If you didn't know, this is a follow up video to one I made last week. Going through the arguments socialists have towards Electoralism. th-cam.com/video/iBcF9Iv2rHs/w-d-xo.html
Ok, I see what you are saying… But… Why the hell did you feel like attacking MLs and making a parallel between Biden and Stalin? Like, I guess if you are strictly referring to terminally online edgelords who heard about the Black Book of Communism and decided Stalin “has a bigger score” so he’s cooler, then, ok, but those are nazbols. I guess there’s also a liberal parallel to that by exclusively looking at history through revisionist rose glasses and pretending their favourite boi did nothing wrong as opposed to “he did wrong and that’s cool”… but a lot of serious MLs don’t actually believe their “heads” were perfect, I am a ML, I have a long list of things I don’t like about each and every socialist leader. But I still can engage in learning from what went well during previous socialist experiments AND, perhaps most importantly, I can understand and show critical support for governments and organisations that seem to cut against the worst effects of capital and colonialism. Sure, I don’t like every aspect about the UN and how they run their charity for Palestine… I still donated hundreds of dollars to UNRWA because even if I don’t like some things about it, Palestinians are starving in Gaza and there aren’t many organisations that actually try and succeed to push through some food. Yes, UNRWA is a liberal organisation… I don’t care, it’s not as if I can buy food and deliver it myself to people in a closed siege zone guarded by hitlerites. Also, let’s look at Cuba. Yes, I have my criticisms but do I think it’s worth supporting the current government over a theoretical US-backed alternative? Heck yes. Not to mention there’s also things to praise about the current political structure in Cuba since they passed a very progressive bill in regards to LGBTQIA+ rights despite ardent opposition from the catholics and it is better than what most liberal democracies were ever able to achieve. That’s nothing to scoff at, especially in a relatively poor and isolated country that doesn’t have the material benefits of other first world countries. Yes, the concept of a stepping stone is problematic, not everything we step on towards our goals is a stepping stone, sometimes it is a bear trap that anchors us in the past and dilutes revolutionary sentiment. However, comparing MLs who give critical support towards some current governments or organisations with blue MAGA liberals who turn themselves into 4-dimensional pretzels just to feel morally superior when they vote blue again… that ain’t it bro, that ain’t cool. It’s frankly reminiscent of the hilarious nonsense Vaush said about “Marx would vote blue no matter who” except mirrored and told from the “but that’s why he’s bad” perspective.
I do argue that the left needs branding and to produce revenue to get its message across but their needs to be regulators in that online community which are people that make sure that the internet personality stays consistent in their messaging and does not simply change their point of view to conservative positions over time because that person sees it as more marketable to make even more money. What the left needs are strong online communities that can get its most basic messages across to more people while not veering away from its core message due to lifestylism or complacency.
@@nicholasmocalis589 Problem is, the only way this happens - this being, essentially, ideological mediation/therapy, if it was actually coercive in any form it would be policing, and for excellent reasons we don't do policing, especially thought - is organising, and pooling resources. Otherwise the market incentives are there, and there's only so long any person will tolerate poverty - it is torture, after all - and obscurity - especially as expressive creatives. Things being what they are, that comes with limitations - most popular platforms, like Tik-Tok, Twitch, and TH-cam, are simply not designed for that, and not very conducive to it. Some creatives are trying to do something like this over on Nebula, but so as to pool resources better, it's a subscription based, opt-in platform, and though the entry fee is outrageously low, it is still there, a paywall, meaning that most people who actually need the message can't access it, even if lucky enough to hear of the platform and be interested in it; and even on Nebula, there are creators getting in that are a bit sus. Just saying. No, offline organising and message spreading is the way to go. Online creators are good for introduction to the left, the actual left, but as always, the real work is offline, even if organised online. Else you go for a Marxist-Leninist model of a few professional revolutionaries elected by paying members of a much broader organisation, and supported by the contributions of said members - but then, you'd have to set up that organisation, and there are a myriad traps of co-option and balance-tampering from hostile agents to overcome in the process. These are problems creators know already. The best of them are still working on workarounds. They might even come-up with something. In the meantime, my suggestion is, go offline to organise, and be a pest to any rightist PoS spreading their BS online, so as to get people moving towards alternatives, specifically our range of alternatives, if you're convincing enough, which you're basically guaranteed to be, at least to some people some of the time. When the Revolution comes, it will find spreaders for the message, that much is almost guaranteed by now. With all the odds stacked against us, this achievement has to be our comfort, and their pride. Simple as that. Have a good day, comrade.
@mannyrivera6399 I have yet to find one myself, and I have heard that they are fascinating and informative as long as you go with at least a bit of an open mind. I don't agree with every lefty and their ideas, but sometimes I do evolve as a result.
She's great at explaining trans issues and understanding what nazi types are up to. But yeah unfortunately she's a classist casually cruel lib weirdo lol. So is h bomber lib. So are most of the richest leftoobers sad to say. It's almost creepy actually. They act like the most respectable and righteous person on the planet but uhhhh... About that lolz.
damn I have never watched her videos but that's basically an inch away from calling yourself a possibilist for a bit after hearing incessant praise towards breadtube I decided to watch a little of it and I was quickly put off by how much of it was pandering to baby leftists / liberals wanting to look like they were leftists because it felt cool, with all the authoritarian apologia, lack of meaningful praxis ideas or exposition of history and theory
I found her early on in my move to the left. She makes good points here and there, and her video quality is amazing. While I agreed with some of what she would say, I didn't stop there in my journey. She was useful to me in my movement to the left, and I still watch her videos when they come out, and that is in the same way I would watch a movie or other video for fun.
Imo all who don't have dialectic materialism and historical materialism are either already "pessimistic socialists" or are heading inevitably in that direction. Without revolutionary philosophy, there can be no revolutionary movement.
“Socialism doesn’t proliferate capital being incentivized, so a conditional profit based production of food won’t have to exi-“ “MUH KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN!?”
What if a socialist does, hypothetically, want fried chicken? Say we solve homelessness and poverty and disease and it goes better than even the most optimistic among us could have expected. Can we still have a building that you can just sit down in and eat fried chicken when you really don't want to cook it your self?
@@shadowcween7890 well yeah, people are still going to love cooking and love that they can work with cooking, the contradiction to socialism would be if they wanted to franchise or something.
No, what Marxists (Lenin especially) actually say is - use electoralism to organize, discuss, and teach workers what collective action means and to voice opinion of the working class. Electoralism as a means to an end, and that is substantially different to what liberal leftism means today - vote and do nothing but vote.
They said at a particular time in history in the context of the soviets in Russia. That same time also involved ruthless criticism of the SPD and in hindsight, Rosa's failure to break away from them out of disbelief at their reactionary positions. Only Trots believe that electoralism is a transhistorical means to organise discuss and teach. Workers already know what collective action is, their economic demands are simply not politicised.
@@AkichiDaikashima “Their . . . demands have simply not been politicized” really hits at the root of the problem here! Topics like BLM or Gaza have been around for literal *generations*, but the conditions behind them haven’t fundamentally changed since, as they have only recently been politicized in a sufficient manner! 🧐
that concept only really makes sense in the context of early and unstable democracy that still coexists with semi-feudal and absolutist systems tbh. and even then most parties at the time did moderate very quickly
This. We're not there to win, we're there to use the platform for outreach, visibility and as a superficial means of legitimacy. Plus, if you live in a place with public funding for institutional political parties, for that too.
Speaking of Radical Third Places, it would be cool for you to do another video on such Radical Third Places around the world, their history and their struggles (places like Blitzhuset, Ungdomshuset, Provo and squats in Berlin, the Netherlands and BRISTOL!)
Dammit, was in Berlin twice last year and never knew about these places. It might be nice to have a good catalogue of them, sites like Radical Guide have a very clunky interface.
Yet again, another great video that points out the problems with electoralism without being snarky, rude, and dismissive of the simple act of voting itself. And the cherry on top is providing an alternative that is possible for the vast majority of people to do.
Not just for anarchists, electoralism also reinforces the current state's power structures in the minds of those under it. And the current state in capitalist nations will seek to protect its partners in crime that pay and support it.
I feel like at a certain point, using this angle relies on a weird circular logic. With the US as an example on one side with voter turnout in the 60% range on average, you would think, with this logic that the government would conduct itself as having a minority mandate (as it is necessarily constituted from a vote of a minority of the eligible voters), but it always acts like it has the unanimous support of all. Considering the idea that a non-vote is as strong as an actual vote doesn't really hold and particularly as it doesn't carry any information as such. A non-vote cannot be read as any one thing in particular. That's the crux here. By not voting you effectively take the least powerful position the system allows you. Which I would argue does a much more effective job of allowing the winners to pat themselves on the back and continue to run roughshod over our interests. Voting is a low power act, but not voting is lower than that.
So true, those counterpoints are valid, but still even if we carry out revolution, we can't fall back to the preservation of state as tool of social order and sustenance, we couldn't carry complete and thorough revolution without mass conversions in bottom-up approach that will take slow pacing time as well prolonged attrition on policy-making against reactionary elements within the system against us from its starting point of the race, thus why we need to start slowly and steady from small scale election, approval, accountability, and policy-making within your close-knit communities and families, at the same time whenever these opposing element trying to push back against progress that had been worked hard by us for must be uphold and dared into state of social war by organizing ourselves.
When you mention creating spaces/groups that are not just "We must go to the masses, we must lead the people!" I'm reminded of one of my flatmates from uni. He is a dyed-in-the-wool Trotskyist and very heavily involved with the Socialist Party Scotland, a "local branch" of the Committee for a Workers' International, who is incredibly well-read, intelligent and passionate. As you point out wrt those who "proclaim", he and the party he is with is claiming to be "doing something". However, it broke my heart that he had given himself so fully to a group that did little more than put up tables next to protests, sell newspapers, hold restricted pub talks and collect signatures. I don't remember them doing any organising, direct action, or anything more substantive. This was not a matter of lazy or poor organising, but it went to the very core of what the group is: he explained to me at a party once that the Committee for a Workers' International does not see itself as the movement, but rather as the ones "laying the groundwork" to chair the "mass workers' movement" when it eventually comes. A committee *for* a workers' international, ready to lead and just waiting for *when* it comes. As you point out so beautifully in your video, a lack of imagination, ability to dream, ambition to build is the death knell for any proper socialist, and that goes for electoralism (regardless of success) as well as the groups who proclaim to be "doing something".
I think there is validity in going to protests for workers, standing on the picket line with others, and while it won't change the system it will at least create awareness and solidarity in an unbearable system. I'm not a Trotskyist, I'm a Marxist-Leninist, but I see other lefties out in picket lines and think the more people work together, the more capitalism can at least be put on notice. Let's face it, in western countries we're out-gunned. So, unity is key. I see so many leftists target other leftists that it sometimes seems like the capitalists have us where they want us. As mentioned in another topic, I think harm reduction is a good thing. We need to campaign and fight to keep what we have. For example, here in Canada we have to fight today just to stop privatization of health care and keep things listed on our health cards. This is as important. It may not be revolutionary, but it is clear harm reduction. If leaflets and newsletters and marching helps, then we should do it. P.S. I'm not saying I'm not guilty of looking at certain "leftists" and scratching my head. For example, I think so-called "libertarian" communists (as if there were such a thing) or some of the American-based "MAGA communists" are kind of, how shall we say, not a full cup of coffee. They are not the brightest bulbs in the box. They may even be gaslighters just seeking personal wealth and get views for ad revenue. I have no idea, yet I don't consider them genuine communists in the least. But I try to avoid outright war with them, because fighting capitalism is #1.
I don't see the problem. If you think about what a "vanguard" has to be for a little you'll see it's fundamentally unaligned with the long term interests of socialism. If they're out there trying to get people on board overall I see that as a strong contribution in the effort. It's true that a beginning is a delicate time and any Vanguard has to have certain ideals that can lead to fruitful organization. But almost everything a vanguard needs to get into position is pretty heavy-handed, and kind of at odds with creating a peaceable, equitable and dynamic society.
Im not even politically active nor am i very left wing but as a young immigrant living in Europe one of the points that stuck out to me was the posturing of many specifically marxist Leninist groups who, from my experience, are simply very (not necessarily rich but) well off students or younger people who, for the lack of a better word, LARP as if they’re sectaries and local governors in some 20th century ML recently revolutionised Nation . It’s why many people dont vote, for example, for the Socialist candidates in many British constituencies even the furthest left ones.
I am so glad you are back! I used to watch your videos all the time and then suddenly you dropped off! Please keep posting, I really enjoy hearing your thoughts and views!
What a nice and thoughtful video! And I completely agree. It's honestly a little dispiriting to see people, even on the radical left, with so little in the way of an active imagination (see also the reluctance a bunch of people online have when it comes to prison abolition, though I haven't seen as much of that IRL), and I do believe that communitarian spaces can be an amazing first step in places (like most of the First World) where the left is in shambles because they allow us to learn to _think_ like socialists. We are playing the long game, and it is upon us to be compassionate and patient with one another as we seek to make the world a better place. Although there are absolutely things that I think are worth shouting from the rooftops even if it brings us discomfort or takes a lot out of us - and _Free Palestine_ is certainly among them!
Seconding the 'always happy to be among people who won't let us get complacent' thing. Any project of building a better world has to be engaged in with the understanding that it is both a) deadly serious and b) not any one person's to dictate.
Something to add is that going through the establishment ignores the fact that those who are inside have no agency to control the political system. Whenever a left wing gets elected, they are not pulling the establishment left, the establishment was going to pull them right. A good video on this is the ratchet effect by fellow traveler.
I always appreciate that you can talk about conservatives without insults and you nailed the reason why it appears consolidated, but I assure you American Conservatism is very divided group.
@@weatheranddarknessyeah the differences are all surface level : In the end they all seek power . Nothing more nothing less . Be it the pastor condemming minorities , The gun nut libertarian in his backyard , Or the big buisnessman ... They all want less controlls for themselves and more for their oppositions , And they don't fundamentally contradict each other ... They are a bunch of parralel lines
Not when it comes down to voting. In november the "respectable and principled" conservatives, maga chuds, cops, the kķķ, wannabe viking weirdos and others come together to support the guy with an R under his name.
Your chaticature of marxist Leninists is completely simplistic. I'm an ML and I completely agree with everything you've said in this video. No serious ML acts the way you describe or at least not the vast majority who actually organise in person.
no serious ML acts the way he describes, and no true scottsman puts sugar in his porridge though I guess irl I have more experience with trots than MLs
@anarchosnowflakist786 This has nothing to do with a true scottsman it's just simply the fact that no marxist leninist outside of the internet who actually organizes or does anything of value too the movement acts that way.
Participating in bourgeois elections and expecting Marxism-Leninism to win is an attempt in futility. However, there is benefit in participation, I think the benefit is reducing your pain under capitalism as best you can (SocialDems suck, but are better than Conservatives or Liberals). If you have a genuine communist on the ballot, then turn out and support them. So for me, its not about 'winning' in a bourgeois election, its merely about harm reduction.
