Rainer Shea Makes a BIZARRE Argument

yeah what do you want

hello

all right what's going on

oh my followers

want me to join the voice chat uh for

has

and and debate him

uh and i'm not sure

might i succeeded already where do i go

to

what

um

my followers want me to join

this voice chat for this stream that has

us doing i am

oh

so this is live this is broadcasting

right now yeah

wow i'm so new to discord

and

i've i've been inept with it up until

now well uh

you seem like uh like a nice considerate

person in person

okay

uh and i've been taking these stances uh

on

in my

uh

my online statements

where

uh i have really gone all

with with putting forward the

perspective that i've absorbed from

uh

colonized peoples who i i know in person

uh okay

this uh this native guy who i met two

years ago

uh and who i'm still close friends with

is

now where i get my ideas about

anti-colonialism uh i owe it all to him

okay

i remember

the first time we met he explained to me

this vision he has

uh for

breaking up uh the u.s continent or not

the u.s continent the what they call

turtle island traditionally into

hundreds of autonomous states

uh

self-governing uh preferably under uh

indigenous confederacy like the one

tecumseh wanted to create

uh

and within these

uh postcolonial states socialism can be

built that's the basic vision that okay

uh so why don't you do it

let's do it

go ahead do it

i'm not gonna stop you go ahead

well that's uh that's more

that's more warm and encouraging than

what i've heard from uh

others who take the

fall into this socialist patriot stance

no i am a socialist patriot

yeah i've encountered lots of hostility

uh we've we've encountered so much uh

pushback what you want you want to know

my opinion on the prospects of your

success

okay

yeah i think uh it's a pipe dream yes

you're not going to succeed in doing

anything like that

so i don't i prefer not to waste my time

and something that's not going to happen

thank you so much i appreciate you it's

already it's already happened in half of

oklahoma half of half of what used to be

oklahoma is now governed by these

several tribes

yeah but they they have a presence in

the land in oklahoma

so do all these other tribes

hundreds of they they preponderate in

terms of their population in the land in

oklahoma

yeah so it's evidently going to be more

uh complicated there's gonna be hurdles

there's gonna be contradictions so i i

i have no reason to believe this is a

viable you think the united states is

going to be balconized into hundreds of

in indigenous uh

the only thing that like i could maybe

foresee is that this would be the basis

for like the creation of the entire

privatization of the us and that like

the indigenous people would be like

feudal lords who rent out the land to

corporations and you would have that

kind of arrangement right that would be

that would be neocolonialism and marxism

leninism is our route for defeating

neocolonialism

why would it be neocolonialism

well what you described the scenario

where yeah well the indigenous people

are being compensated because they're

the ones inviting the

places in to you know just like a

country invites foreign corporations

to gate more money and wealth that's

what they tell until they have their own

workers revolutions

okay sure there's blendiness we all

agree yeah but it's it's not gonna

happen it's not on the itinerary

indigenous people are about like 2.4

something like that or one percent of

the us population so how is it going to

happen that they're going to

claim all the land of the so-called

turtle island

why should i take this happened in half

of oklahoma

okay what is the percentage of

indigenous people in the land that they

now own in oklahoma

well it's enough for them to be able to

govern it

okay is that apply for the entire united

states or just oklahoma

it does apply there's hundreds of

indigenous nations these tribes have

their own governments

and they but i would certainly accept

say the the wyatt tribe here taking

control over the land i own but that i'm

on now

the the indigenous people own the land i

do not own the land nobody owns this

land i'm on besides the we are trying

why don't you give it to them now

i don't own any land

do you own anything

oh i own some cool stuff in this room

right now

okay

so

you're saying that because in oklahoma

where indigenous people are actually a

sizable portion of the population

um because they came to some kind of

settlement in which a part of oklahoma

can be governed by indigenous people

because that's where the majority

of people of the indigenous people live

and that's the majority of the people in

that region

what you're basically saying is that

this applies to the entire uh united

states or my bad turtle island

yeah to canada to

all of these states i mean canada canada

and the united states these are fake

countries okay before we get into the

moralization i want to keep us grounded

in reality because i'm a marxist i don't

focus on reality so

so

you don't see that that how that's

delusional that two percent of the

population can lay claim to 100 percent

of the country

it's going to be a democracy

everyone is going to be able to vote

why

well i don't understand how that works i

mean

it's going to be postcolonial

i'm not asking you what it's going to be

like i'm asking you how it's going to

even happen in the first place

the same way it's happened in half of

what used to be oklahoma half of

oklahoma doesn't even exist anymore

half of oklahoma was only being

populated by them

it's not like this was like a population

dense area

you don't see how it would be it would

pose a problem to try and apply

the same thing to the whole entire

fucking country right

in the scenario

everyone would be able to vote

i'm not asking you how moral or just it

would be okay i'm asking you

how would that even be possible

for

the entire united states to dissolve and

two percent of people will own

everything how are they going to do it

they're not going to own work well

they're not going to like control okay

how is that going to become possible

how is that going to be made possible

how is that going to be made possible

it's about jurisdiction how i'm not

asking you what the utopian society will

be like i'm asking how we would ever

even get there

how would that be

possible how would you how would you

deal with the resistance to that by 99

of people

well white allies are going to have to

step up they're going to white allies

will only be 10 of the population at

most where are you getting that number

we'll do the math how many white people

are trump supporters as a proportion

