so much

now uh speaking as for Stalin is

concerned Stalin was just concerned with

a different goal than dang Stalin had to

create a national industrial system and

industrialize the country the reason

he's not quote unquote opening up his

country to the West is because there's

nothing to open up the West to he has to

First modernize his country if he's

gonna think about ever you know Finding

ways to make the Soviet Union more Rich

through trade but they had a huge

population they had a huge population

they could have worked for other people

now

doesn't the population here is

immaterial because what actually matters

is sovereignty preserving political

sovereignty is the most well this was

Stalin cared about that's not what you

necessarily have that is precisely what

Den cared about because even though Deng

opened up to foreign investment it was

done in such a controlled way precisely

because the proletarian dictatorship had

established its economic sovereignty

through the national industrial System

created under Mao so that was a

presupposition that was the foundation

of dang's Reform and opening up he

didn't actually open up in terms of like

opening up Chinese politics to

foreigners and opening up China's

sovereignty he opened up China's

industry in terms of the creative

methods it can adopt in terms of the

adoption of foreign Technologies in

terms of trade with foreign markets

that's what opening up is referring to

it's not referring to opening up the

proletarian dictatorship to so-called

democracy then I mean very clearly said

on his death that his number one

accomplishment in his life was not

opening up to Liberal democracy

but I wouldn't even be the only one to

save it that he deviated like there are

other con so-called communities you want

to bring those people on I will debate

them nope I mean even in China I'm

saying even in China

you're rather just coping like they

change they fundamentally change

something there are self-proclaimed

Communists who claim dang deviated and

there are also more communists

like the 90 million people who are in

the Communist Party of China who don't

view it that way right so I am

interested in hearing why I should

believe or why should I be convinced

that Deng Xiaoping deviated can you do

that well I don't think you would never

be convinced because your opinion comes

from ideology so I don't think I don't

think I'm being really ideological right

now I think you are I think you're not

really um using any arguments based in

reason you're just making these vague

allusions to ideological prejudices you

have that are not grounded in fact

I mean we do part like studies and

things all rewards But ultimately most

people would agree with me making most

countries on Earth about Stalin about

communism the history of Communism

even if I were to grant you that

argument for the sake of argument

although I can't really verify it

I'm not sure what is supposed to be of

material significance there who cares if

most people agree with you what does

that have to do with truth

well that said something about truth

no it's just like it's literally a

logical fallacy it's the argument ad

whatever I mean

you would that would mean that you would

have to somehow

tell the contents of that truth for you

to be able to make that argument which I

don't think you could build the what

I don't think that you you you have the

truth I'm sorry to prove that

well I'm I don't I Marxist lenders don't

necessarily believe in any like absolute

Dogma right but right now my view is

that Deng Xiaoping did not deviate from

Marxism I'm interested in hearing why

you think he did I have no reason to

think he did is the problem Deng

Xiaoping was a Marxist

he not only proclaims himself to be a

Marxist he actively Justified his reform

in opening up policy in a way that I

think was consistent with Marxism but

I'm open to hearing why you would think

the contrary

oh I think again I think he deviated

from the original March the slime

yeah you've definitely said that can you

explain why

well I may have been read but Stalin and

Lennon and the other

ulcers well the mainline we both have to

say about sort of what presuming you

have

about what

I mean how can you tell me that

they didn't deviates they're gonna

understand I think it's Arkansas's

obvious that he did in some sort of way

so like this where's the doctor launched

this line it's definitely not obvious to

me that he deviated

I mean I guess what's your argument

against it I don't know I can see

his deviation my argument for why it was

consistent was according to Marx's

Theory the development of the productive

forces

is pro as far as building a socialist

economy is concerned once you've

Consolidated the proletarian

dictatorship

which was not fully done by the way by

this Stalin's collectivization was also

political it was meant to consolidate

economically the proletarian

dictatorship but once that has been done

what are the premises of actually

building a socialist country in terms of

the mode of production well according to

Dan Xiaoping

unleashing the productive forces are a

fundamental prerequisite to that it's

the unleashing and development of the

productive forces that form the

foundation of a socialist motor

production in a socialist economy and