What harm reduction? Seriously, more harm has been done at an international level in the last 4 years by "voting for the lesser evil" and "harm reduction". The children over in Gaza or the Slaves in the Congo lives aren't better. Your personal life may be MARGINALLY better in the imperial core by not my much. I know mine isn't.
@@BlazinTre I'm not actually in disagreement with you. I think the bourgeois parties suck, all of them. The global system of imperial exploitation has to go. I'm just saying I'd rather have rent control and a health card than to not have those items as we fight to replace this disgusting capitalist system. I'd rather have a higher minimum wage, tax credits, and picket and unionize for better wages and benefits now while we fight the system that is a failure. Keeping the worst fascists out is worthwhile even if we fight for socialism in the future to get rid of this global imperial system of today. I'm with you.
@@BlazinTrethe last president fucking up the supreme court is one example. when they overturned a certain decision, red state "trigger laws" went into effect instantly. I personally would not want to reside in those states. But more importantly, a second Trump presidency would be extremely annoying. I don't want to have to hear his obnoxious whining all over the news again.
So many people here have that lack of imagination, either clinging to arguments of electoralism, or clinging to century old models where the practicioners have either collapsed or embraced the commodity form and capitalism. We need to be daring and try to experiment with bold new ideas, like you said at the end
15:33 I’d like to address this point a bit cause I think it’s a little misconstrued. Of course in private left spaces, like reading groups and what not, we should discuss the failures of the USSR, Stalin and Mao and all those people. But if you’re putting your voice out on a public platform, I think a leftist has a certain amount of responsibility (especially when talking about existing socialist countries like Cuba) to understand the context in which you speak. That as someone in the imperial core, any criticism of places like Cuba necessarily lend themselves to support of imperialism. We should be aware of that I think. Also, in the context of public speech and not of private discussion, my job isn’t to make places Cuba or even North Korea better. I don’t live there and I have no power to meaningfully change it. That’s up to the workers in those countries. My job is to make sure my own government doesn’t try to fuck them up anymore than they already have.
Well that sort of seems like the 'Multipolarity' argument, and it's one that I pretty much entirely reject these days. We do have the ability to teach a correct way of viewing a place, person, situation etc whilst not endorsing it in public too. Because if I was in that position, Multipolarity doesn't matter much if it's your back thats feeling the whip, and this viewpoint can lead you to defending states instead of the people within them. The statement 'any criticism of places like Cuba, USSR etc lends itself to Imperialism' in actuality lends itself very succinctly to vulgar Anti-ImperialismTM that you get from a lot of ML's, and fellow travellers like The Grayzone etc. That ends up with you defending Venezuela annexing Guyana and so on. The solution is to teach an accurate picture of the situation from the outset, instead of going down that road which just allows these dogmatists to take the reins, I've had enough of that. I'm going to go a lot more into this on a video I hope to get out by the end of the year but basically, thats the gist of it. That line of argument for me just becomes uncontrollable and doesn't foster independent thought.
@@BadMouseProductions Ya, I get what you mean. I’m not saying you should actively defend everything a socialist state does. I’m more speaking against people like Vaush who are “publicly against” most socialist states in a really aggressive manner. To me, there’s no point in doing that, since it doesn’t offer any material change to better those people’s lives. That’s something they have to decide to do on their own. So I don’t have a problem with not actively supporting socialist states as much as I have a problem with constantly “denouncing” them entirely. It does nothing really except boost your own ego and provide a mouthpiece for imperialist talking points.
@@BadMouseProductions "Venezuela annexing Guyana"? dude, there is a LOT of ignorance in that comment. Please read more before claiming something very akin to an Eurocentric leftist please.
@@BadMouseProductions I also view it in terms of a hierarchy of societal contradictions. What’s the more primary contradiction vs. secondary contradictions and which one needs the most attention at this moment? Take Israel Palestine for example, when Palestine abolishes the Israeli state and forms a new Palestinian state, that newly formed state will most likely be regressive, homophobic, misogynistic and so on. But at this moment I’m not gonna “hem and haw” about possible flaws in new Palestine or whatever it ends up being. The colonial relation between Israel and Palestine is the contradiction that is primary at the moment and most pertinent to our goal of building socialism. It’s only after that, that the primary contradiction will become the (likely, capitalist) state of “New Palestine” vs. the working class of the whole area. I view most things this way. Yes, Cuba has flaws, but until the imperialist relationship between global capital and the working class of Cuba are leveled, it will remain the primary contradiction that deserves the most attention. The relationship between the authority of the worker state vs. the masses of Cuba (among other things) will remain a secondary contradiction, because even if these secondary contradictions are smooth out, they will still exist as a whole under oppression of capital. It would be like trying to replace the floorboard of a house when the base itself is rotting away.
@@roryreviewer6598 I remember when there was some drama regarding an artist who did some kind of cartoon of a Muslim lady removing her scarf as a symbol of empowerment. And some people came along and were like "Hmmm that's got Islamophobic vibes, maybe just try and jazzify her scarf instead" Yet in countries where headscarfs are mandatory removing them IS a real thing that is defiance. Now I'm all for countering imperialist sentiment, I also know that narratives can become coopted if the form they take is in the stronger interest of some crappy group. You don't need to counter NATO by talking about BiH and Serbia for example, that just leads to you denying massacres. The simplest thing I say about that is that they proclaim to be defensive and yet they toppled Gadaffi. I would agree with you on Palestine who are actively occupied, not so much for Cuba. Arguably the blockade is wrong, yet when the USSR was around they received financial backing which supplemented this loss, so even if it were removed that is basically what you'd get, which again would still be a state. If someone is suffering in a given situation me saying "Multipolarity" won't make them feel any better. I think the primary/secondary contradiction with regards to imperialism might need further updating.
I’ve been talking about this for the last three years and I have never gotten anyone to understand but this is put so well. I can just send this video now.
This video was (generally) very good, and I agreed with the vast majority of what you said. Before I get into other things - ~6:44: Yeah, PatSocs are a plague. Actual MLs don't like them. They (PatSocs) are not MLs. They're blatantly revisionist and blatantly reactionary. Some may call them "class reductionists," but they don't care about the class part, either. They're also heavily associated with LaRouchite groups, and Maupin at the least has hinted at his admiration for LaRouche for years. These are obviously huge (not the good kind of) red flags. Seems like they're a way of sabotaging the movement. Onto the next bit. Everything was generally good until ~14:45 Tf was that!? Seriously? I was going to ask if 2:52 was supposed to be a jab at Lenin, but now I'm fairly sure it is. So you still haven't gotten over your anti-ML phase?? What a shame. Seemed like maybe you had some time back. That doesn't even make sense. Comparing Biden to Stalin of all people? What?? What was the "material conditions" part of that!? It's a reference to an argument many of us know, but it doesn't apply to the USSR during Stalin's leadership. Socialism was in fact achieved in the '30s. Collective ownership of the means of production, private property virtually abolished, markets largely abolished (iirc, there was pretty much only a [regulated] market for exchange between industry and agriculture), etc. Wtf. It would've made way more sense to reference the stans of the modern CPC there! ""MLs"" and others who ignore or brush off the blatant revisionism, and insist that China's on a socialist road despite the overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary. But nah, you had to bash Stalin. "I'm so radical!" But in the next breath, "Stalin bad hurrr! Amirite everyone? Anticommunist propaganda tells us he was bad so he bad." And in a way that doesn't even make sense. When there are far better examples you could've used. It's even more funny - and ironic - because Stalin (and Lenin) *actually did the thing!* Successful proletarian revolution. Bourgeois/ rightist state smashed. New Soviet state protected and maintained despite huge challenges. Socialism built, despite what they had to work with (The Russian Empire having been an extremely backwards, mostly agrarian, semi-feudal state). One of the most impressive industrializations in human history. Despite the starting point at the time of revolution (way, way behind the West), becomes the first country to reach space. In that time, illiteracy is also eradicated, all the important indicators, as well as conditions and quality of life, etc., go up drastically. Millions of people pulled out of poverty, getting educated, and living in a socialist society. Etc. etc. And this state defeated the fascist powers, as well. And in spite of all the damage done to their country in the process, they pressed on, and continued to do impressive things (unfortunately, revisionists came to power after Stalin's death, but still). Stalin (and his supporters) also personally pushed for the building of socialism, and had to fight the rightists and other oppositionists in the Party to do so. He actually did the thing. But here you are sh*tting on him (don't want my comment buried) like your average liberal. Come on, man. You should really move beyond this anti-ML thing in general. I thought you had years ago. Some "MLs" aren't great (to say the least), which is why I have to call myself an anti-revisionist ML. But sh*tting on ML itself - which those people have often completely deviated/ moved away from - and all MLs is just silly. Especially since, ya know - the vast, vast majority of successful revolutions have been led by MLs, or people following ML ideology/ strategy. [Edit: Sorry for long comment, but it was likely necessary. At least, if you actually read and consider it.] [Edit 2: Also, apologies if I misinterpreted anything (though I don't think I did - I think my interpretation fits what you said/ your framing). I believe the general point(s) is (/are) valid either way, though. And tbc, I was speaking in simplified terms. Lenin and Stalin were the leaders/ figureheads, but as they themselves would say (and they both did, multiple times), the masses are the ones who make history. And the Soviet people carried out the building of all that. (Though they were following Lenin and Stalin's correct lines, ofc.)]
You make some very valid points but i disagree on your characterization of China. There is no defined pathway for socialism, its basically defined as the transition from capitalism to communism. A transition that can take centuries. You have to sometimes look at the world we live in. Its run almost exclusively by capitalists, and worse run by ones that are hyper militaristic. So what is China supposed to do, stay true to what people consider a more pure socialism or adapt to the hand they have been dealt. They have done a remarkable job at developing their society, their poverty alleviation program, their infrastructure development is just amazing. And better they have spent trillions on helping other developing nations in building their own economies and infrastructure. Credit where credit is due. They're a socialist society, they control the commanding heights of their economy. They did have to take a few steps back to be accepted by the western capitalist nations but all for the benefit of their people, and ours. Give them a break. They're still a primary target for American haegemony now more than ever. We need to stand by them and hope they can guide the Americans to collapse on the weight of their own contradictions. Because if they can do that, maybe other nations might just see the advantages of adapting a socialist society when daddy America isn't there with a boot on their throat. Other than that i think his characterization of George Galloway was very unkind and unfair.
@@obione69 So you're exactly one of those people I referenced - under the broad umbrella of people that make it necessary for me to explicitly call myself an "anti-revisionist ML." [Haha, jk. Well, no I'm not really kidding. But I'm trying to be nice. Even though I already worded that much more nicely than I could have (a single, simple word would've sufficed).] Before I get into anything else - Xi Jinping himself has said that China will never have a planned economy again. I.e., he straight up said that China will never be socialist again. Socialism, as a system, has a definition and criteria. A system based on the collective ownership of the means of production. The vast, vast majority of enterprise must be collectively owned. [This is the simple definition, ofc, but that is basically the main defining feature.] Is this the case in China?? Haha, no, of course not. And the CPC hasn't just "taken a few little steps back" or something. They - at the very least the leadership - are so beyond revisionist it's ridiculous. They not only allowed a big bourgeoisie to come about, grow, and flourish - to the dominant position they occupy now - they *straight up allowed the bourgeoisie into the "Party."* Being a socialist, let alone a communist, has nothing to do with being in the "Party" anymore. Perfect example - even back around *1995* - years and years after the initial reforms of 1978 - urban employment in China was only around ~15% private sector. Even if you accept the reforms were "necessary" (and there's a good argument they weren't), they could've kept capital *way* more under control/ on a much tighter leash. They didn't. They've done the exact opposite. The situation is flipped now, around ~85% of urban employment in China is *private sector.* And that stat is from *years ago.* Yes, things were different back then - but it only serves to reinforce what I'm saying *even more.* And, ofc, agriculture?? Yeah, that's been privatized, too. For the last *45 years,* the CPC and China have consistently moved further and further away from socialism. Not towards it. And they *had* socialism - or at the very least much closer - beforehand. The "productive forces" argument - when used in the way it is to uncritically defend the CPC, for instance, is BS. It's merely used to push any possible leftward movement to a matter of the distant future. It's also just not true, because we know socialism allows for the development and expansion of productive forces, and increase in conditions, much, *much* faster than capitalism does. To the "poverty" stuff - China's rate of homelessness is apparently on par with that of the US. And the "centuries" thing - yikes. That kind of thinking is likely exactly what BM was alluding to. Even Lenin, when they were doing it for the first time, said "decades" - to be generous (iirc). This was not the case. Stalin was basically like "Economy's roughly at pre-war [pre-WW1] levels? Socialism time, baby." As a result, the NEP lasted only (roughly) 6 or 7 years. And Stalin was completely correct in doing this. [And the NEP itself was a much further left version of State Capitalism than what China has. By far.] There's *so* much more that could be said. But I'll leave it there. If you're actually interested, I recommend maybe reading one of my community tab posts on my political channel (It's called, "It's Called Leninism") - the one with the picture that says "Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics." Lots of illustrative info there. And/or Fellow Traveler's recent big video on China (though he titled the last segment something that goes completely against the info from the entire rest of the video.) I'm not "against China," and I support it against the US, etc., but it doesn't have a socialist system. And the CPC leadership has absolutely no interest in moving towards one. Without addressing revisionism, it remains and festers. Getting to the ridiculous levels we see from the modern "CPC" - an institution that's undoubtedly become totally undeserving of the name. Remember that Lenin and Stalin - and even all the way back to Marx and Engels - put up a relentless struggle against revisionism. It's necessary. Deng was basically the Chinese Gorbachev. Acknowledging the latter as a revisionist, but not the former, is some cognitive dissonance/ mental gymnastics, tbh. And things have only gotten (substantially) worse after his passing. Edit: And the "pure" socialism thing 🙄. "If you want socialism to actually mean something, you just have a "purity fetish!"" Mhm. Sure. [It doesn't have to be "pure" to be socialism - I'd consider that to basically be "full socialism" - but the vast, vast majority of enterprise must be collectively owned. Otherwise, it doesn't really mean anything, does it?] If the uncritical (modern) CPC stans were somehow in the Bolshevik Party at the end of the NEP, and did things consistent with the positions they hold now - they would've been in/ supported the (pitiful) right opposition. Just saying. China is essentially a type of "social democracy" ["welfare capitalism"] at this point. And who knows how long even the SocDem elements will remain?? Considering the CPC's continuous rightist trajectory, and what we know about the eventual fate of "social democracy"?