white people are proletarians

proletarians of all colors

proletarians are a sizable portion of

trump's voters too

well that's the

dramatic aspect of it so hold on you

couldn't you can't even we can't even

get bernie to be elected as the on the

democratic ticket

you're saying that you're going to get

the america you're going to convince the

american population to dissolve the

united states

and balconize the united states into a

hundred indigenous confederations or

something and you're going to be able to

do this we couldn't get bernie elected

because of bourgeois democracy the

primary was rigged against him he would

have won you're not going to do it

electorally so how are you going to do

it if not you're not going to do it

electorally so how will you do it

for the equivalent model of all the past

anti-colonial socialist revolutions

how will you initiate this revolution

by building up

a vanguard what does that mean is

trained sufficiently to be able to step

in when the class contradictions

intensify enough for us to be able to

that's what that's what many parties

have been doing for um

a century in america and it never

happened

do you think that a revolution is

possible on this continent what

i of course i think it's possible

but what i don't think is possible is

that such a revolution would be premised

on the basis of uh giving indigenous

people 100 of the united states

well it's not going to be possible if

dovanistic leaders are in charge of yeah

but i think that's a meaningless

moralistic claim you're claiming that

american communists are chauvinistic

because

they want to work for the american

people and not just for two percent of

the american people

certain ones are chauvinistic the people

who have a real grasp on decolonial

theory

they're the ones that need to get in

charge of this revolution

and and they will never win the support

of the masses

because they're actually wrong and

delusional and deranged

why not our agenda is about uniting the

colonized proletarians with the settler

that's what you say your agenda is is

that actually what happens in practice

when you premise a movement on the basis

of pure morality and moral sentiments of

the white guilty uh

upper middle classes

the working class doesn't care to

indulge in your moralizations they're

trying to feed their families and put a

roof over the head of their families

they don't care about all this dumb

moralizing bullshit

yes lots of

yeah lots of interesting points being

made here

i'm telling you the truth the working

class in america does not care about

your uh moralizations

they're focused on actually

living which is they can't take for

granted unlike the

upper middle classes who have a lot of

spare time on their hands

to take up these deranged

causes premised on the basis of pure

morality

i am not upper middle class my

indigenous friend is not upper middle

class well you have enough time on your

hands to not be focusing on uh

supporting yourself and your family to

be focusing on this nonsense

which is fine which is fine by the way

but i just think you have to understand

that if you think that that applies to

america's working people you're wrong i

have a lot of spare time in my hands too

but i also recognize

that's why i have to get down to the

level of working people

and make sure that i understand that

when i'm trying to sell them something

i can actually

have an idea of where they're coming

from and whether it's going to make

sense to them or not given their

condition

i have a lot of time spare time to be an

intellectual and read theory and care

about all this convoluted

theory stuff but when i talk to working

people i know they don't have time for

that so i'm not going to waste their

time and i'm not going to condemn them

as chauvinists

just because they're not going to

indulge in what is basically my

uh

upper middle class privilege

i am not upper middle class i support my

family by giving them financial aid

pretty much every month how do you make

a living

i'm a student

anyway okay you are middle class you

know that right

yeah you could you could argue that

okay

so anyway um

yeah you're not going to succeed and you

can prove me wrong and i'll just you

know look you want to know the truth

rainer is that if you succeed and you

prove me wrong

you can actually legally legally right

because it'll be legal we have to say

this for twitch or whatever you can

condemn me like when you get in power

you can say haaz is condemned

to corporal punishment

that sounds a bit outlandish no no i'm

giving you permission if you succeed you

can do that

i don't i don't expect it to be in a

leadership position no no but you can

pass it on to your indigenous friends

that since i doubted the possibility of

that vision when your socialist

revolution succeeds i volunteered to be

the first to be condemned for being a

counter-revolutionary from the start who

doubted it

i imagine that at that point this

uh online drama isn't going to matter so

much we're going to be trying to rebuild

from a really devastating yeah i'm just

trying to explain to you how much i

don't buy into the possibility of you

succeeding

all right so why why do indigenous

people need all of the land is my

question it was all stolen from them

well in the here and now why do they

need all of the land right now

so that their nations can

properly develop

they don't need all of the united states

to do that

they don't need all of it you know they

can they can they can need a reasonable

amount according to their

you know their living standards and the

needs of their people and you know

things like that but they don't need all

of it that's

just

so out there how do they need all of it

well in a literal sense that's true

since uh

all these uh

new people all these people who

immigrated to here and their descendants

are still going to be living here but

the indigenous people need to have

jurisdiction over this time that's the

key why like they're they're they're not

gonna uh they're not planning to kill

wait why else out i don't understand why

why do they need all everything

because it was stolen

all land is stolen

you sound like donald trump i don't care

if i sound like he's right then all land

is stolen

what land isn't stolen all land is

stolen

no i'm sure indigenous people stole land

from each other

that's like saying did they not the us

needs to milk did they not take land

from each other in military uh conflicts

that's that's like saying the u.s needs

to militarily occupy all of asia because

china has border disputes with india and

vietnam it's totally no it's not like

saying that because

you've shifted the burden here right