it's a proletarian dictatorship using

and applying the science of Marxism and

Marxism leninism that is best equipped

in unleashing the productive forces the

productive forces

being the foundation of socialism is

very very

um Elementary and basic knowledge if any

familiar with Marxism

so then why can't other yeah why didn't

other Communist States just open up

because quote unquote opening up

is something that was pursued after the

primary form of industrialization occurs

most Communist States never got to that

stage

the Soviet Union obviously did right but

the Sinnoh Soviet split happened for a

reason because there was a dispute

now there is not only a dispute there is

like a fundamental difference

between the leadership of the Soviets

and Chinese governments after the death

of Stalin regarding what the meaning and

significance of Marxism and the

proletarian dictatorship is

and the Soviets obviously continued to

um rely on their stagnant

you know bureaucracy and believing that

class struggle was over because they've

already uh assumed the reins of power

whereas Mao said the cloud triple is not

a not over and that we need a wage wages

cultural revolution overthrow this

bureaucracy of Specialists and that the

overthrow of that bureaucracy led to the

foundations of Zhang's performance

opening up

okay well I mean still and I feel like

you're giving me a communist like total

points but I don't like I feel like we

can argue all day long about whether or

not

she deviator remotely regardless

I guess we can kind of go back to our

original point

did you argue that trident has done well

but why are all the other Communist

States

so poor still watch out they develop

themselves the other Communist States

were dependent on the Soviet Union

or you know it was a they were basically

exporting their raw materials in

exchange for goods and that was their

form of pursuing economic modernization

um that's why there was a famine in the

dprk by the way in the 90s because they

had some they had a similar kind of

relationship to the Soviet Union

during the Cold War yeah it sounds like

a lot of Communist States have problems

with famines for some reason

yeah because when your way of producing

food is sensitive to political change

that can lead to disruptions in how food

is produced by the way it's also true in

the west and in the entire the rest of

the world

we're seeing that now for example with

the rise of the price of

gas and food stuffs we're seeing the yes

a famine is looming in the world and of

course you just see think of that as

normal whereas in the case of Communism

it's something specific to Communist

States

you think it is because there's one

leader who's leaking welder decisions or

at least making all the primary

decisions which cause causes the CIA

disagrees with that analysis when they

claim that it's extremely wrong they

said it's wrong and it's a misconception

that Stalin acts as a dictator and that

Stalin works with a group and he's a

collectively minded he doesn't just make

decisions and impose them on everyone

and that's from a CIA memo

I just I don't have to take the CIA at

its word I don't know

I think fervent anti-stalmist

anti-communist

dude I can just spend one person's

perspective But ultimately not one

person is the perspective of at the time

one of the most advanced intelligence

agencies in the entire world whose job

it was to correctly understand how the

Soviet Union worked

but we can assume that one or a group of

people wrote it so it's their

perspective they represent the CIA but

it doesn't mean it's ever more specific

instead of talking in comparison

perspectives can you make an effort to

convince me that in in Communist States

it's one person who makes all the

decisions

because I find that to be a groundless

claim

all others

claim some other to ultimately have been

executed but it's their plans and it's

the leadership's planes and ultimately

everyone else so to follow

and where are you getting this

information

I mean it's literally how there

that's how the parties work

generally that's how it works they don't

have like a like multiple branches how

it works they have their own internal

system of democratic centralism as far

as how the parties work I mean just

because I don't give you the intricate

details I believe it's not I can't give

you like the fundamental can't you just

admit you're

um basing this off of like

what is a presumption right you're

basing this off of a like a Convention

of thoughts rather than something you've

investigated using the active device of

criticism

yeah I mean if I do I'm not like a

lawyer I didn't go after each and every

detail for every Communist party around

the world you should at least be

cognizant of the fact that what you're

saying is not based in any independent

thinking you're just saying that because

you've assumed it for a very long time

and by ultimately I mean that's I mean

most people also assume it there's a

reason for that

and yeah maybe the reason has to do with

the fact that Communist States have been

vilified by Democratic quote-unquote

propaganda liberal Democratic propaganda

According to which liberal democracy is

where the people decide in Communist

States is where one man decides and

that's the liberal Democratic propaganda

we're raised with is that would you not