@@slipknotboy555 You talk about others being a revisionist but yet seem stuck in a dogmatic timeline almost a century old. Holding a puritanical standard claiming anyone who deviates is a revisionist is just cancer. You should listen to Vijay Prasad. He is an actual acedemic on these issues and would tear your entire narrative down to a simple phrase, stuck in a bygone era. Its amusing how rigid and inflexible you people are. Just unwavering in your own religious belief in how things must be. Incapable of understanding that gradual transitions are just that, Gradual. There is no hard coded blueprint a country needs to follow to be socialists, other than for the state to control the commanding heights of the economy. So you understand that doesn't necessarily include all labor in the nation. Its also very arrogant to demand that China maintains its Mao era policies which denied the country the ability to trade and interact with the other capitalist nations allowing them to enormously expand their economy by having access to their markets. And i don't know where you get your statistics on homelessness, but to take a cheap jab at their poverty alleviation program and suggest they have as many homeless as the Americans is just gross. You really are just shameless in belittling their achievements based on a fundamentalist view that if they don't conform to your demands then just insult them. I started by trying to be respectful in my original comment but since you decided to be this way, time to eat your own medicine.
Pal, writing a long-ass defense of daddy Stalin is a clear sign that you probably had put too much of your self-worth into whatever label you associate with. The successes and crimes of USSR are much more complex that "X did right/wrong" thing and running an assamad defense of some old leader certainly does not help in any discussion of certain policies or characteristics of Soviet government
It's always so funny when Stalinists say "Lenin and Stalin did the thing! Those guys! Those two guys!" Yeah? Just those two guys did the thing? There wasn't at least one more? Like, we both know who you're airbrushing out here and why. The amusement comes from the fact that it's okay to bash THAT guy who did the thing, but not the other guy.
I'm beginning to firmly believe that a pursuit of electoralism is a construction of a livelihood in that progress down that route demands a lot out of you and ends up converting your ontology of change into one of maintenance Your horizon for political imagination recedes and your resentment towards dissent against the liberal-capital democracy apparatus grows, greatly
I think I needed to hear the optimism. I’ve been otg for years, I’ve seen my friends get hurt, I’ve seen good people suffer for the arrogant whims of exploitative “socialist parties”, I’ve been actively marshaling and doing what little I can for Palestine, including volunteer work at a Palestinian community center. I feel like I’m simultaneously being stretched thin and like it’s all superficial and done in arrogance on my end. I thank you for the optimism, and im sorry for venting. I just don’t know where else I’ll be vindicated, except the void of a comment section
Thank you for such an insightful video, especially with such an achievable call to action. Once you have your own space, be it in your house or the woods (big fan of the woods ngl), you really can educate and organize on your own terms! Out where I'm at, everyone is either conservative (normal) or conservative (asking me to vote Dr. Shiva for president), and that's no reason to be discouraged. Building local consciousness starts with some free literature around coffee and scones, or skills classes, or whatever else we can host on the regular. Personally, my only word of caution would be for my fellow ladies: if you're going to make or join a leftist space, remember that the guys are still guys. Buddy system, watch your drinks, etc. It feels like they should be more enlightened, and thus safer, than their conservative counterparts, but the truth is that assault persists whether he's read Lenin or not. Not recounting any personal experiences, just... trust me.
Much like the difference between electoral right wing and the usual center-left parties: there's convenience in being able to see the threat from a mile because they're not posing as something else.
"Licking the wood off the barrel?" I've never heard that before and have no context for it. All I'm thinking of is splinters on my tongue, and why am Iicking this barrel? Is someone forcing me? Plus, where do I find a wooden barrel? Good video.
11:16 I think the best stopping point would have been not supporting Germany entering WWI. The drawback would have been that their party would be banned, but I think it would have been worth it, seeing what they became in hindsight. I think they would be able to ride out the war with a large underground following, then come back to the surface after it was over, being able to say "We told you so." The Bolsheviks were one of only two parties who opposed their country entering the war (the other being in Serbia I think), and it turned out well for them, so I think it was a gamble that might have paid off for German socialists.
I did a whole thing on TikTok about project 2025, and honestly, what I think the biggest thing that those of us on the left need to take away from it is we need to view it through a Gramscian lens. Because what it's all about is Hegemony. The point of Project 2025 isn't actually to enact these specific policies work for word as outlined in the text of the document, it's to create a political context in which the most right wing ideas of the conservative movement become dominant within governing structures, and a new ideological in the United States.
Your "third spaces" pitch is also not a means to an end either and carries with it significant limitations and often end up with what some call "siloing" then just dying out as you illistrated already. Where leftists build these radical centers that increasingly have less and less contact with the outside world, developing to outsiders what is seen as byzantine codes of conduct and no actual influence or connection with the masses. I think there's room for all of the above if you shape it right.
I don't think I agree with the initial assumption that conservatives have an easier time because they are the embodiment or the origin of the status quo. Many conservatives do actually want to change the status quo, and they do also see their propaganda as efforts to educate and enlighten the general population. Where I think there is a real difference is that conservatives do not really agree with the principles of democratisation. When they see undemocratic aspects of our democratic system or flaws in the current electoral system, they aim to exploit these instead of trying to fix them, because their aims are fundamentally undemocratic to begin with, because they are fundamentally against equality.
10:28 I really feel that. Contra back in 2019 and early 2020 helped me realize I’m trans (I already knew I was an Anarchist). I felt a bit betrayed when she stated straw manning Anarchists and haven’t watched her content since
I hate to be the griping goat, but seriously have a think about third spaces. Think about what they imply for politics that have them as their base. This has been a strain in socialist thought for a really long time, and it doesn't go as far as you would think - if you can see how radical electoralism is always absorbed by capitalism, but not how third spaces are just as vulnerable, there's a heck of a rough road ahead of us. I'm not saying you are wrong about their necessity, and how helpful they can be to young radicals especially - but I and my comrades have been surrounded by these spaces for years (incl Hydra actually), participated in them also, and they always go a very particular direction: compartmentalising, enclosure of theory and praxis, abstraction from the world, dissolution. There is a need for a deeper critique/inquiry - which I know is very difficult, because places like these lay down roots deep in the heart.
Its not a gripe, its valid. What you say is true. After all Hydra is no more. You're right we ought figure out if there is any better way forward, I'd be all down for that. I just don't know if there is any better method so far that I've heard. At the least like I said in the previous video, they still provide a better outcome than electoralism. Also on a different note because you mentioned Hydra, if you are who I'm thinking of are you with Lucy?
@@BadMouseProductionsI am not that person, sorry - when I went to Hydra it was based in the cellar of Cafe Kino I think. Used to live in Bristol just before and during lockdown.
I think there is a misunderstanding here. Because you can in fact do both and a good movement should do both. As someone that has been highly active in radical 3rd spaces I know of the immense value it provides for the people there, and as someone now in electoral politics I know how much it matters for those 3rd spaces to have someone to shield and support them, while also being able to platform socialist ideas and ideals. The revolution wont come to my area any time soon and I agree that material basis changing is probably what is going to make that ball start rolling for real. But without some structure there in the first place, and without some culture of radical action the fascists are just going to capitalize on the material conditions instead.
I argue that what the left needs is branding and revenue, strong online communities that can build its diverse messaging, and personalities that can deliver the basic messages of leftism across a variety of perspectives. However their has to be regulators within that community that should keep the message on track so that the personality who delivers that message doesn't become more conservative over time due to branding, lifestylism, money, or simply seeing it as more marketable for themselves.
Frankly, I think voting for the purposes of protecting minority rights is sufficient reason to vote. It should by no means be the only thing that is done, but focusing solely on pushing socialism while letting people have their rights stripped away is not going to earn allies. Electoralism sucks. It's valid and maybe necessary to criticize it. But opting to throw away an entire means of influence when human rights are on the line is a dangerous game to play. Economics is not the end all of liberation.
I'm still in favor of some degree of engagement with electoral politics. You haven't convinced me on that, and I doubt you will. However, that said, you are completely correct that the events since October 7th have been radicalizing, and have put a huge red question mark over any level of engagement in electoral politics. I've always voted lesser evil, even while doing a lot more on the grassroots level and never really thinking that Bernie (for example) would have achieved all that much even if he did somehow win. However, events in Gaza have been so stark and impossible to ignore that it highlights the deep immorality of the entire system in a way that's easier to see than the everyday injustices of capitalism. I can vote lesser evil and not feel I'm endorsing lukewarm domestic economic policy. Just damage mitigation. But can I vote lesser evil right now without feeling I'm endorsing a genocide? No, that I can't do. Because when the harm is on such a dramatic scale, it really the highlights the huge cost of that vote. There NOT being a backlash to genocide is a major cost, and impacts the future negatively. Perhaps Trump impacts the future more negatively, but for the first time in my life I don't know if that's true or not. That said, it does not logically follow that because dramatic events like a genocide require an electoral response for a good outcome, that smaller electoral events require the same response. I do think this is a pretty unique case in that Biden may be able to draw a direct line from his position on Israel to his election loss. It won't stop their intense cope and excuse-making, but even the media have been drawing that direct line for once. What I think is true, is that while I think in most cases we should vote lesser evil and take small low-effort electoral actions, there are better places for leftists to put their energy than into political campaigns. And if we do put energy into politics, then local politics, union work, and specific issue advocacy will be much more fruitful than the latest faint hope on a national scale. The worry is that rather than people coming to this conclusion, they'll just succumb to nihilism and stop doing anything at all. (Indeed, this is one of the problems with all the hope that comes from dramatic, national political campaigns -- the way young people feel crushed after they inevitably lose.)
for me, engaging in electoral politics would be admitting they had a right to have me raped and tortured as a child due to being too savage to be raised by my own people. there was no "lesser" harms side when it came to the colonization and genocide of turtle island. I do think local elections matter more than the big ones, and doing MORE than just lining up for the ballot from time to time matters so I'm not being salty at you, i'm just explaining my view of the matter and at the end of the day, literally all the system needs from you to be valid, is your participation. where your vote goes is truly of far less import than the fact that your vote went in the first place. you told them you want this system to keep going the way it is because you believe that you're somehow mitigating harm by dragging it out. but let me tell you about what it's like in the lower class where we don't have the comforts of working life to dull the pain. we're dying and we need the change now, mitigating just means you're ok with us dying to appease your need for comfort.
When you were introducing Russell Brand, I was actually confused for a minute, because I had totally forgotten he existed, or I'm only reminded he exists every month or so. But maybe that's because I'm an American and he's just not as much of a figure over here.
It’s possible for a restaurant that isn’t a communal kitchen or a soup kitchen to exist under socialism in a way that is actually just, socialist, and unalienating. It’s just that in order to do that, it would have to be prohibitively expensive/limited in how often you could go to being an incredibly infrequent thing to the point that very few could exist at all. The real point is that the restaurant industry couldn’t exist anything like it does now, I think arguing that literally zero places recognizable as a restaurant could ever exist is a little silly and missing the point. But would you, as a person existing under socialism, eat out anything at all like people do today? Absolutely not, rightly
May I suggest some good praxis, especially for my USA comrades? Get involved in LOCAL politics. There are tons of boards with OPEN elected positions that need to be filled. Yes, this is small potatoes stuff, but participation is important for a number of reasons: 1) to learn the mechanics of civil governance; 2) to learn the arts and skills of deliberation, collaboration, conflict management, and consensus building; 3) to build OUR REPUTATIONS as doers, people who get things done and don't just stand in judgement on the sidelines. I may need be leading the revolution, but I'm sure as hell getting myself prepared for it.
I for one like midwestern Marx but I like the message of this video. I feel like I’m more happy with the idea of a multiplicity of left opinion. I just think a wider firmly left coalition is all that matters
Ya I don’t think MM is nearly as bad as the rest of the guys Badmouse featured in that group. They put out a lot of useful content. But they do have some level of association with people like Haz and Hinkle and they do have pretty yikes takes occasionally, so it’s fair criticism I think.
I get calling guys like Haz and Jackson "vulgar" because they can be. Carlos and Eddie of MM are by no means "vulgar" or lacking empathy in my opinion.
@@roryreviewer6598 Agree. They tend to be good overall but lately I've seen some worrying development in that channel, a sort of a flirting with patsoc ideas
Voting slows the bad guys' agenda down a bit. That's all anyone ever said. Only voting is idiotic. But nobody wants JUST voting, except Liberals, duh. But that is kinda the point.
Great to have you back! Your point in the end there about communities leading to action is spot on! We started a pay-what-you-want radical book cafe here, in Oulu, Finland, and that has enabled so much efficient and effective action! I couldn't attend today's Newroz celebration, sadly. BTW, Finnish-speakers might want to check out our paper, Punamusta Liekki.
At around 2 minutes, you finally put a thought I've had for a while now into eloquent words. Why does the left have a notorious infighting problem while the right has much less of a problem unifying opposing groups to a common goal (think Ben Shapiro spouting the same rhetoric as full on Nazis, and Nazis praising Shapiro for being one of "the good ones") Well aside from cowering to authority, the difference is as you said. The left is trying to dismantle, replace, supplant, or otherwise change the status quo, try ideas that haven’t been tried before. For better or worse, the left has lots of ideas that dofferent people prefer, so we end up tripping over each other sometimes over which ideas should be implimented. The right meanwhile has the status quo on their side, and they only want to preserve it, or strengthen it with regressive policies. Shapiro and the Nazis may have fundamental disgreements on some policies, or why they believe in what they do, but they'll both spew the same vile rhetoric about abortion, trans people, gay people, minorities, immigrants, etc.
I'm surprised if you havent met an ML that didn't believe that it's the only way to socialism effectively with not alternative, that we can't formulate anything beyond "aes" models due to material conditions, or thinks that for some reason it's important to defend stalin's legacy
This didn't do anything to explain why hard right parties like the National Front supposedly get to see their policies implemented as concessions from Left-leaning parties while leftists are forced to concede to placate more right-leaning people. Just something something infighting, as if there is no infighting on the far right. It also did not even attempt to explain how that infighting or lackthereof affects outcomes.
@@weatheranddarkness Maybe, but considering that I only watched this one it seems like he brought that up as a bold claim with no explanation and then just powered ahead as if it's a given.
Major problem on socialistic movements (I do not like to use "leftism" as term, since the word does not really mean anything: you put Mussolini and Hitler next to each others, and one of them will be "leftist" and other will be "right side") is, that while we have lot of analysis what is wrong, what does not work, there is almost nothing for how to replace it, what to do better, what we should build. That is actually main reason, why I so little listen socialists in these days: I already know all the critics, I've heard it million times. But no one talks about what we should do, what we should build, etc. And that is even more important than critics. Fascists win people to their side, despite lack of good analysis, they tell what we should do (horrible things, but people who do not understand things, accept it as seemingly good solution for the problems). Socialists seems to be stuck on telling again and again, what does not work, why it does not work... and never take step to tell what should be done. Or kind of two extremes: 1) those who tell that we must do X (=thing what is not known for anyone else in conversation, and what is never explained to them), or 2) let people to chose - those masses who never had moment to think these questions, who do not have even idea what could be option, those must tell what to do, not us, no one should tell people what to do. So, in the end, I ended up to listen more people who do not declare to be socialists (communists, anarchists,...) than those who do. Because they at least try to seek actual solutions for problem. (This just as general frustration for situation - not just critic against this video). -- About restaurants and socialism. Exploitation and alienation of course exists, no doubt. But same is for grocery stores in capitalism. Etc. And both, restaurants and grocery stores exist and existed in socialism. I was planning to build worker owned cafe/restaurant before EU decided to make economical suicide, and made it impossible to make any new small businesses. Idea was to create public place where people can have events, can spend time and have fun, can teach each others, place which offers literature and journalism, place which offers some access for art and learn some art. So, not very far from idea of those book stores mentioned in end of the video. BTW. I've been in Moscow in restaurant owned by Democratic People's Republic of Korea. They had really good food. I heard about the place only because my friend from Republic of Korea, who want build peace and reunite Korea, visited there, told that there is really nice people working there. So I went there with her. I rarely visit in restaurants or cafes, since I do not have much money for such. But I always thought that in better society, I would prefer to give cooking (and selection of what to eat) for those who are more interested about these things, while myself would prefer to focus on other topics what I prefer more. So, I think that in socialism "restaurants" may exist more than in capitalism... -- PS. Some people believe that there is no alternative for current system. Others do not speak about alternatives. I see, that there is so many different alternatives, that it is hard to say, which one to choose - and it is also hard to try predict all problems what every new system brings (although it is very possible to predict many of those problems, and answer to them even before they happen).