you're saying that the reason all

indigenous people need the land is

because the land is stolen but all land

is stolen

everywhere so that's not enough to

convince me that they need all of the

land

now am i advocating to steal land no i'm

just saying it's not enough to say that

the land is stolen

to say that for example

um

one of the reasons you have

anti-colonial movements isn't just

because the colonizers stole the land

although that was like part of the

propaganda and the ideological way of

thinking about it is because in terms of

the people living in colonies they

comprised a majority

and they were the people living there

and the europeans were just this kind of

parasitic presence upon them right

and it's on that basis that they gained

their independence as a people they were

a people fighting to be independent

um yeah they colonized the entire

continent they they didn't even have a

right to estate but that happened in the

past in terms of the present tense why

do indigenous people need all of america

because it was stolen and it doesn't

matter how many times you try to

obfuscate that by saying they

pull from each other this is identical

to the disgusting racist arguments i've

heard from right wingers i don't care

it is a fact that all land is stolen

what's that going to

what what effect does that statement

have

on

the

well because communists

because marxist leninists and communists

are focused on people

and serving the needs of people and not

condemning people on the basis of

morality and moral judgments about uh

300 years of history

it's about serving the needs of people

living today living today today the

people living today

that's what it's about

how is returning full jurisdiction going

to

interfere with the development towards

socialism how how is it going to be bad

for the we ought to take over the land

that i'm on now i wish they would take

it over so that we will have

an easier time developing socialism so

that this land will be free from a

colonial occupier that interferes

with the development towards socialism

if the u.s were abolished the single

biggest obstacle towards marxist

development globally and internally

would disappear

yeah so snap your fingers and the

problem goes away i get it but we're

talking about reality and not

fantasyland

um and in terms of reality

you're not going to something like that

could never happen and let's just

entertain the idea the hypothetical that

it would happen just so we can move this

along let's just assume that all the

land in the united states was returned

to indigenous

hundreds of indigenous associations and

indigenous people

how then have you addressed

the state's current monopoly on violence

how then could you address the

resistance

uh

coming from americans who don't want

this how then could you address the

question of the rights of people and the

question of um

the right of association between the

lands how would you address parceling

out

all of this land between the indigenous

people like how would you even

go about

even thinking about that

would there not be a basis for that will

be for the tribes to sort out how how

could they sort that out in an equitable

way it would be all against all like how

there has to be a neutral party

otherwise the tribes will devolve into

might is right right i mean like how are

you gonna equitably sort that out on an

equal basis when tribes do not have

equal power

and equal numbers

well like i said we're going to uh

we're likely going to try to establish a

confederacy of sorts

that is going to be able to serve as

this kind of mediator there's going to

be ground rules we're not going to let

things devolve into so you're going to

create a confederacy

and so overnight the united states is

going to disappear the constitution is

done

the institutions of the government are

gone are done states monopoly on

violence vanishes overnight and instead

a indigenous confederacy replaces it

yes

okay

so

how is this indigenous confederacy going

to enforce its existence

by cracking down on the reactionaries

equivalent to how china cracks down on

the reactionaries who tried yeah but in

this case the reactionaries would be 90

percent of the population

where again where are you getting these

numbers why would 90 of the population

rise up in arms what what percent do you

think would rise open arms

well

something like well let's let's see

something like a fourth or a or a third

of the people in this country are

uh so you're going to wage a war against

a third of americans and it's not going

to just be a third or a fourth by the

way 50 percent of eligible voters

voted for trump in the last election

but how many of them are

uh people who are armed and ready to

rise up against a hypothetical they will

socialize definitely give aid to an army

that is going to overthrow your uh

government

100

you're a marxist leninist so what you

what we both want is a socialist

government on this continent

well you know the thing is about

socialism is that

socialism isn't an ideology that you

just want

it applies to people socialism is about

the sociality among the people right

socialism comes from a context you don't

just want socialism

you want a certain path of development

for your people otherwise socialism has

no meaning or context

and and as an american communist

i want

a government that works for the common

interests and common welfare

and common good of the american people

i don't see a context for communism or

socialism otherwise

it's in the interest of the whole

proletariat for the occupier to be

dismantled

i am against american imperialism but

what about internal imperialism

such as

the fact that the united states exists

is

by definition internal imperialism this

land is stolen no it's not it's not with

imperialism imperialism isn't when

your land was stolen in the past

imperialism is when

um you engage in a certain living and

active relation to a certain people do i

think that indigenous people are being

treated unfairly yeah i do

but i don't think that it's the

responsibility of american communists

to remedy that injustice in the form of

giving them all of the united states and

dissolving all of the united states

napoleon underscore thank you no

bullying

appreciate you this dude is larping i

can't take it okay it sounds like you

want me and i are like no

it's okay i'm just kidding

thank you

thank you knows best for the ten

appreciate you a lot man

thank you so much

all right

um

yeah anyway uh yeah i i don't see why it

has to entail

giving all of uh united states

for the same reason that israel needs to

be abolished

israel

um

[Music]