agree it's possible that that conception

could owe itself to propaganda

yeah I mean it could be propaganda and

it can also be sort of true as well

just because it's propaganda doesn't

necessarily mean it's false

it may be exaggerated what reason do you

have to believe it's true then

well I mean I've done cursory

investigations of these parties and

ultimately you can tell that the

leadership of each party is making the

final conclusion in the final decisions

and it's leading to hold on the problem

is that even if I could agree that I

guess in this final sense every leader

makes the final decision well you're

trying to make it seem like is that

leaders these leaders are whimsically

ruling and just coming up with things

and enforcing them when how it actually

works is that decisions are drafted and

they undergo intensive scrutiny and

discussion and you know discourse and

all this kind of stuff and then yes the

leader usually does make the final call

but you don't have a situation where you

just have one person ruling and making

all the decisions on everyone's behalf

without actually Consulting anyone or

talking to anyone it's usually not think

it's not a I mean every leader even the

president of the United States has to

make the final call right when uh that's

how bills get passed the president can

veto

anything that passes through the uh the

legislature right

yeah I mean I'm not necessarily saying

it's like somehow immoral or something

if there was just one leader I'm just

saying hold on you're trying to make it

seem like Communist States are like

these autocracies when they're not just

because they have leaders doesn't mean

they're autocracies

I mean maybe they're not even if they

weren't they're still failures right so

like it doesn't even matter well

failures in doing what though

something in existing and existing in

the case of the USSR I mean obviously

we're going back but

how could you blame Marxism leninism or

communism for the inexistence of the

USSR when China's still around

well I mean again many people including

myself can argue that it's they're not

in the same form that the USSR was they

obviously deviated films have to be in

the same form that the USSR was

I mean if they've liberalized a little

bit then it wouldn't matter

different observers have come to accept

is that they precisely haven't

liberalized

the opening up was not a form of

liberalization it actually led to an

increased tightening of control by the

Communist Party more than ever before

it prior to XI Jin King who I had

liberal leaders think that China was

going to eventually fully liberalize

because they were horribly

um

ill-equipped in being able to make any

qualified judgment on anything relating

to China they were stupid naive and

wrong

or maybe they really were liberalizing

and then XI Jin can turn it around or

maybe Western observers just never

understood China correctly in the first

place

so what would you need to see for you to

admit that China is not Marxist in the

same way we're happy now in the same way

the USSR is but what would convince you

of that

if they were no longer ruled by the

Communist Party

and dark party exists they're at marches

women's a stature pretty much yeah

pretty much yeah

here

uh yeah it's a common I mean it's a

socialist State yeah

but people said that game honest

deviated even more

well I think the reason

it could be justified to say that is

because Vietnam is kind of loosening the

grips as far as political control is

concerned they're allowing ngos and

political forces to kind of undermine

the protein dictatorship from within

that is a problem but so far that has

not yet led to the destruction of the

Communist Party rule in Vietnam

but when it does then obviously Vietnam

will no longer be a communist state

okay but I feel a little bit of research

I've done I think Blackstone or like

another American Bank is like heavily

invested in China so yeah but all of all

of the Investments

of U.S corporations or Banks like

BlackRock is what you're trying to refer

to in China

are overseen by the Communist Party who

ultimately has control and oversee the

whole thing

but how do you know that they're not

being overturned by any sort of

capitalist faction or China has what you

call a dual system all across the board

it has it's a dualistic kind of system

it's economically dualistic with uh

internal circulation and foreign

exchange being separate it's also a dual

system in terms of its ability to

separate political economic opening up

with the political kind so China is a

country that retains firm political

control

while also having an extremely Dynamic

and open economy which is which is quite

an accomplishment actually it's really

why and it's a huge factor in explaining

China's rise to power in the past

decades

Okay so

I guess your argument is that China is

his country and their your only evidence

of Communism working

um no communism has always worked

the problem with the USSR was not a

problem of Communism it was a problem

of this specific inability for the

specific Communists that were in power

opposed to the Chinese by the way

because there was a sinner-soviet split

to be able to adapt to the information

age and the new era of History

but communism worked as far as its goals