Same here, I've stopped listening to alot of ppl, because no one wants to ask the hard questions and do the hard work of at least attempting to answer them. Its all the tired old endless "critique" of things, they all forget that "the point is to change it". We are oversaturated with critique and puritanical condemnations, we need solutions. What kind of societies and institutions we would like to build? and what tactics and strategies we need in order to get there? I do recommend a book by Cockshot called Towards a New Socialism and The Classless Society in Motion A New Theory of Communist Economy by Costello and O'Brien which is an upcoming book.
I've had discussions with more radical friends, and I came to the conclusion that I would vote but focusing on 3rd parties that are actively spending resources to push even somewhat radical ideas. "Leftists" aren't really known for having a ton of resources so I might as well do a little to make the most of those spent resources. After that, I'll probably vote for local Democrats in my area to demonstrate to more liberal leaning acquaintances how little they would change over the Republicans. I also thought that I might even vote local republicans if the people I wanted to convince were alienated republican-supporting workers over democrat-supporting workers. It just so happens my area is dominated by Republicans who might have to spend more of their own resources campaigning if the elections get closer. My energy put into voting ends there other than watching videos like this for entertainment or having friendly conversations.
Would mind doing an entire video on why restaurants won't exist in a socialist society? The idea itself could useful for organizing restaurant workers but the ideas beyond it can speak on the metaquestions that leftist discourse is failing to really ask.
Third spaces don’t grow into anything though. They maintain a core constituency of already left-inclined people, they’re a great thing to exist but they’re no replacement for building working class community organisations (Interested to know why ACORN and the work it’s been doing for the last 10 years in the UK to build working class power through direct action is never mentioned in your videos at all? Apart from a brief mention in the last video to acknowledge they exist)
I was a member for a few years, these days I'm a fellow traveller. We did do a fair bit of good, the problem however is that eventually we succumbed to the same sorts of issues as electoralism. Those things I mentioned at at 4:30 are a direct reference to the experiences people were having, I won't say much more. They certainly do a lot of good, and they're better than electoralism, but sadly it has just added to my overall disillusionment with these top down structures.
@@BadMouseProductions Fair enough. I disagree that these structures are something to be avoided though, I’m yet to see evidence that other models can be as successful in the UK’s conditions. Also on dues paying the reason I see it as being prioritised is unfortunately just the nature of the beast if you want a sustainable organisation that can stand up to legal threats and survive in a capitalist system, otherwise how are large fighting organisations supposed to survive without being at the whim of rich donors or funders which determine the direction of the organisation more than the actual members of it. My main point of contention really is that saying that third spaces I.E. radical coffee shops is a better alternative or more progressive towards revolutionary goals I just find strange and not backed up by any evidence
@@Dan313dudewell not just radical coffeeshops lol, what I am refering to is bases. Places where you can build. People ask for an example so I gave one from my experience, there's another one in Briz called Base which is more community center themed.
@@BadMouseProductions Yeah I can definitely see the benefits of that, I’m a rave promoter myself and trying to facilitate more politically charged spaces and using those music spaces as an opportunity for solidarity. I just think they’re a cultural supplement to every day political work within mass working class organisations, not an alternative to them
I disagree with your statement that the right and left are fundamentally different because the right represent the Status Quo and the Left are basically a force of progress. For one thing I think it would be much more accurate to say that the right is a force calling for regression and the left is a force calling for progress and the Center is the Status Quo. Which would imply that the answer to your question "why can't the left just do what the right does?" is: we totally can. But above and beyond the right being regression and the left being progress I also think it's just wrong to characterize politics as left and right in the first place. I don't think those categories are particularly stable, I don't think they make much sense, and I don't think we have a clear enough idea of what "progress" should even mean to state with confidence that the left is for it and the right is against it. For example, I believe that our rapidly changing technology requires something along the lines of a "Postliberal" response (Postliberal in the Eudamonia, Charles Lasch, Patrick Deneen, Adrian Vermeule sense.) Because as our technology, like, say, our phones, get more advanced, the capacity for harm increases. As a result "progress" means our society catching up to the technological changes that have taken place. Which might mean a more "authoritarian" or "collectivist" or "paternalist" response. We might need more state regulation of addictive algorithms, socialization of social media to redesign them towards positive ends. Similarly we might need a more responsive state in regards to junk food (which is itself a kind of technology or an abundance created through technology), abundant porn, etc. All of these responses are "Right-wing" but they're also necessary, I believe, for technological progress to be beneficial rather than harmful to people's overall quality of life. Thus, by this logic, one could consider the right progressive
Who cares at this point?! Ya'll have defined socialism to be an impossible utopian ideal, so by definition it will never come to pass. Might as well just go read LOTR and fantasize.
You say Trump was as bad as people said he was. I had to live in fear during COVID thanks to him sparking anti-asian sentiment and causing a huge spike in anti Asian violence.
19:40 "Politics requires a degree of imagination".....buddy, you have no idea how far gone you are. At no point in any of your videos do you come close to giving a step by step guide on how exactly you plan to dismantle the entire "system" to make it "better" for everyone. It's like saying that you're going to turn off gravity because you dropped your ice cream, and life would be so much better if you hadn't done that. You're wasting your life trying to roll this boulder up a 90 degree sloped hill, dude. Snap out of it.
We need no Parties. We should have no Parties. Parties simply represent another form of societal Elite. And as history has proven, that hierarchy won't just abolish itself.
@@BadMouseProductionsSurely there would be some space and time for (regular let's have fun) parties (as in partying, u kno) even with bottom up community power structures. :) Also, agreed.
Bro this video is kinda boogers and basically just seems like a few half-baked opinions with some cheap infographics thrown overtop to "bamboozle" your audience into thinking you made any points. If I am wrong, and I must say, I couldn't, as an American, be, I would graciously accept your presence on my stream for a debate. Mano y mano as the kids say, in Spain, I've been assured, as well as Mexico. Consider this message my leather-gloved slap of challenge, lmao (laughing my ass off)
In America, both the Left (nobly) and on the Right (criminally) have moved the definition of the middle. In issues like race and sexual orientation, the Left has moved the middle leftward. The norms of today would have been seen as radical beyond all reason in the past. Sadly, the Right has played the game, too. Mainly in areas economic. Where are the people of Israel to go? The Palestinians want an ethnically pure religious state. In existing Israel (no Utopia by any means) Islamic people of Arab ethnicity are judges, legislators, prominent acedemics, journalists, and business people. No Jews, Druse, secular Arabs, nor Arab Christians will be allowed in such roles or in Palestine itself. Why are you supporting ethnic cleansing?
It seems to me that your objections to the like of Brand is that they are bringing in ‘the wrong people’. How do you expect to get arguments across to such an audience? Why would they want to listen to someone they consider hostile and bigoted toward their present views?
"I'm not an ideological anti voter I've come to this opinion because of what I've seen over the past eleven years" I mean let's not use "ideological" as an insult, you have a framework that lets you analyse how things will happen and what to do which you've built from experience and theory, that's an ideology, and on the subject of voting it's basically the same one as anti electoralism anarchists have been arguing in favor of since like a century and a half now also very interesting perspective on the restaurant bit, I used to think this was a kind of joke, because I had not thought of how yeah, it's not really a restaurant anymore if it's organized in a socialist fashion also as for that guy talking about how we should improve our lives instead of calling for radical action, it feels like yet another in the long list of people who broadcast their ignorance of history, theory or practice as though that was something to be proud of, like the people going "oh I just want cheaper rent, is that too much to ask ?" on your last video as for third places, I definitely agree, where I live there's always a bunch of stuff being organized in squats or in other anarchist places, though one small issue I see with them is that they often tend to be mostly just "for" people already engaged, rather than places where everyone can join and get in contact with engaged people and learn about socialism while having fun also I love "it was a bit of a shithole but it was our shithole" in many cases I've found places that were a bit run down and disorganized and sometimes a bit dirty, but each time that all felt like not much of an issue because the place felt very welcoming, it felt genuine, it felt like a home for everyone involved, that was so much more important, and I think that sentence explains this feeling very well thanks again for your videos, you're doing amazing work, I just wish more people would watch and actually listen to them
Nah, nothing's wrong with using "ideological" as a slur. Recall what egoist anarchists have to say about spooks/phantasms/fixed ideas. Phantasms can come in many forms, sometimes like a lense in which to perceive the world through or an idol of worship or service; i.e, ideology, religion, interest, morality, identity, culture, h*manism, the State, common good, etc. (and dare I say addiction?). All of these constructs are essentially coercive, and individuals would strive for autonomy and freedom from these constructs. Individuals would be concerned with their own self interest and pursuit of their own desires whilst taking care to maintain a high level of awareness to know that it is of 'their own' influence that any actions are being taken by the individual/Unique, and not on behalf of a phantasm/spook/fixed idea.
@@Grundrisse okay so could you explain to me how you're going to understand the world without a framework to describe it ? or how you're going to change it without a plan on how to do so ? the fact that you're talking about "should" tells me you haven't understood egoism, since you're using it to just replace morality with your idea of self interest
@@anarchosnowflakist786 That sounds like a Stirnerian criticism. Very similar to say, a criticism of "the economic reading" of Stirner. This reading happens when one sees Stirner as articulating a conception of self-interest, by which one "should," in order to be an "egoist" (to hold that "position"), they must be convinced to view the world as an endless cost-benefit analysis by which they determine what is "to their self-interest." It is meaningless to talk about "benefits" in this sense and, reading Stirner, this practice is easily identifiable as storming heaven, i.e., criticism, replacing one idea (morality) with another (economic morality). It's been a long time since I've seen anyone on this platform properly point out what I erred in my comment. You're right about the use of "should" and I shall rephrase it a bit. "Should" and the variation "ought to" seem to denote a normative claim here; it assumes an egoism to be realized within the egoist, a philosophy of a conceptual "self-interest" that you 'ought' to strive for in order to be a "free" egoist. They are not completely accurate words to use when discussing egoism as, if one was living with the Stirnerian ethos, they _would_ be doing what's in their best based on what their interest is, or what they desire at that point in time. As for your question: Egoists recognize frameworks as potential useful things, but "we" are against sacred frameworks. "We" are against frameworks that are used to impede and control the individual, but we might adopt them for ourselves if they are enjoyable, useful to us or consumable; transforming them into material for our interest - in short, property. This is just the idea that consuming the sacred doesn't exclude the possibility of pursuing similar - and even identical projects, but now for Egoistic purposes where there _had been_ an ideal purpose. How we understand "the world" or how we're going to "change" it doesn't matter, if the frameworks & plans for which could be higher than the individual, or could be imposed upon others such that they are subjected to. Lastly, I hope you're criticizing from an egoist-anarchist perspective, and not from a bitter moralist leftoid perspective like Bookchin did to any anarchist who rejected his nonsense. Otherwise, I'll not take you seriously.
@@anarchosnowflakist786 Anarchism is pretty much a critique of ideology itself. It is not an appeal to the most superficial promises [an] ideology makes while taking the main thinker of that ideology's words at face-value. "No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world, I cleave to no system, I am a true seeker."
_"being organized in squats"_ What do you mean by organized in squats? Does it mean anarchists are finally getting out of their rooms and exercising in organisations?
@@BadMouseProductionsSo what is you're take on Hakim, Yugopnik, First Thought, Fellow Traveler, Socialism4All, or Jason Unruhe? These are mostly Marxist-Leninist that don't align themselves with the "Marxist-Leninist" you've pointed towards in the video.
@@BadMouseProductions as Ben Norton has said after he left, that channel is becoming increasingly reactionary and pandering to people from the MAGA movement and even Tucker Carlson
@@BadMouseProductions The greyzone do some of the best journalism out there. Their reporting is second to none, and if you just hand wave their reporting away because you might disagree with a few of their points then you're, quite frankly, part of the problem. I myself don't like some of their reporting on issues like renewables and some of their rhetoric on vaccines but on the whole they do fantastic work.
I read through most of Project 2025. I still need to finish it, but except for the usual Republican whining & crying about diversity and shit, it isn't some radical far-right manual. The majority of the content is looking at the executive cabinet, explaining the roles of the major offices, explaining how they coordinate between Congress/President/Bureaucracy, and some relatively tame ideas on house keeping. I mean, I've probably written more "radically undemocratic" things from my Leftist perspective than this shit. In reality, I commend the authors on making a plan about transforming the government instead of fighting and bickering about Voting blue & revolution vs reform like the left is.
I take issue with the Restaurant part 16:50, not because I necessarily disagree but because your argument kind of just isn't. You say the difference is well defined, but at no point was a definition that was useful to that argument brought forward. It feels tautological, and you've given nothing to hold onto. Like what is the real difference you're talking about here? How are you defining "Restaurant"? In the game of "what job are you going to have after the revolution?" I frequently see for myself something that I personally would continue to define as a restaurant as a probability. Sure it's a maybe a co-op of some kind, but that doesn't change the definition. We'd be out here in the community cooking food together and serving it to people all day. What's the definitional difference between what we have now (which encompasses LOADS of different forms and formats all under the same definition) and what would necessarily be the outcome according to the stated logic? Because an International, isn't much use without the sharing of cuisine.
Tbh I'd recommend this lecture by Sugrue on the issue of definitions. He again does that 'chair-bench' thing. th-cam.com/video/X7Rb56kZQSk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ZfZdAhatMEgM3Mcg&t=1416 For me its about understanding where Restaurants emerge from and how their entire social form will be different under different circumstances. Like if you've worked at a communal kitchen you can entertain that it is vastly different from what 90% of us think of a restaurant being.
Your straw-man of ML-s is laughable. Nobody is saying you shouldn't criticise Stalin, but that when you do, you should look at him in the historical context and with actual provable data, not liberal "hurr-durr Stalin-big sponn morbilion dead". Otherwise yes, I agree.