you have to be careful right because we

can't say whatever we want but israel uh

is currently engaged in a conflict with

the palestinians

and the the arab and muslim world i

guess as a whole

um

actually in that circumstances israel

finds itself in the minority

and the reason why israel's future

and the future of all the states in the

middle east is subject to

uh

change is because the borders that exist

now in the middle east don't reflect the

national realities of the people living

there in general

neither do the borders here yeah they do

colonial borders were imposed

unilaterally without the consent of the

indigenous nations the indigenous

nations but you didn't listen to what i

said for the entire middle eastern

peoples those borders don't reflect

their actual reality

for the united states

sorry

the same is the case here

but it's not you're talking about an

injustice in the past

and you're just

you're you're confronting that purely on

the basis of morality what i'm talking

about is like an actual current material

reality

the people of the united states these

are their borders of the people of the

united states

yeah of the people who benefit from

settler colonialism they're not the

borders of the people who are fighting

for

their water in what's currently called

minnesota minnesota that's fine listen

that's fine i'm not against indigenous

people and they're rightful claims but

your acclaim is ex very extreme

that's the difference i'm not against

indigenous people who want sovereignty

over their own lands and their own water

that's fine

i just have to evaluate

what a under what conditions

uh would that be possible

and in my view the only conditions that

would make that possible is a general

program of uh some kind of land reform

where the question of um

the distribution of economic space is

can be generally confronted also in a

way that addresses the interest of the

american people as a whole

um then it's like uh like in the

scenario uh the best case uh

scenario outcomes for these land reforms

will be full return of uh

indigenous nations jurisdiction and yeah

but that's not it's not on the listen

you need to understand that before land

purchased from natives tons of towns

across the east coast were purchased by

early colleges for seashells providence

re was purchased by roger williams

hartford seats yeah i got a donation

he's basically saying not all the land

was actually stolen i hope you know that

some of it was actually purchased from

natives

yeah after they backed them into a

corner and comforted so much

you need to understand um

that

the question of jurisdiction and

sovereignty these concepts were not

relevant to indigenous americans before

colonization they didn't consider

themselves like a universal state that

has

you know they just lived on the land and

they used the land and they you know had

a relation to the land a special

relation don't get me wrong um a deep

kind of spiritual whatever relation a

court interview

but

they didn't

like they didn't they didn't have this

kind of modern notion of sovereignty in

which like this is ours

since then the conditions have changed

obviously in the era of imperialism it's

necessary for

uh these nations i you know what i think

the issue is

i think

we have a problem with marxist in

general and among yourself and it's the

question of

what is the premise

what is the basis so far the individual

is concerned of the necessity of marxism

leninism and communism

and to you the basis the premise of its

necessity is morality

it's morality

it's some kind of abstractly contrived

view

of doing the right and wrong thing and

applying that to

all of reality which is actually an

extremely eurocentric

uh european

view of morality i hope you don't

whereas marxist leninists in the

countries over which they governed

didn't begin from morality

they began from an objective material

contradiction

um

which they merely were participating in

they began from something that wasn't

promised by an individually contrived

abstract morality

but from the real existing struggle of

their people

you cannot be a marxist leninist if

you're not a patriot

a patriot for what for a settler state

for your people and for your land

for your people and for your land like

the united states is not a nation

it is still a people

with a history and a tradition and a

character and uh an interest it's still

a people

within the context of an incredibly

violent

imperialist invasion

that has created this history is an ugly

thing i agree that especially modern

european history is very ugly

but this doesn't change the fact that

the american people are still a people

now the question of how you can

reconcile

um

your sense of morality with this ugly

history is a different question i think

you should read hegel because hegel is a

philosopher of reconciliation and hegel

will teach you how you can be reconciled

with uh

you know

what you conceive of as an immoral or

false or contradictory reality

um but you don't get to impose

this unhappy consciousness and this

sense of immoral

like everything is false and wrong and

non-existent because it is immoral

this is like a dogmatic calvinistic view

that has no place in marxism leninism or

its history

the we ought nation is real the we ought

nation are you a member of the wyatt

nation

i can become i can apply for citizenship

if and when they regain full

jurisdiction over the land that i'm on

you are not a member of the we are

nation

not for well not currently

yeah my indigenous friend has

uh laid out a vision where

listen i honestly think was he smoking

crack or something

don't tell me about your friend's vision