were concerned like the goal was to

industrialize and provide a primary

sphere of production create a primary

sphere production it was very successful

at that as far as creating a primary

sphere of the economy Communist States

were incredibly successful

in almost every case it's just that when

it comes to being able to out-compete

the West in the information age they

fumbled the back I agree but there's a

reason why China survived China survived

because they adapted Marxism to the new

era that's what maoism was

if that's true and communism is just

about industrializing you are they're

Western

March this one is to begin with they're

the whole industrialized

ah it's actually not true though because

we're witnessing the massive

de-industrialization

of countries like America today and

Britain and others so I mean in addition

to other reasons why there should should

be Western Marxist leninists which is

ultimately by the way about establishing

the sovereignty of the proletariat in

the form of a proletarian dictatorship

it's ultimately about

establishing a government by Foreign of

the people which means not

the capitalists or the uh you know the

city of London Wall Street banking

cartels

and that's not just relating to

industrialization it relates to a lot of

other things as well right it relates to

the policy of imperialism and increasing

authoritarianism of cracking down on our

basic civil liberties on behalf of the

ruling capitals class that we're seeing

in the west there's plenty of reasons

why Communists should exist in the west

beyond the deindustrialization

Billy but what are you so all you're

saying is you want to go back in time to

to read industrial life that's like the

point of Western Arts is to go back on

time back in time

but yes the the goal of Communists in

America is to re-industrialize

which is directly related to Breaking

the system of imperialism

you think I don't know are they

fundamentally I just think Marxism is

equal in a way so you'll feel it

you keep sharing these like unfounded

unsubstantiated opinions and I'm not

sure

what's supposed to be relevant about

them

yeah

I guess I'm not justifying my point of

view but it's like common knowledge

right like most people have my sentence

is constant referral to common knowledge

and oh don't you know this man it's not

gonna fly in the setting of a debate now

in a casual context I think someone

should have more good faith with you and

be like okay I can understand why you

think that

people are watching he came to debate me

about Stalin which means that you should

at the very least have something more to

appeal to besides convention

conventional knowledge and conventional

Prejudice well I mean again I I've read

books on all of the more than read these

facts and things and we can pull them up

all day with I feel like it's kind of

boring to do this is pull up and look up

studies and shit you know it's a lot

better to just talk

but I probably we could I guess we could

pull out stats and stuff from like books

like red famine and another whole lot

more books so it sort of go through the

facts again how is that relevant to what

you just said before now you want to

talk about the famine again look I get

you have this vague impression of

Marxism leninism as something that

doesn't work and something that's

horrible but the facts clearly

contradict that and and at least in the

form of China

yeah I mean you can cope by going to

China it's like your model but

originally it started in the USSR and it

failed I mean you've given any

descriptions as to why they failed don't

you think it's kind of irrational to say

it's a cope why is it a cope

well because the USSR can sort of

started this movement itself now other

other countries have kicked it up I

guess hold on but why didn't the USSR

fail in 1941 Why didn't it fail in 1951

why didn't you even fail in 1970 why

specifically was it that the USSR was

dissolved in 1991.

I mean you're just asking me for

historical descriptions are just failed

and that's just all you can say about it

it wouldn't have existed for 70 years

yeah which is not that long in the grand

scheme of state right but it's long

enough to establish that clearly there's

more to this picture than just a story

of failure

yeah obviously that's a reduction it's a

reduction statement but ultimately it

did fail something like objectively it

failed but you can't say it failed when

the circumstances of the dissolution of

the USSR were too specific to just be

attributed to the project of Communism

and we have living proof of that in the

form of that China is probably going to

on its way to becoming the most powerful

base thank you emila can we move them

from this person and get someone else

yeah this person is becoming a waste of

time and it sucks listening to us I

guess you can make that argument but

again I feel like this is coming from

ideology and it's not coming from hold

on okay why because if I was just

pointing to China as the exception right

then yeah China would just be some like

a relevant Island somewhere in the ocean

oh look at China China China but that's

not China's significance China has a

world historical significance today it

is on its way to replacing the United

States as the premier world power China

is what's on everyone's mind it's the