One of the problems with this discourse is the way its presented. As if the only two sides of discussion are Robert Conquest or the ML perspectives. There exists perspectives, even within mainstream academia, that are not simply a straw-man. Kotkin and Getty are of course two popular ones. But in general what I've found is that even when ML's push for nuance, they'll often end up citing claims like those of Grover Furr. That's not nuance that's just apologetics with more complexity.
@@BadMouseProductions having multiple perspectives on leftism is a privaledge what only 1st worlder leftists have the luxury of exploring remember as socialists we are trying to irrevocably change the world for ever and for better, its unscientific and untrue to state that "all paths to communism are all valid" because we know thats not true. Many forms fail at the methodological level, take titos Yugoslavia which was a left communist deviation that eventually collapsed due to economic mismanagement inherent in decentralized market co-ops, or anarchists' spain, with it failing due to its disorganized military. As leftists, it is our responsibility to channel revolutionary energy into the most efficient path towards communism, to do otherwise is sacrificing many lives that could've been saved otherwise.
@@bob-lk5et I'm aware, I made a video explaining that 5 years ago. If that is the case then the USSR also failed. So you're not proving much with that. You can't just pre-suppose something is the correct way.
@@BadMouseProductions Yes but you made no effort in exploring why it eventually molded into a new form that didn't work, your observations start and end at "did thing work" which is flawed because it ignores material realities and doesn't build off of methodology. No self respecting ML will ever state that the ussr was prefect and going forward, all we need to do is copy verbatim what they did. That also ignores OUR current material realities, but we cannot treat AES examples as being completely static unfiltered projections of what theory stated, and thus their results being a naked reflection of that theory.
@@bob-lk5et eurgh. When have I ever argued that ML's think they were perfect? The Material Conditions do not in and of themselves explain away a state's decision making process. What people are talking about is the ideology that gives way to these decisions being done. Namely a centralised system run by a self-professed cadre fulfilling the revolution on behalf of the working class, not by the working class themselves.
Dont take this the wrong way, I dont mean any offence. But the amount of Americanisms you use make the videos somewhat difficult to watch. All the best.
@@BadMouseProductionsVocab wise. Again, no offence, but British people speaking American English is a constant reminder to me that we are the Amerikkkans little lapdog.
@@BadMouseProductionsVocab wise. British people speaking in American English seems to be a regular thing now and its a constant reminder that the Yanks own us.
@@Red_Lion2000 Interesting, I've always tried to avoid americanisms but I have been travelling a lot recently and bumped into many, so a fair bit of it has probably rubbed on.
Lenin talks about when and why, and for what purpose to participate in elections. It is not to win, but to show the proletariat that their interests are not to be found in said elections. It is also to be boycotted when general strikes, or the conditions for violent action done by the proletariat is present. This specifically diferentiates communists from "The left", for the "left" is an instrument of the bourgeoisie, no matter how radical they are on paper, because they will either spread newspapers like the trotskyists, lick the boots of china (which is 100% capitalist and always was) like the bukharinists, and will destroy the radicalism of the worker's movement by telling them "no no don't strike vote for me!" or if they would win they'll do nothing, the most scared people when it comes to the "Left" winning any election is the "Left" itself. A true communist organizes, supports trade unions (no matter the fact they might be "reactionary" or not, which again, Lenin says is true, and that is why we must participate in the struggle) A true communist knows that the party must not be formed around individuals, around great chiefs, but a collective, that collective being the working class and its interests. The Communist party should always be a class party which is in accord with all the interests of the proletariat, else it is a petty-bourgeois falsification of a party. A true communist knows that said party grows and shrinks not on some electoral deadlock, but on the conditions of class struggle. www.international-communist-party.org/BasicTexts/WhatDist.htm
Youre almost no different than the Dengists when it comes to the Dotp phase, because if your precious Dotp failed to meet the material expectations, it would literally plunge into state capitalism. But hey, it'd all be fine and there'd no need to panic since the Dotp would still follow the Communist Programme, under the Vanguard whichh would be there to promote proletarian internationalism. That is the same excuse you used under the NEP era and looked how that turned out.... As for the question of whether or not the NEP was capitalism, Lenin categorically responded: YES. Nor could it be otherwise since capitalism exists from the very moment that wages are paid in money and this money is used to buy food. This does not alter the nature of the state, which is still proletarian, and could still be proletarian since its nature does not depend on the economic structure, but on its class position and on the force of the development of the revolutionary struggle of the international proletariat (Amadeo Bordiga, Lessons of the Counterrevolutions)
@@blazinggood6637 the DOTP is capitalist, the NEP was the "capitalization" of the countryside. The dotp has a capitalist mode of production. Lenin told you countless times the DOTP has a capitalist mode of production, the NEP had a capitalist mode of production. It was the failure of the international revolution, of the german revolution, (WHICH LENIN SAID THEY ARE DOOMED WITHOUT, AND HE WAS LIKE ALWAYS, CORRECT!) and the hungarian revolution that lead to the slow but sure decisive destruction of the revolution. You are lost if you think the DOTP would have any other mode of production other than the capitalist one. The difference here being that state capitalism under the proletariat has the goal of developing industry, and "proletizing" the peasants in the countryside with the final goal of abolishing all relations of capital, abolishing the commodity production, and thus abolishing the classes of society and the state (it however keeps existing in relation, and only in relation, to the economic "bourgeois" (or equal) right, which is the birthmark capitalist society gives the newly-born communist one), and the communist mode of production . By your definition, Marx was also a dengist. China never had a DOTP, Bordiga and even Hoxha explain and show you this clearly. files.libcom.org/files/The%20Amadeo%20Bordiga%20Collection.pdf (page 532) www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/MTTPhilosophyEng.pdf www.marxists.org/history/erol/albania/albania-1.pdf www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-5/socialism-cannot.pdf cugetarimarxiste.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/is-mao-zedong-a-classic-of-marxism-leninism-1.pdf www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-7/rpo-china.htm Both Bordiga and Lenin are correct here, you are not.
@@chargyisonline7790 I'm well aware of the possibility of the Dotp being restricted to capitalism, Marx famously saying the majority of the paris Commune was in no sense socialist, nor could it be. Sure sure but what I'm saying here is that your Dotp would cease to be a Dotp, reduced to a mere state-capitalism. Under the NEP era, the Dotp already stopped being a Dotp in 1921, and was anti-democratic. As the ICT explains: _By 1921 soviet power had become an empty shell. Elections to the soviets were under the watchful eye of the Cheka. Similarly armed guards patrolled the factories as Taylorism and one-man management were imposed on the most revolutionary working class in history. The workers accepted this as long as the civil war against the Whites created an exceptional situation. The workers accepted this as long as the civil war against the Whites created an exceptional situation. At the same time they had also accepted the abandonment of the election of officers in the armed forces as Trotsky brought in members of the old officer class to defeat the Whites. But by the time the last White General had been run out of Russia in December 1920 there were already signs that the emergency regime was to continue. Grain requisitioning carried on, Trotsky had even announced that his Red Army methods should be imposed on the whole workforce (the militarisation of labour debate) and there were no new elections for the Soviets. Everywhere the talk was of "iron discipline" and more dictatorship. Little wonder that the Party, now increasingly a party of functionaries rather than workers was prey to bureaucratisation. This bureaucratisation in turn led to the emergence of opposition from proletarian groups within the Bolshevik Party: groups like the Democratic Centralists led by Ossinsky and Sapronov, the Workers' Opposition led by Shlyapnikov and Kollontai and Miasnikov's Workers' Group._ (ICT, 1921: Beginning of the Counter-Revolution?) The ICT at least doesn't suffer from dogmatism or isn't literally capable of critiquing what went wrong.
@@chargyisonline7790 "Lenin was like always, correct" Said the Bordigist calmly. ........So I guess Lenin is correct that socialism is distinct from communism in that the former is just the lower-stage of communism, when this idea contradicts Marx who regarded both socialism and communism as the same thing, interchangeably? I guess hes also correct for calling socialism a form of state capitalist monopoly which acted in the service of the people? _socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly_ Oh better yet according to you, hes correct in his attack to Bordiga on the matter of parliamentarism, which includes him calling Bordiga naive? _But you, Comrade Bordiga, assert that you are a Marxist, so we must expect more logic from you. You must know how parliament can be smashed. If you can do it by an armed uprising in all countries, well and good. You are aware that we in Russia proved our determination to destroy the bourgeois parliament, not only in theory, but in practice as well. You, however, have lost sight of the fact that this is impossible without fairly long preparations, and that in most countries it is as yet impossible to destroy parliament at one stroke. We are obliged to carry on a struggle within parliament for the destruction of parliament. For the conditions determining the political line of all classes in modern society you substitute your revolutionary determination; that is why you forget that to destroy the bourgeois parliament in Russia we were first obliged to convene the Constituent Assembly, even after our victory. You say: “It is a fact that the Russian revolution is a case that is not in accord with conditions in Western Europe”, but you have not produced a single weighty argument to prove that to us. We went through a period of bourgeois democracy. We went through it rapidly at a time when we had to agitate for elections to the Constituent Assembly. Later, when the working class was able to seize power, the peasants still believed in the necessity of a bourgeois parliament._
@@blazinggood6637 That's not a mistake of lenin, but a reusage of terms. Lenin called socialism the lower phase of communism, and specified this is not the way marx or engels used it. He was neither wrong nor right, because he invent anything, dummy. Lenin was correct in critiquing Bordinga on parlamentarism, and Bordiga agrees. once again, read what bordiga said in the 2nd congress of the comintern, where he agreed that anti-parlamentarism "on principle" is incredibly stupid, or read Bordiga's "A condemnation of Renegades to Come" Lenin was also correct in that regard, yes, because he specified it is the abolition of classes that precedes the DOTP, and he is correct when calling the state-capitalist monopoly (The dotp, may I remind you) without wage-labour and commodity production, thus, socialism, the lower phase of communist society. When he says the "whole people" he says so because socialism logically needs the abolition of classes to exist. Lenin made no mistake here, it is you who cannot read. I am not a bordigist, I am a leninist. Bordigists are in the ICT, and are the most councilist, autonomist and workerist lot I have ever seen! They think the starting point of the revolution does not matter.
Glad I'm not the only one who came to that realization that MLs and Liberals are the two forms of Statist realism we see on the "Left", it's part of why I stopped being one
25:25 I literally make mock weapons and battle with my friends, whom are a bunch of Bohemian (commies) that play music and do yoga. These spaces of micro organization are the foundation for social movement as a whole. Cafes are literally where young academics helped plot the French Revolution! We're right there!
Patsocs are cringe. Usually they rise but they fall hard. Maulpin for instance has never recovered from the accusations. Hinkle had his channel banned and has multiple times deleted all his videos. Infrared created opportunism, sorry I mean maga communism but being banned from twitch, he has been cautious on what he says and does.
If you didn't know, this is a follow up video to one I made last week.
Going through the arguments socialists have towards Electoralism.
th-cam.com/video/iBcF9Iv2rHs/w-d-xo.html
Sure will. We do miss your takes.
Ok, I see what you are saying…
But…
Why the hell did you feel like attacking MLs and making a parallel between Biden and Stalin?
Like, I guess if you are strictly referring to terminally online edgelords who heard about the Black Book of Communism and decided Stalin “has a bigger score” so he’s cooler, then, ok, but those are nazbols. I guess there’s also a liberal parallel to that by exclusively looking at history through revisionist rose glasses and pretending their favourite boi did nothing wrong as opposed to “he did wrong and that’s cool”… but a lot of serious MLs don’t actually believe their “heads” were perfect, I am a ML, I have a long list of things I don’t like about each and every socialist leader. But I still can engage in learning from what went well during previous socialist experiments AND, perhaps most importantly, I can understand and show critical support for governments and organisations that seem to cut against the worst effects of capital and colonialism. Sure, I don’t like every aspect about the UN and how they run their charity for Palestine… I still donated hundreds of dollars to UNRWA because even if I don’t like some things about it, Palestinians are starving in Gaza and there aren’t many organisations that actually try and succeed to push through some food. Yes, UNRWA is a liberal organisation… I don’t care, it’s not as if I can buy food and deliver it myself to people in a closed siege zone guarded by hitlerites. Also, let’s look at Cuba. Yes, I have my criticisms but do I think it’s worth supporting the current government over a theoretical US-backed alternative? Heck yes. Not to mention there’s also things to praise about the current political structure in Cuba since they passed a very progressive bill in regards to LGBTQIA+ rights despite ardent opposition from the catholics and it is better than what most liberal democracies were ever able to achieve. That’s nothing to scoff at, especially in a relatively poor and isolated country that doesn’t have the material benefits of other first world countries. Yes, the concept of a stepping stone is problematic, not everything we step on towards our goals is a stepping stone, sometimes it is a bear trap that anchors us in the past and dilutes revolutionary sentiment. However, comparing MLs who give critical support towards some current governments or organisations with blue MAGA liberals who turn themselves into 4-dimensional pretzels just to feel morally superior when they vote blue again… that ain’t it bro, that ain’t cool. It’s frankly reminiscent of the hilarious nonsense Vaush said about “Marx would vote blue no matter who” except mirrored and told from the “but that’s why he’s bad” perspective.
You actually don’t address any arguments they have made bro
I do argue that the left needs branding and to produce revenue to get its message across but their needs to be regulators in that online community which are people that make sure that the internet personality stays consistent in their messaging and does not simply change their point of view to conservative positions over time because that person sees it as more marketable to make even more money. What the left needs are strong online communities that can get its most basic messages across to more people while not veering away from its core message due to lifestylism or complacency.
@@nicholasmocalis589 Problem is, the only way this happens - this being, essentially, ideological mediation/therapy, if it was actually coercive in any form it would be policing, and for excellent reasons we don't do policing, especially thought - is organising, and pooling resources. Otherwise the market incentives are there, and there's only so long any person will tolerate poverty - it is torture, after all - and obscurity - especially as expressive creatives. Things being what they are, that comes with limitations - most popular platforms, like Tik-Tok, Twitch, and TH-cam, are simply not designed for that, and not very conducive to it. Some creatives are trying to do something like this over on Nebula, but so as to pool resources better, it's a subscription based, opt-in platform, and though the entry fee is outrageously low, it is still there, a paywall, meaning that most people who actually need the message can't access it, even if lucky enough to hear of the platform and be interested in it; and even on Nebula, there are creators getting in that are a bit sus. Just saying.
No, offline organising and message spreading is the way to go. Online creators are good for introduction to the left, the actual left, but as always, the real work is offline, even if organised online.
Else you go for a Marxist-Leninist model of a few professional revolutionaries elected by paying members of a much broader organisation, and supported by the contributions of said members - but then, you'd have to set up that organisation, and there are a myriad traps of co-option and balance-tampering from hostile agents to overcome in the process.
These are problems creators know already. The best of them are still working on workarounds. They might even come-up with something. In the meantime, my suggestion is, go offline to organise, and be a pest to any rightist PoS spreading their BS online, so as to get people moving towards alternatives, specifically our range of alternatives, if you're convincing enough, which you're basically guaranteed to be, at least to some people some of the time.