or something like this means nothing to

me

i'm talking about the reality right now

okay everyone seems to have an

indigenous friend jason on rouhey had

comrade number three you have your

indigenous friend and we have to get to

the bottom of like who we are actually

talking about okay

um

the person you're talking about is an

individual he's very well educated

i don't doubt it is he an official

representative of his tribe

you can't just name random indigenous

people

you know there's this trend of just

leftists just naming random indigenous

people as the basis of the authority of

their extreme

just outlandish views about america and

about its future it's like

that's just

you know you can really find anyone to

say anything dude

and i think you we really need to get to

the bottom of the fact that

i don't think you have

you're reconciled with material reality

i think you're trying to impose morality

as the premise of material reality when

material reality's premise is not moral

it's material

materiality is the very premise of

morality itself

you have you have reduced words like

imperialism and colonialism and the

class struggle to the pure language of

pure morality

the only thing you know about

imperialism or colonialism is that it's

a bad thing people do to each other but

if you read lenin lenin didn't have a

primarily moral view of what imperialism

is he had a materialist view where he

was describing

a uh stage of

a mode of production of capitalism and

he wasn't saying that

imperialism is an immoral act

nations do

he's saying imperialism is an actual

mode of production in a sense or the

stage of the capitalist mode of

production

it needs to be defeated on all fronts

either way but that's just a form of

sloganeering and phrase mongering that

has nothing to do with reality

you know i'm glad i had this talks

because i got some insight into

uh your rationality i think for example

during world class

during the cultural revolution in china

there was a war against reality in the

form by slogans

and china learned from this extremism

that prevailed for like the country that

shut down the country

and it's like they've matured from it

but it seems like in the west everyone's

still in this cultural revolution where

they just trying to phrase monger

against the wind and engage in this

slogan hearing imperialism must be

defeated america must be defeated you

can shout these slogans all you want

what is what you're saying have to do

with reality

it has to do with the reality that all

of this land was either stolen or taken

under i ask you for reality and not

morality and you give me more morality

what does that have to do with the

current reality remember reality unless

you're trying to say that reality is

only defined by its moral significance

which is not

we have a responsibility as

individuals why i feel like

why a philosophical error okay okay

responsibility endowed

a responsibility dispensed by what

authority and why

all by the values that we where do these

values come from what are these values

what are they made of where they come

from

personally my values have come from

my sense of solidarity with

uh you just named a value i'm asking you

where the value comes from

it comes from our lived experience

well if you're taught that uh

if you're taught that

it's okay to

uh

do innocent palestinian children then

uh

joining the idf is in line with your

values but if uh you have a better uh

healthier education then you're going to

have a healthier way let's say the

palestinians

had no friends in the region

and they were one percent of the

population would they still exist

they would

really

the israelis wouldn't have just wiped

them all out and they would have been

forgotten

well it sounds you named the number one

percent so

it's not zero there was no arab world

there was no regional significance of

the arab-israeli conflict and it was

just one percent of palestinians

do you think morality would have a hand

in the question of what would happen to

the palestinians

hmm

well it would in that no it wouldn't it

would be completely irrelevant

the only reason you retroactively

explain material realities on a moral

and a moral way

is these are taking for granted the

material premises

the reason why

we can have widespread indignation

at the treatment of the palestinians is

because the palestinians still have a

fighting chance

if they had no fighting chance

we wouldn't even be talking about it

yeah because they put up this struggle

successfully

through you know like

actually posing a

threat to israel

allied with other people in the region

that's why we're still talking about

this conflict if there was no iran

if there was no syria if there was no uh

who else maybe turkey

or pakistan or whatever the muslim world

who wouldn't be talking about it

all right that's why israel doesn't

consider the palestinians its number one

enemy it considers iran as its number

one enemy

from the israeli perspective if there

was no iran there would be no conflict

or there would be no issue there would

there wouldn't be a threat of hamas

uh in gaza or anything like that it

would be

finished

yeah i i've been able to gather what

you're saying uh so it's not it's not

purely based on morality it's not purely

premised by morality

but if a communist party came to power

there it would still have a

responsibility to return yeah but but

the question is how would it come to

power

what

by uniting the proletariat and does it

unite the proletariat on the basis of

morality or material reality

well material reality would uh would

play

the foremost part in how they would

practically uh achieve this

unity listen you're not going to

why hasn't the communist party won power

already

because of imperialism imperialism holds

back revolutions uh within the core

imperialist countries

because of imperialism that's why

there's been no communist party taking

power yeah cecil rhodes actually he has

an interesting

uh

comment about how imperialism is

necessary to prevent revolution in

places like britain because yeah we know

angles said that the labor there was a

labor aristocracy in britain we know but

my question for you

is

if the reason why a communist party

can't get in power because of

imperialism

that begs the question is it even

possible for communist parties to get

power

it'll become possible when u.s

imperialism is dismantled how is it

dismantled

if the dismantlement rests upon the

premise of a communist party getting

power you see why it's an issue

i i don't know exactly what you're

saying but how are you going to defeat

american imperialism without begging the

premise of how you're going to get into

power in the first place if the reason

you can't get into power is because of

american imperialism

american imperialism will become weak

enough to be defeated by a communist

party

when it gets weakened enough on the

peripheries when enough neo-colonies get

liberated from imperial control

then capital will get weakened enough

for the communists to be able to step in

and defeat

a far more vulnerable us capitalist

state

you're saying it's just a matter of time

then before the communists take power in

america

in a sense but uh we're going to have to

approach it right we're going to have to

play so how long are you going to be

waiting

hmm

i i shouldn't make exact predictions i

shouldn't point to dates but it's clear

that in the coming decades

a new wave of revolutions globally is is

likely

and they're going to be led by

communists

by communists but well not necessarily

by communists i don't know exactly

what's going to happen in places like

colombia

gla brazil but revolutions

uh uh against imperialism of differing

kinds are most likely going to occur

so it's the duty of communists if when

they get in power to do all these things

the reason we can't get in power is

because of imperialism so we just have

to wait

for imperialism to collapse

and then we're going to get in power

we're going to need to play an active

role in that obviously we're going to

need to yeah ally with these global

liberation sure what does that mean in

practice aligning with them thank you

gorilla grip does that mean

marching outside with signs

it means not participating in the smear

campaigns against them

oh so you just uh you don't do that's

not really participating that's just you

do you also defend them

and what difference okay

and that's going to be of decisive

significance

it's going to help

it's not going to help

and what practical sense

burning our backs off and what practical

sense is it going to help it's not going

to help

it's going to help in the sense that

it'll

better prepare us

to cooperate with these global

liberation movements uh

if and when we gain power here uh how

are we going to gain power

we're going to sit back and wait for

them right because they're going to do

all the heavy lifting

basically they're going to do all the

heavy lifting and then we're just going

to wait for them and then it's going to

happen so here's my question for you

though

imperialism has existed

in the marxist sense since the late 19th

century

we're living in 2021 now how long are

you going to keep waiting

i shouldn't point to dates i shouldn't

try to make those kinds of predictions

that wouldn't be dialectical

i agree but you could see the overall

point is that

nothing's just gonna happen on its own

obviously the reason communists are not

in power

isn't because of imperialism

it's because communists are ineffective

political agents in western countries

why is that because the conditions

no

that's not why it's not because of

external conditions it's actually

because of

the subjective shortcomings of the

communists themselves and no one else

i feel like that place is too much

responsibility on us

no you are responsible you

rainer shea

you are the best example of this

individually of why communists fail in

the west

you have just premised the meaning of

communism on the basis of the deranged

idea

that all of america must be destroyed

you will never win over the american

people or the american masses which

american people are you talking about

the reactionaries who are going to be

able to overcome or the and this is the

thing you do is that you call everyone

who doesn't agree with your pipe dream

fantasy a reactionary and that's how you

measure the meaning of that word if you

don't agree with my niche fringe view

you're a reactionary well it's your job

to explain to people and expound your

views in such a way

that they can actually be

meaningful to people

that's what i'm doing what are you

succeeding i love my ideas

is that what you're doing

yes no it's not

it's not going to work on everyone

it's not going to work on any decisive

segment of the population that will

carry you to power i promise what about

the colonized peoples they're going to

be the you have a type of weird slave

morality were you just obsessed with

marginalized people for moral reasons

and not for the actual material

significance they possess in the

conquest of power

they do possess a great material

significance because on this continent

due to marginalized people due to

colonized peoples being the most

exploited

they're statistically going to be the

most likely to make up the vanguard yeah

but you know what that is actually