When the Revolution comes, it will find spreaders for the message, that much is almost guaranteed by now. With all the odds stacked against us, this achievement has to be our comfort, and their pride. Simple as that.
Have a good day, comrade.
Big ups to the radical third spaces. The first places I look to go to in a new town are the radical/alt bookshops- lovely spots
same! Theres a cool one in Budapest too. Trying to find some in Slovakia.
Too few third spaces these days period. Radical or otherwise. Gotta pay to be anywhere.
I'm a liberal but I would love to attend one of this radical spaces, seems like a good source of entertainment
@mannyrivera6399 I have yet to find one myself, and I have heard that they are fascinating and informative as long as you go with at least a bit of an open mind. I don't agree with every lefty and their ideas, but sometimes I do evolve as a result.
Contrapoints was never radical. In one of her earliest videos she described herself as a "pessimistic socialist"
That's so insufferable.
She's great at explaining trans issues and understanding what nazi types are up to.
But yeah unfortunately she's a classist casually cruel lib weirdo lol. So is h bomber lib. So are most of the richest leftoobers sad to say. It's almost creepy actually. They act like the most respectable and righteous person on the planet but uhhhh... About that lolz.
damn I have never watched her videos but that's basically an inch away from calling yourself a possibilist
for a bit after hearing incessant praise towards breadtube I decided to watch a little of it and I was quickly put off by how much of it was pandering to baby leftists / liberals wanting to look like they were leftists because it felt cool, with all the authoritarian apologia, lack of meaningful praxis ideas or exposition of history and theory
I found her early on in my move to the left. She makes good points here and there, and her video quality is amazing. While I agreed with some of what she would say, I didn't stop there in my journey. She was useful to me in my movement to the left, and I still watch her videos when they come out, and that is in the same way I would watch a movie or other video for fun.
Imo all who don't have dialectic materialism and historical materialism are either already "pessimistic socialists" or are heading inevitably in that direction. Without revolutionary philosophy, there can be no revolutionary movement.
“Socialism doesn’t proliferate capital being incentivized, so a conditional profit based production of food won’t have to exi-“
“MUH KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN!?”
What if a socialist does, hypothetically, want fried chicken? Say we solve homelessness and poverty and disease and it goes better than even the most optimistic among us could have expected. Can we still have a building that you can just sit down in and eat fried chicken when you really don't want to cook it your self?
@@shadowcween7890 well yeah, people are still going to love cooking and love that they can work with cooking, the contradiction to socialism would be if they wanted to franchise or something.
No, what Marxists (Lenin especially) actually say is - use electoralism to organize, discuss, and teach workers what collective action means and to voice opinion of the working class. Electoralism as a means to an end, and that is substantially different to what liberal leftism means today - vote and do nothing but vote.
They said at a particular time in history in the context of the soviets in Russia. That same time also involved ruthless criticism of the SPD and in hindsight, Rosa's failure to break away from them out of disbelief at their reactionary positions. Only Trots believe that electoralism is a transhistorical means to organise discuss and teach. Workers already know what collective action is, their economic demands are simply not politicised.
@@AkichiDaikashima “Their . . . demands have simply not been politicized” really hits at the root of the problem here!
Topics like BLM or Gaza have been around for literal *generations*, but the conditions behind them haven’t fundamentally changed since, as they have only recently been politicized in a sufficient manner! 🧐
that concept only really makes sense in the context of early and unstable democracy that still coexists with semi-feudal and absolutist systems tbh. and even then most parties at the time did moderate very quickly
The problem is in the current status of Society which is Global Capital, Electoralism doesn't work.
This. We're not there to win, we're there to use the platform for outreach, visibility and as a superficial means of legitimacy.
Plus, if you live in a place with public funding for institutional political parties, for that too.
I was anticipating this guy's return much, much more than current Russian elections.
Speaking of Radical Third Places, it would be cool for you to do another video on such Radical Third Places around the world, their history and their struggles (places like Blitzhuset, Ungdomshuset, Provo and squats in Berlin, the Netherlands and BRISTOL!)
Dammit, was in Berlin twice last year and never knew about these places. It might be nice to have a good catalogue of them, sites like Radical Guide have a very clunky interface.
@@BadMouseProductions I know a few of them in france if you're ever interested (squats and other third places)
Yet again, another great video that points out the problems with electoralism without being snarky, rude, and dismissive of the simple act of voting itself.
And the cherry on top is providing an alternative that is possible for the vast majority of people to do.
He actually doesn’t address any of the reasons that socialists have argued for electoralism
Not just for anarchists, electoralism also reinforces the current state's power structures in the minds of those under it. And the current state in capitalist nations will seek to protect its partners in crime that pay and support it.
I feel like at a certain point, using this angle relies on a weird circular logic. With the US as an example on one side with voter turnout in the 60% range on average, you would think, with this logic that the government would conduct itself as having a minority mandate (as it is necessarily constituted from a vote of a minority of the eligible voters), but it always acts like it has the unanimous support of all. Considering the idea that a non-vote is as strong as an actual vote doesn't really hold and particularly as it doesn't carry any information as such. A non-vote cannot be read as any one thing in particular. That's the crux here. By not voting you effectively take the least powerful position the system allows you. Which I would argue does a much more effective job of allowing the winners to pat themselves on the back and continue to run roughshod over our interests.
Voting is a low power act, but not voting is lower than that.
So true, those counterpoints are valid, but still even if we carry out revolution, we can't fall back to the preservation of state as tool of social order and sustenance, we couldn't carry complete and thorough revolution without mass conversions in bottom-up approach that will take slow pacing time as well prolonged attrition on policy-making against reactionary elements within the system against us from its starting point of the race, thus why we need to start slowly and steady from small scale election, approval, accountability, and policy-making within your close-knit communities and families, at the same time whenever these opposing element trying to push back against progress that had been worked hard by us for must be uphold and dared into state of social war by organizing ourselves.
When you mention creating spaces/groups that are not just "We must go to the masses, we must lead the people!" I'm reminded of one of my flatmates from uni. He is a dyed-in-the-wool Trotskyist and very heavily involved with the Socialist Party Scotland, a "local branch" of the Committee for a Workers' International, who is incredibly well-read, intelligent and passionate. As you point out wrt those who "proclaim", he and the party he is with is claiming to be "doing something". However, it broke my heart that he had given himself so fully to a group that did little more than put up tables next to protests, sell newspapers, hold restricted pub talks and collect signatures. I don't remember them doing any organising, direct action, or anything more substantive.
This was not a matter of lazy or poor organising, but it went to the very core of what the group is: he explained to me at a party once that the Committee for a Workers' International does not see itself as the movement, but rather as the ones "laying the groundwork" to chair the "mass workers' movement" when it eventually comes. A committee *for* a workers' international, ready to lead and just waiting for *when* it comes. As you point out so beautifully in your video, a lack of imagination, ability to dream, ambition to build is the death knell for any proper socialist, and that goes for electoralism (regardless of success) as well as the groups who proclaim to be "doing something".
"The org emerges from the individual projects, not the projects emerge from the org"
I think there is validity in going to protests for workers, standing on the picket line with others, and while it won't change the system it will at least create awareness and solidarity in an unbearable system. I'm not a Trotskyist, I'm a Marxist-Leninist, but I see other lefties out in picket lines and think the more people work together, the more capitalism can at least be put on notice. Let's face it, in western countries we're out-gunned. So, unity is key. I see so many leftists target other leftists that it sometimes seems like the capitalists have us where they want us. As mentioned in another topic, I think harm reduction is a good thing. We need to campaign and fight to keep what we have. For example, here in Canada we have to fight today just to stop privatization of health care and keep things listed on our health cards. This is as important. It may not be revolutionary, but it is clear harm reduction. If leaflets and newsletters and marching helps, then we should do it.
P.S. I'm not saying I'm not guilty of looking at certain "leftists" and scratching my head. For example, I think so-called "libertarian" communists (as if there were such a thing) or some of the American-based "MAGA communists" are kind of, how shall we say, not a full cup of coffee. They are not the brightest bulbs in the box. They may even be gaslighters just seeking personal wealth and get views for ad revenue. I have no idea, yet I don't consider them genuine communists in the least. But I try to avoid outright war with them, because fighting capitalism is #1.
I don't see the problem. If you think about what a "vanguard" has to be for a little you'll see it's fundamentally unaligned with the long term interests of socialism. If they're out there trying to get people on board overall I see that as a strong contribution in the effort. It's true that a beginning is a delicate time and any Vanguard has to have certain ideals that can lead to fruitful organization. But almost everything a vanguard needs to get into position is pretty heavy-handed, and kind of at odds with creating a peaceable, equitable and dynamic society.
Im not even politically active nor am i very left wing but as a young immigrant living in Europe one of the points that stuck out to me was the posturing of many specifically marxist Leninist groups who, from my experience, are simply very (not necessarily rich but) well off students or younger people who, for the lack of a better word, LARP as if they’re sectaries and local governors in some 20th century ML recently revolutionised Nation .
It’s why many people dont vote, for example, for the Socialist candidates in many British constituencies even the furthest left ones.
I am so glad you are back! I used to watch your videos all the time and then suddenly you dropped off!
Please keep posting, I really enjoy hearing your thoughts and views!
It's nice to see you back, comrade. Hope you're doing well and also having a good day.
What a nice and thoughtful video! And I completely agree. It's honestly a little dispiriting to see people, even on the radical left, with so little in the way of an active imagination (see also the reluctance a bunch of people online have when it comes to prison abolition, though I haven't seen as much of that IRL), and I do believe that communitarian spaces can be an amazing first step in places (like most of the First World) where the left is in shambles because they allow us to learn to _think_ like socialists. We are playing the long game, and it is upon us to be compassionate and patient with one another as we seek to make the world a better place. Although there are absolutely things that I think are worth shouting from the rooftops even if it brings us discomfort or takes a lot out of us - and _Free Palestine_ is certainly among them!
Seconding the 'always happy to be among people who won't let us get complacent' thing. Any project of building a better world has to be engaged in with the understanding that it is both a) deadly serious and b) not any one person's to dictate.
Something to add is that going through the establishment ignores the fact that those who are inside have no agency to control the political system.
Whenever a left wing gets elected, they are not pulling the establishment left, the establishment was going to pull them right.
A good video on this is the ratchet effect by fellow traveler.
I always appreciate that you can talk about conservatives without insults and you nailed the reason why it appears consolidated, but I assure you American Conservatism is very divided group.
As a force though, it appears not.
@@weatheranddarknessyeah the differences are all surface level :
In the end they all seek power .
Nothing more nothing less .
Be it the pastor condemming minorities ,
The gun nut libertarian in his backyard ,
Or the big buisnessman ...
They all want less controlls for themselves and more for their oppositions ,
And they don't fundamentally contradict each other ...
They are a bunch of parralel lines
Not when it comes down to voting. In november the "respectable and principled" conservatives, maga chuds, cops, the kķķ, wannabe viking weirdos and others come together to support the guy with an R under his name.
I've never heard the phrase "licking the wood off the barrel" before, but it's a good one. Excellent videos!
Your chaticature of marxist Leninists is completely simplistic. I'm an ML and I completely agree with everything you've said in this video. No serious ML acts the way you describe or at least not the vast majority who actually organise in person.
no serious ML acts the way he describes, and no true scottsman puts sugar in his porridge
though I guess irl I have more experience with trots than MLs
we’re lepricons in western countries istg lol
@anarchosnowflakist786
This has nothing to do with a true scottsman it's just simply the fact that no marxist leninist outside of the internet who actually organizes or does anything of value too the movement acts that way.
So great every time you come out of hiding to release a banger like this.
Participating in bourgeois elections and expecting Marxism-Leninism to win is an attempt in futility. However, there is benefit in participation, I think the benefit is reducing your pain under capitalism as best you can (SocialDems suck, but are better than Conservatives or Liberals). If you have a genuine communist on the ballot, then turn out and support them. So for me, its not about 'winning' in a bourgeois election, its merely about harm reduction.
What harm reduction? Seriously, more harm has been done at an international level in the last 4 years by "voting for the lesser evil" and "harm reduction". The children over in Gaza or the Slaves in the Congo lives aren't better. Your personal life may be MARGINALLY better in the imperial core by not my much. I know mine isn't.
@@BlazinTre I'm not actually in disagreement with you. I think the bourgeois parties suck, all of them. The global system of imperial exploitation has to go. I'm just saying I'd rather have rent control and a health card than to not have those items as we fight to replace this disgusting capitalist system. I'd rather have a higher minimum wage, tax credits, and picket and unionize for better wages and benefits now while we fight the system that is a failure. Keeping the worst fascists out is worthwhile even if we fight for socialism in the future to get rid of this global imperial system of today. I'm with you.
@@BlazinTrethe last president fucking up the supreme court is one example. when they overturned a certain decision, red state "trigger laws" went into effect instantly. I personally would not want to reside in those states. But more importantly, a second Trump presidency would be extremely annoying. I don't want to have to hear his obnoxious whining all over the news again.
So many people here have that lack of imagination, either clinging to arguments of electoralism, or clinging to century old models where the practicioners have either collapsed or embraced the commodity form and capitalism. We need to be daring and try to experiment with bold new ideas, like you said at the end
15:33 I’d like to address this point a bit cause I think it’s a little misconstrued. Of course in private left spaces, like reading groups and what not, we should discuss the failures of the USSR, Stalin and Mao and all those people. But if you’re putting your voice out on a public platform, I think a leftist has a certain amount of responsibility (especially when talking about existing socialist countries like Cuba) to understand the context in which you speak. That as someone in the imperial core, any criticism of places like Cuba necessarily lend themselves to support of imperialism. We should be aware of that I think.
Also, in the context of public speech and not of private discussion, my job isn’t to make places Cuba or even North Korea better. I don’t live there and I have no power to meaningfully change it. That’s up to the workers in those countries. My job is to make sure my own government doesn’t try to fuck them up anymore than they already have.
Well that sort of seems like the 'Multipolarity' argument, and it's one that I pretty much entirely reject these days. We do have the ability to teach a correct way of viewing a place, person, situation etc whilst not endorsing it in public too.
Because if I was in that position, Multipolarity doesn't matter much if it's your back thats feeling the whip, and this viewpoint can lead you to defending states instead of the people within them.
The statement 'any criticism of places like Cuba, USSR etc lends itself to Imperialism' in actuality lends itself very succinctly to vulgar Anti-ImperialismTM that you get from a lot of ML's, and fellow travellers like The Grayzone etc. That ends up with you defending Venezuela annexing Guyana and so on.
The solution is to teach an accurate picture of the situation from the outset, instead of going down that road which just allows these dogmatists to take the reins, I've had enough of that. I'm going to go a lot more into this on a video I hope to get out by the end of the year but basically, thats the gist of it. That line of argument for me just becomes uncontrollable and doesn't foster independent thought.