you're exploiting vulnerable people in

it that's what cults do as well you

exploit vulnerable people and make it

seem like that's going to make them into

malleable objects of your political

project hilariously the most

the most resentful populations or the

most sorry oppressed populations in the

united states don't give a shit about

fucking marxism even the communist party

tried to reorient itself to focusing on

the black population for a long time and

they fucking failed so fucking miserably

this idea that you appeal to the most

exploited and most oppressed because

that's going to make them desperate

enough to be able to buy into whatever

bullshit you're selling is racist

condescending and at odds with the facts

of history because people can be

starving and they're still not gonna

give a shit about your fucking pet

project yeah they're gonna maybe maybe

you're gonna find more vulnerable people

who are just gonna be so desperate

they're gonna look for any saving grace

but as a main trend

no you're not gonna fucking be able to

do that i'm so sick of western

communists trying to take advantage of

vulnerable people as empty vessels of

their ideology it's not gonna happen

dude

and the reason the proletariat by the

way was the revolutionary class wasn't

actually because they were the most

exploited or the most desperate actually

the most desperate and the most

oppressed wasn't the proletariat it was

the lumpin proletariat of course the

lumpin were more oppressed than the

proletariat of course segments of the

rural masses

in marx's time we're way more oppressed

than the working class the working class

possesses the revolutionary significance

it does

not because it's the most desperate and

because it's the most poor and it's the

most uh destitute

but because it is

objectively a revolutionary class for

world history it is the first class in

history

that is purely defined

by the selling of its own labor

rather than the selling of uh a

commodity or anything like this it is

the universal citizen and subject

of the modern state

reduced to being able to sell only their

labor expounded and rendered in abstract

terms pure labor labor itself this is

something unprecedented in history

abstract and generalized labor

as defining an actual class in history

thanks for defining that

i'm learning but you need to understand

that the proletariat

isn't wasn't a revolutionary class

because it was marginal or exploited or

you know poor or desperate or whatever

it's because it was objectively a

revolutionary class it had revolutionary

significance for world history marx

writes

he specifically distinguishes the

proletariat from the mass of the

destitute poor that are weighing on

society like a rock he says no the

proletariat's not like that the reason

the proletariat because that has always

exist there's always been a mass of poor

you know

people that comprise the majority of

society that's way out down like that

and his introduction to um

i think it was hegel's uh critique of

hegel's philosophy of right

he writes that the proletariat is an

ingenious soil of the people that

rather than a mass

of uh

the poor weighing down on society on one

side

it's a class that uh

has a unique

significance

um

although being a minority at the time of

the population

you know disproportionate amount of the

proletariat in this country are

colonized people's disproportionate

amount of labor i don't think i i don't

think listen i think the word

proletariat because of the new left

which was a cultural revolution

turned into the oppressed

and these two became synonymous

the proletariat doesn't just mean this

up

oppressed and the reason it's hard to

really define the proletariat in america

is because our state

and the state of every modern country in

the 21st century pretty much

has evolved to such an extent that there

is no class whatsoever

that only sells its own labor

labor is now conditioned by a special

relationship with the state whether you

want to call it the welfare state

or

um

the social state whatever we call this

the premises

of the economic existence of the working

class

are political now

they're taken in the form of the state

that their staff citizens they have

certain benefits there's a certain

regulatory significance of the state

that ensures a specific um

economic

uh conditions of

the

selling of labor like for example

federal minimum wages and

you know standards as far as the

regulation of companies under treatment

of workers

um all sorts of regulations that just

define the fabric of economic life that

premises our existence

so we don't really have

the proletariat of marx's time

to speak of the proletariat has evolved

into a kind of worker citizen class

in each and every state and country

there is no pro pure proletariat

anywhere in the world

there is no class that is uh only

selling its labor so the categories of

oppressed and proletariat certainly

intersect to a great extent i agree i

agree

i agree but that's you have to

understand marxism is about the

scientific view of reality by scientific

i just mean

it's not about just a purely subjective

and moral stance about reality it means

to also address objective realities

not just purely moral

ones there's also an intersection

between uh what

dialectical materialism demands and what

morality demands i mean look look at the

argument that uh

the reactionaries as in the

pro-imperialists the

uh pro-capitalists have

for preserving the established order uh

they try to obfuscate morality the uh

the revolutionaries are definitely

morally superior to them uh and i i what

does that have to do with what we're

talking about the dialectical

materialism and morality

how

well it has to do with uh

the mandate the moral mandate and i know

you don't like the word moral where do

you find this in dialectical materialism

dialectical materialism

uh

what marxism leninism calls for

correlates so much with what morality

calls for it's immoral to

liberate the majority of the people the

proletariat from

what writings do you find this view of

morality according to marx and ingles

and

lenin and other marxist leninists

what i'm saying is that

my

motive

the motivating force between behind why

am i marxist why i study these writings

yeah is because i i feel there's a moral

need to live but that that's that has

nothing to do with that would be

so

that's basically um

not only is that not marxist

it's actually quite infantile it's

almost religious it's

even pre-philosophical

marx came from the background of german

idealism and hegelian philosophy

so morality is not the privileged site

of

what motivates our development

subjectively

the ideas i have do not come from the

privilege they come from the very least

privileged people who've had their land

stolen the people who've been screwed

over by settler colonialism

you know what i find

so tiring

is that you

just ignore what i say and you just jump

on every

attempt you get

to just spew moral indignation and i

think in a la canadian sense you enjoy

it almost like i do in the sense of

sexual gratification like you enjoy this

moral indignation and it just satisfies

you in some kind of way

did you know that what i said all i said

was that morality is not the privileged

site of the development of the subject

and you immediately interpreted my words

to talk about

privileged

ways of life for privileged statuses

it's just well it sounds like i'm not

all that learned in the in this lingo

that you're talking about so if i i

jumped on that and misinterpreted that

then uh i i guess i i should have been

more uh

measured but

my my points still stand my points about

the need to liberate

these hundreds of indigenous nations

yeah but listen you're talking about and

you're talking about empty phrases which

means nothing how are you going to what

does liberation mean how are you going

to do it what is its

practical significance you're just

virtue signaling is what you're doing

you're virtue signaling in a vacuum of

moral virtue signaling you're

in you're shouting for you're just

talking about phrases of thank you so

much jackson appreciate your time

thank you so much

you're just talking about like you know

uh liberation and freedom and you know

imperialism but it's like

you realize that the significance of

your words is to give you pleasure and

not to actually signify anything real

right it's just a way for you to

be gratified subjectively

this the theft of the land is very real

well you just you just gratified

yourself when you said that it's almost

as if you're

you're touching yourself while you're

playing

well you're talking

i'm not i'm not masturbating right now

i'm having a discussion but you're

basically masturbating you're just

saying things that

only have significance to subjectively

gratify

your kind of like

beautiful soul unhappy consciousness and

you know your

uh

acute sense of moral indignation

it's very

righteous moral indignation it has some

does it feel good

does it feel good

well it does it does feel good to

try to i think don't you think that you

should weigh

between feeling good and what you're

actually doing in reality because i

think you're putting the feeling good

over the

actual reality when it comes to reality

it takes two to tango it sounds like you

just masturbate by yourself

instead of bringing in a dose of reality

you can't just feel good

you also have to

man up to the reality

right you can't just sit there and feel

good about your morality that's all

you're doing is just making yourself

feel good you're not actually like

interacting with reality in a

decisive or meaningful way

people need to man up to the reality

that this

world the reality that the land is

stolen and that

the world is immoral the world is a

world of uh

total depravity and that we need to

acknowledge corrected

yeah we need to acknowledge all of the

evil and sickness around us and that's

the first path to

redemption and salvation right it's

calvinism

i'm glad i had this discussion i need to

uh go so that i can write my next

article which will be an anti-colonial

polemic

that uh draws the analogy between the

israeli occupation and the occupation on

this continent yeah but you can't you

can't draw that analogy because one is

about

some absolute moral morality in relation

to the whole past and everything another

one is about what's actually going on in

the present tense

and a real conflict and also the israel

the israeli-palestinian conflict is not

premised

by the good graces of people like you

and morality

the israeli-palestinian conflict is

actual real world historical conflict

so is the conflict between no it is not

nations no it is not there is no world

historical conflict between indigenous

people and the entirety of the united

but st there is no conflict between

indigenous people in the us government

that calls into question the entire

existence of the united states

outside of certain americans aren't

going for in this article that's what

i'm going to be arguing for you cannot

materially it's not true materially it's

not true

i'm going to be arguing for that too

it's been nice talking uh i'm gonna go

now i don't know what you can argue for

that you couldn't explain here

goodbye

okay how does anyone follow that guy

it's so weird like how does anyone fall

that guy's like doesn't know anything