@@BadMouseProductions Ya, I get what you mean. I’m not saying you should actively defend everything a socialist state does. I’m more speaking against people like Vaush who are “publicly against” most socialist states in a really aggressive manner. To me, there’s no point in doing that, since it doesn’t offer any material change to better those people’s lives. That’s something they have to decide to do on their own. So I don’t have a problem with not actively supporting socialist states as much as I have a problem with constantly “denouncing” them entirely. It does nothing really except boost your own ego and provide a mouthpiece for imperialist talking points.
@@BadMouseProductions "Venezuela annexing Guyana"? dude, there is a LOT of ignorance in that comment. Please read more before claiming something very akin to an Eurocentric leftist please.
@@BadMouseProductions I also view it in terms of a hierarchy of societal contradictions. What’s the more primary contradiction vs. secondary contradictions and which one needs the most attention at this moment? Take Israel Palestine for example, when Palestine abolishes the Israeli state and forms a new Palestinian state, that newly formed state will most likely be regressive, homophobic, misogynistic and so on. But at this moment I’m not gonna “hem and haw” about possible flaws in new Palestine or whatever it ends up being. The colonial relation between Israel and Palestine is the contradiction that is primary at the moment and most pertinent to our goal of building socialism. It’s only after that, that the primary contradiction will become the (likely, capitalist) state of “New Palestine” vs. the working class of the whole area. I view most things this way. Yes, Cuba has flaws, but until the imperialist relationship between global capital and the working class of Cuba are leveled, it will remain the primary contradiction that deserves the most attention. The relationship between the authority of the worker state vs. the masses of Cuba (among other things) will remain a secondary contradiction, because even if these secondary contradictions are smooth out, they will still exist as a whole under oppression of capital. It would be like trying to replace the floorboard of a house when the base itself is rotting away.
@@roryreviewer6598
I remember when there was some drama regarding an artist who did some kind of cartoon of a Muslim lady removing her scarf as a symbol of empowerment. And some people came along and were like "Hmmm that's got Islamophobic vibes, maybe just try and jazzify her scarf instead" Yet in countries where headscarfs are mandatory removing them IS a real thing that is defiance.
Now I'm all for countering imperialist sentiment, I also know that narratives can become coopted if the form they take is in the stronger interest of some crappy group. You don't need to counter NATO by talking about BiH and Serbia for example, that just leads to you denying massacres. The simplest thing I say about that is that they proclaim to be defensive and yet they toppled Gadaffi.
I would agree with you on Palestine who are actively occupied, not so much for Cuba. Arguably the blockade is wrong, yet when the USSR was around they received financial backing which supplemented this loss, so even if it were removed that is basically what you'd get, which again would still be a state. If someone is suffering in a given situation me saying "Multipolarity" won't make them feel any better.
I think the primary/secondary contradiction with regards to imperialism might need further updating.
I’ve been talking about this for the last three years and I have never gotten anyone to understand but this is put so well. I can just send this video now.
This video was (generally) very good, and I agreed with the vast majority of what you said.
Before I get into other things - ~6:44: Yeah, PatSocs are a plague. Actual MLs don't like them. They (PatSocs) are not MLs. They're blatantly revisionist and blatantly reactionary. Some may call them "class reductionists," but they don't care about the class part, either. They're also heavily associated with LaRouchite groups, and Maupin at the least has hinted at his admiration for LaRouche for years. These are obviously huge (not the good kind of) red flags. Seems like they're a way of sabotaging the movement.
Onto the next bit. Everything was generally good until
~14:45
Tf was that!? Seriously?
I was going to ask if 2:52 was supposed to be a jab at Lenin, but now I'm fairly sure it is.
So you still haven't gotten over your anti-ML phase?? What a shame. Seemed like maybe you had some time back.
That doesn't even make sense. Comparing Biden to Stalin of all people? What??
What was the "material conditions" part of that!? It's a reference to an argument many of us know, but it doesn't apply to the USSR during Stalin's leadership. Socialism was in fact achieved in the '30s. Collective ownership of the means of production, private property virtually abolished, markets largely abolished (iirc, there was pretty much only a [regulated] market for exchange between industry and agriculture), etc. Wtf.
It would've made way more sense to reference the stans of the modern CPC there! ""MLs"" and others who ignore or brush off the blatant revisionism, and insist that China's on a socialist road despite the overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary.
But nah, you had to bash Stalin.
"I'm so radical!" But in the next breath, "Stalin bad hurrr! Amirite everyone? Anticommunist propaganda tells us he was bad so he bad." And in a way that doesn't even make sense. When there are far better examples you could've used.
It's even more funny - and ironic - because Stalin (and Lenin) *actually did the thing!*
Successful proletarian revolution. Bourgeois/ rightist state smashed. New Soviet state protected and maintained despite huge challenges. Socialism built, despite what they had to work with (The Russian Empire having been an extremely backwards, mostly agrarian, semi-feudal state). One of the most impressive industrializations in human history. Despite the starting point at the time of revolution (way, way behind the West), becomes the first country to reach space. In that time, illiteracy is also eradicated, all the important indicators, as well as conditions and quality of life, etc., go up drastically. Millions of people pulled out of poverty, getting educated, and living in a socialist society. Etc. etc.
And this state defeated the fascist powers, as well. And in spite of all the damage done to their country in the process, they pressed on, and continued to do impressive things (unfortunately, revisionists came to power after Stalin's death, but still).
Stalin (and his supporters) also personally pushed for the building of socialism, and had to fight the rightists and other oppositionists in the Party to do so.
He actually did the thing.
But here you are sh*tting on him (don't want my comment buried) like your average liberal.
Come on, man.
You should really move beyond this anti-ML thing in general. I thought you had years ago.
Some "MLs" aren't great (to say the least), which is why I have to call myself an anti-revisionist ML. But sh*tting on ML itself - which those people have often completely deviated/ moved away from - and all MLs is just silly.
Especially since, ya know - the vast, vast majority of successful revolutions have been led by MLs, or people following ML ideology/ strategy.
[Edit: Sorry for long comment, but it was likely necessary. At least, if you actually read and consider it.]
[Edit 2: Also, apologies if I misinterpreted anything (though I don't think I did - I think my interpretation fits what you said/ your framing). I believe the general point(s) is (/are) valid either way, though.
And tbc, I was speaking in simplified terms. Lenin and Stalin were the leaders/ figureheads, but as they themselves would say (and they both did, multiple times), the masses are the ones who make history. And the Soviet people carried out the building of all that.
(Though they were following Lenin and Stalin's correct lines, ofc.)]
You make some very valid points but i disagree on your characterization of China. There is no defined pathway for socialism, its basically defined as the transition from capitalism to communism. A transition that can take centuries.
You have to sometimes look at the world we live in. Its run almost exclusively by capitalists, and worse run by ones that are hyper militaristic. So what is China supposed to do, stay true to what people consider a more pure socialism or adapt to the hand they have been dealt.
They have done a remarkable job at developing their society, their poverty alleviation program, their infrastructure development is just amazing.
And better they have spent trillions on helping other developing nations in building their own economies and infrastructure.
Credit where credit is due. They're a socialist society, they control the commanding heights of their economy. They did have to take a few steps back to be accepted by the western capitalist nations but all for the benefit of their people, and ours.
Give them a break. They're still a primary target for American haegemony now more than ever. We need to stand by them and hope they can guide the Americans to collapse on the weight of their own contradictions. Because if they can do that, maybe other nations might just see the advantages of adapting a socialist society when daddy America isn't there with a boot on their throat.
Other than that i think his characterization of George Galloway was very unkind and unfair.
@@obione69 So you're exactly one of those people I referenced - under the broad umbrella of people that make it necessary for me to explicitly call myself an "anti-revisionist ML."
[Haha, jk. Well, no I'm not really kidding. But I'm trying to be nice. Even though I already worded that much more nicely than I could have (a single, simple word would've sufficed).]
Before I get into anything else - Xi Jinping himself has said that China will never have a planned economy again. I.e., he straight up said that China will never be socialist again.
Socialism, as a system, has a definition and criteria. A system based on the collective ownership of the means of production. The vast, vast majority of enterprise must be collectively owned. [This is the simple definition, ofc, but that is basically the main defining feature.] Is this the case in China?? Haha, no, of course not.
And the CPC hasn't just "taken a few little steps back" or something. They - at the very least the leadership - are so beyond revisionist it's ridiculous. They not only allowed a big bourgeoisie to come about, grow, and flourish - to the dominant position they occupy now - they *straight up allowed the bourgeoisie into the "Party."* Being a socialist, let alone a communist, has nothing to do with being in the "Party" anymore.
Perfect example - even back around *1995* - years and years after the initial reforms of 1978 - urban employment in China was only around ~15% private sector. Even if you accept the reforms were "necessary" (and there's a good argument they weren't), they could've kept capital *way* more under control/ on a much tighter leash. They didn't. They've done the exact opposite.
The situation is flipped now, around ~85% of urban employment in China is *private sector.* And that stat is from *years ago.* Yes, things were different back then - but it only serves to reinforce what I'm saying *even more.*
And, ofc, agriculture?? Yeah, that's been privatized, too.
For the last *45 years,* the CPC and China have consistently moved further and further away from socialism. Not towards it. And they *had* socialism - or at the very least much closer - beforehand.
The "productive forces" argument - when used in the way it is to uncritically defend the CPC, for instance, is BS. It's merely used to push any possible leftward movement to a matter of the distant future.
It's also just not true, because we know socialism allows for the development and expansion of productive forces, and increase in conditions, much, *much* faster than capitalism does.
To the "poverty" stuff - China's rate of homelessness is apparently on par with that of the US.
And the "centuries" thing - yikes. That kind of thinking is likely exactly what BM was alluding to. Even Lenin, when they were doing it for the first time, said "decades" - to be generous (iirc). This was not the case.
Stalin was basically like "Economy's roughly at pre-war [pre-WW1] levels? Socialism time, baby." As a result, the NEP lasted only (roughly) 6 or 7 years. And Stalin was completely correct in doing this. [And the NEP itself was a much further left version of State Capitalism than what China has. By far.]
There's *so* much more that could be said. But I'll leave it there.
If you're actually interested, I recommend maybe reading one of my community tab posts on my political channel (It's called, "It's Called Leninism") - the one with the picture that says "Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics." Lots of illustrative info there.
And/or Fellow Traveler's recent big video on China (though he titled the last segment something that goes completely against the info from the entire rest of the video.)
I'm not "against China," and I support it against the US, etc., but it doesn't have a socialist system. And the CPC leadership has absolutely no interest in moving towards one.
Without addressing revisionism, it remains and festers. Getting to the ridiculous levels we see from the modern "CPC" - an institution that's undoubtedly become totally undeserving of the name.
Remember that Lenin and Stalin - and even all the way back to Marx and Engels - put up a relentless struggle against revisionism. It's necessary.
Deng was basically the Chinese Gorbachev. Acknowledging the latter as a revisionist, but not the former, is some cognitive dissonance/ mental gymnastics, tbh. And things have only gotten (substantially) worse after his passing.
Edit: And the "pure" socialism thing 🙄. "If you want socialism to actually mean something, you just have a "purity fetish!"" Mhm. Sure. [It doesn't have to be "pure" to be socialism - I'd consider that to basically be "full socialism" - but the vast, vast majority of enterprise must be collectively owned. Otherwise, it doesn't really mean anything, does it?]
If the uncritical (modern) CPC stans were somehow in the Bolshevik Party at the end of the NEP, and did things consistent with the positions they hold now - they would've been in/ supported the (pitiful) right opposition. Just saying.
China is essentially a type of "social democracy" ["welfare capitalism"] at this point. And who knows how long even the SocDem elements will remain?? Considering the CPC's continuous rightist trajectory, and what we know about the eventual fate of "social democracy"?
@@slipknotboy555
You talk about others being a revisionist but yet seem stuck in a dogmatic timeline almost a century old. Holding a puritanical standard claiming anyone who deviates is a revisionist is just cancer.
You should listen to Vijay Prasad. He is an actual acedemic on these issues and would tear your entire narrative down to a simple phrase, stuck in a bygone era.
Its amusing how rigid and inflexible you people are. Just unwavering in your own religious belief in how things must be. Incapable of understanding that gradual transitions are just that, Gradual. There is no hard coded blueprint a country needs to follow to be socialists, other than for the state to control the commanding heights of the economy. So you understand that doesn't necessarily include all labor in the nation.
Its also very arrogant to demand that China maintains its Mao era policies which denied the country the ability to trade and interact with the other capitalist nations allowing them to enormously expand their economy by having access to their markets.
And i don't know where you get your statistics on homelessness, but to take a cheap jab at their poverty alleviation program and suggest they have as many homeless as the Americans is just gross. You really are just shameless in belittling their achievements based on a fundamentalist view that if they don't conform to your demands then just insult them.
I started by trying to be respectful in my original comment but since you decided to be this way, time to eat your own medicine.
Pal, writing a long-ass defense of daddy Stalin is a clear sign that you probably had put too much of your self-worth into whatever label you associate with. The successes and crimes of USSR are much more complex that "X did right/wrong" thing and running an assamad defense of some old leader certainly does not help in any discussion of certain policies or characteristics of Soviet government
It's always so funny when Stalinists say "Lenin and Stalin did the thing! Those guys! Those two guys!"
Yeah? Just those two guys did the thing? There wasn't at least one more?
Like, we both know who you're airbrushing out here and why. The amusement comes from the fact that it's okay to bash THAT guy who did the thing, but not the other guy.
In other words become an anarchist is your solution. This is just anarchism with a red flag.
I'm beginning to firmly believe that a pursuit of electoralism is a construction of a livelihood in that progress down that route demands a lot out of you and ends up converting your ontology of change into one of maintenance
Your horizon for political imagination recedes and your resentment towards dissent against the liberal-capital democracy apparatus grows, greatly
Namin' the names. U crazy for this one, Mouse
I was visiting Hydra between 2015 and 2016 when I was at grad school there (short, failed endeavour). We might have even met without you realizing...
GUYS, HERE’S HOW BERNIE CAN STILL WIN
COMEBACK NOW!!!!!
Great Video Bad Mouse you're one of the most important people on LeftTube.
I think I needed to hear the optimism. I’ve been otg for years, I’ve seen my friends get hurt, I’ve seen good people suffer for the arrogant whims of exploitative “socialist parties”, I’ve been actively marshaling and doing what little I can for Palestine, including volunteer work at a Palestinian community center. I feel like I’m simultaneously being stretched thin and like it’s all superficial and done in arrogance on my end. I thank you for the optimism, and im sorry for venting. I just don’t know where else I’ll be vindicated, except the void of a comment section
Asking genuinely what contrapoints has done/said that's reactionary? I'm not super familiar with her but liked the videos of hers I've seen.
Thank you for such an insightful video, especially with such an achievable call to action. Once you have your own space, be it in your house or the woods (big fan of the woods ngl), you really can educate and organize on your own terms!
Out where I'm at, everyone is either conservative (normal) or conservative (asking me to vote Dr. Shiva for president), and that's no reason to be discouraged. Building local consciousness starts with some free literature around coffee and scones, or skills classes, or whatever else we can host on the regular.
Personally, my only word of caution would be for my fellow ladies: if you're going to make or join a leftist space, remember that the guys are still guys. Buddy system, watch your drinks, etc. It feels like they should be more enlightened, and thus safer, than their conservative counterparts, but the truth is that assault persists whether he's read Lenin or not. Not recounting any personal experiences, just... trust me.
Much like the difference between electoral right wing and the usual center-left parties: there's convenience in being able to see the threat from a mile because they're not posing as something else.
Another Badmouse video, another banger.
"Licking the wood off the barrel?"
I've never heard that before and have no context for it. All I'm thinking of is splinters on my tongue, and why am Iicking this barrel? Is someone forcing me? Plus, where do I find a wooden barrel?
Good video.
11:16 I think the best stopping point would have been not supporting Germany entering WWI. The drawback would have been that their party would be banned, but I think it would have been worth it, seeing what they became in hindsight. I think they would be able to ride out the war with a large underground following, then come back to the surface after it was over, being able to say "We told you so." The Bolsheviks were one of only two parties who opposed their country entering the war (the other being in Serbia I think), and it turned out well for them, so I think it was a gamble that might have paid off for German socialists.
I did a whole thing on TikTok about project 2025, and honestly, what I think the biggest thing that those of us on the left need to take away from it is we need to view it through a Gramscian lens. Because what it's all about is Hegemony. The point of Project 2025 isn't actually to enact these specific policies work for word as outlined in the text of the document, it's to create a political context in which the most right wing ideas of the conservative movement become dominant within governing structures, and a new ideological in the United States.
Your "third spaces" pitch is also not a means to an end either and carries with it significant limitations and often end up with what some call "siloing" then just dying out as you illistrated already. Where leftists build these radical centers that increasingly have less and less contact with the outside world, developing to outsiders what is seen as byzantine codes of conduct and no actual influence or connection with the masses. I think there's room for all of the above if you shape it right.
I don't think I agree with the initial assumption that conservatives have an easier time because they are the embodiment or the origin of the status quo. Many conservatives do actually want to change the status quo, and they do also see their propaganda as efforts to educate and enlighten the general population.
Where I think there is a real difference is that conservatives do not really agree with the principles of democratisation. When they see undemocratic aspects of our democratic system or flaws in the current electoral system, they aim to exploit these instead of trying to fix them, because their aims are fundamentally undemocratic to begin with, because they are fundamentally against equality.
Yeah good point!
10:28 I really feel that. Contra back in 2019 and early 2020 helped me realize I’m trans (I already knew I was an Anarchist). I felt a bit betrayed when she stated straw manning Anarchists and haven’t watched her content since
Radical third places is really cool and have also been majorly utilized with radical organizations backing them hahum pre-cw CNT
I hate to be the griping goat, but seriously have a think about third spaces. Think about what they imply for politics that have them as their base. This has been a strain in socialist thought for a really long time, and it doesn't go as far as you would think - if you can see how radical electoralism is always absorbed by capitalism, but not how third spaces are just as vulnerable, there's a heck of a rough road ahead of us. I'm not saying you are wrong about their necessity, and how helpful they can be to young radicals especially - but I and my comrades have been surrounded by these spaces for years (incl Hydra actually), participated in them also, and they always go a very particular direction: compartmentalising, enclosure of theory and praxis, abstraction from the world, dissolution. There is a need for a deeper critique/inquiry - which I know is very difficult, because places like these lay down roots deep in the heart.
Its not a gripe, its valid. What you say is true. After all Hydra is no more. You're right we ought figure out if there is any better way forward, I'd be all down for that. I just don't know if there is any better method so far that I've heard. At the least like I said in the previous video, they still provide a better outcome than electoralism.
Also on a different note because you mentioned Hydra, if you are who I'm thinking of are you with Lucy?
@@BadMouseProductionsI am not that person, sorry - when I went to Hydra it was based in the cellar of Cafe Kino I think. Used to live in Bristol just before and during lockdown.
I think there is a misunderstanding here. Because you can in fact do both and a good movement should do both. As someone that has been highly active in radical 3rd spaces I know of the immense value it provides for the people there, and as someone now in electoral politics I know how much it matters for those 3rd spaces to have someone to shield and support them, while also being able to platform socialist ideas and ideals. The revolution wont come to my area any time soon and I agree that material basis changing is probably what is going to make that ball start rolling for real. But without some structure there in the first place, and without some culture of radical action the fascists are just going to capitalize on the material conditions instead.
I argue that what the left needs is branding and revenue, strong online communities that can build its diverse messaging, and personalities that can deliver the basic messages of leftism across a variety of perspectives. However their has to be regulators within that community that should keep the message on track so that the personality who delivers that message doesn't become more conservative over time due to branding, lifestylism, money, or simply seeing it as more marketable for themselves.
Frankly, I think voting for the purposes of protecting minority rights is sufficient reason to vote. It should by no means be the only thing that is done, but focusing solely on pushing socialism while letting people have their rights stripped away is not going to earn allies.
Electoralism sucks. It's valid and maybe necessary to criticize it. But opting to throw away an entire means of influence when human rights are on the line is a dangerous game to play.
Economics is not the end all of liberation.
Lots of food for thought, can't really ask for more.
I'm still in favor of some degree of engagement with electoral politics. You haven't convinced me on that, and I doubt you will. However, that said, you are completely correct that the events since October 7th have been radicalizing, and have put a huge red question mark over any level of engagement in electoral politics.
I've always voted lesser evil, even while doing a lot more on the grassroots level and never really thinking that Bernie (for example) would have achieved all that much even if he did somehow win.
However, events in Gaza have been so stark and impossible to ignore that it highlights the deep immorality of the entire system in a way that's easier to see than the everyday injustices of capitalism. I can vote lesser evil and not feel I'm endorsing lukewarm domestic economic policy. Just damage mitigation. But can I vote lesser evil right now without feeling I'm endorsing a genocide?
No, that I can't do. Because when the harm is on such a dramatic scale, it really the highlights the huge cost of that vote. There NOT being a backlash to genocide is a major cost, and impacts the future negatively. Perhaps Trump impacts the future more negatively, but for the first time in my life I don't know if that's true or not.
That said, it does not logically follow that because dramatic events like a genocide require an electoral response for a good outcome, that smaller electoral events require the same response. I do think this is a pretty unique case in that Biden may be able to draw a direct line from his position on Israel to his election loss. It won't stop their intense cope and excuse-making, but even the media have been drawing that direct line for once.
What I think is true, is that while I think in most cases we should vote lesser evil and take small low-effort electoral actions, there are better places for leftists to put their energy than into political campaigns. And if we do put energy into politics, then local politics, union work, and specific issue advocacy will be much more fruitful than the latest faint hope on a national scale. The worry is that rather than people coming to this conclusion, they'll just succumb to nihilism and stop doing anything at all. (Indeed, this is one of the problems with all the hope that comes from dramatic, national political campaigns -- the way young people feel crushed after they inevitably lose.)
for me, engaging in electoral politics would be admitting they had a right to have me raped and tortured as a child due to being too savage to be raised by my own people. there was no "lesser" harms side when it came to the colonization and genocide of turtle island. I do think local elections matter more than the big ones, and doing MORE than just lining up for the ballot from time to time matters so I'm not being salty at you, i'm just explaining my view of the matter and at the end of the day, literally all the system needs from you to be valid, is your participation. where your vote goes is truly of far less import than the fact that your vote went in the first place. you told them you want this system to keep going the way it is because you believe that you're somehow mitigating harm by dragging it out.
but let me tell you about what it's like in the lower class where we don't have the comforts of working life to dull the pain.
we're dying and we need the change now, mitigating just means you're ok with us dying to appease your need for comfort.
Or, perhaps, it is unappealing. And the alternative doesn’t work.
When you were introducing Russell Brand, I was actually confused for a minute, because I had totally forgotten he existed, or I'm only reminded he exists every month or so. But maybe that's because I'm an American and he's just not as much of a figure over here.
10/10 follow up, no notes
I'd say the SPD mucked up in 1914
War Bonds Bad
It’s possible for a restaurant that isn’t a communal kitchen or a soup kitchen to exist under socialism in a way that is actually just, socialist, and unalienating. It’s just that in order to do that, it would have to be prohibitively expensive/limited in how often you could go to being an incredibly infrequent thing to the point that very few could exist at all. The real point is that the restaurant industry couldn’t exist anything like it does now, I think arguing that literally zero places recognizable as a restaurant could ever exist is a little silly and missing the point. But would you, as a person existing under socialism, eat out anything at all like people do today? Absolutely not, rightly
May I suggest some good praxis, especially for my USA comrades? Get involved in LOCAL politics. There are tons of boards with OPEN elected positions that need to be filled. Yes, this is small potatoes stuff, but participation is important for a number of reasons: 1) to learn the mechanics of civil governance; 2) to learn the arts and skills of deliberation, collaboration, conflict management, and consensus building; 3) to build OUR REPUTATIONS as doers, people who get things done and don't just stand in judgement on the sidelines. I may need be leading the revolution, but I'm sure as hell getting myself prepared for it.
I for one like midwestern Marx but I like the message of this video. I feel like I’m more happy with the idea of a multiplicity of left opinion. I just think a wider firmly left coalition is all that matters
You are disturbingly succeptiple to oppurtunist cultists
Ya I don’t think MM is nearly as bad as the rest of the guys Badmouse featured in that group. They put out a lot of useful content. But they do have some level of association with people like Haz and Hinkle and they do have pretty yikes takes occasionally, so it’s fair criticism I think.
I get calling guys like Haz and Jackson "vulgar" because they can be. Carlos and Eddie of MM are by no means "vulgar" or lacking empathy in my opinion.
@@roryreviewer6598 Agree. They tend to be good overall but lately I've seen some worrying development in that channel, a sort of a flirting with patsoc ideas
what do u think about the PTS in argentina? they do have a Trotskyst party with candidates and diputados, but also very active on unions, etc.
Voting slows the bad guys' agenda down a bit. That's all anyone ever said.
Only voting is idiotic. But nobody wants JUST voting, except Liberals, duh. But that is kinda the point.
Great to have you back! Your point in the end there about communities leading to action is spot on! We started a pay-what-you-want radical book cafe here, in Oulu, Finland, and that has enabled so much efficient and effective action! I couldn't attend today's Newroz celebration, sadly. BTW, Finnish-speakers might want to check out our paper, Punamusta Liekki.
At around 2 minutes, you finally put a thought I've had for a while now into eloquent words. Why does the left have a notorious infighting problem while the right has much less of a problem unifying opposing groups to a common goal (think Ben Shapiro spouting the same rhetoric as full on Nazis, and Nazis praising Shapiro for being one of "the good ones")
Well aside from cowering to authority, the difference is as you said. The left is trying to dismantle, replace, supplant, or otherwise change the status quo, try ideas that haven’t been tried before. For better or worse, the left has lots of ideas that dofferent people prefer, so we end up tripping over each other sometimes over which ideas should be implimented.
The right meanwhile has the status quo on their side, and they only want to preserve it, or strengthen it with regressive policies. Shapiro and the Nazis may have fundamental disgreements on some policies, or why they believe in what they do, but they'll both spew the same vile rhetoric about abortion, trans people, gay people, minorities, immigrants, etc.
15:45 I'm confused what are you talking about? What kind of MLs push that
Specific examples please?
I'm surprised if you havent met an ML that didn't believe that it's the only way to socialism effectively with not alternative, that we can't formulate anything beyond "aes" models due to material conditions, or thinks that for some reason it's important to defend stalin's legacy
This didn't do anything to explain why hard right parties like the National Front supposedly get to see their policies implemented as concessions from Left-leaning parties while leftists are forced to concede to placate more right-leaning people. Just something something infighting, as if there is no infighting on the far right. It also did not even attempt to explain how that infighting or lackthereof affects outcomes.
I don't think that falls in the scope here. It's a bit closer to the scope of his previous video, the longer one.
@@weatheranddarkness Maybe, but considering that I only watched this one it seems like he brought that up as a bold claim with no explanation and then just powered ahead as if it's a given.
So... you are not a Marxist-Leninist anymore? What are you know?
Definitely a trve communist like Lenin and Bordiga... 🌝
Major problem on socialistic movements (I do not like to use "leftism" as term, since the word does not really mean anything: you put Mussolini and Hitler next to each others, and one of them will be "leftist" and other will be "right side") is, that while we have lot of analysis what is wrong, what does not work, there is almost nothing for how to replace it, what to do better, what we should build. That is actually main reason, why I so little listen socialists in these days: I already know all the critics, I've heard it million times. But no one talks about what we should do, what we should build, etc. And that is even more important than critics. Fascists win people to their side, despite lack of good analysis, they tell what we should do (horrible things, but people who do not understand things, accept it as seemingly good solution for the problems). Socialists seems to be stuck on telling again and again, what does not work, why it does not work... and never take step to tell what should be done.
Or kind of two extremes: 1) those who tell that we must do X (=thing what is not known for anyone else in conversation, and what is never explained to them), or 2) let people to chose - those masses who never had moment to think these questions, who do not have even idea what could be option, those must tell what to do, not us, no one should tell people what to do.
So, in the end, I ended up to listen more people who do not declare to be socialists (communists, anarchists,...) than those who do. Because they at least try to seek actual solutions for problem.
(This just as general frustration for situation - not just critic against this video).
--
About restaurants and socialism. Exploitation and alienation of course exists, no doubt. But same is for grocery stores in capitalism. Etc. And both, restaurants and grocery stores exist and existed in socialism. I was planning to build worker owned cafe/restaurant before EU decided to make economical suicide, and made it impossible to make any new small businesses. Idea was to create public place where people can have events, can spend time and have fun, can teach each others, place which offers literature and journalism, place which offers some access for art and learn some art. So, not very far from idea of those book stores mentioned in end of the video.
BTW. I've been in Moscow in restaurant owned by Democratic People's Republic of Korea. They had really good food. I heard about the place only because my friend from Republic of Korea, who want build peace and reunite Korea, visited there, told that there is really nice people working there. So I went there with her. I rarely visit in restaurants or cafes, since I do not have much money for such. But I always thought that in better society, I would prefer to give cooking (and selection of what to eat) for those who are more interested about these things, while myself would prefer to focus on other topics what I prefer more. So, I think that in socialism "restaurants" may exist more than in capitalism...
--
PS. Some people believe that there is no alternative for current system. Others do not speak about alternatives. I see, that there is so many different alternatives, that it is hard to say, which one to choose - and it is also hard to try predict all problems what every new system brings (although it is very possible to predict many of those problems, and answer to them even before they happen).
Same here, I've stopped listening to alot of ppl, because no one wants to ask the hard questions and do the hard work of at least attempting to answer them. Its all the tired old endless "critique" of things, they all forget that "the point is to change it".
We are oversaturated with critique and puritanical condemnations, we need solutions. What kind of societies and institutions we would like to build? and what tactics and strategies we need in order to get there?
I do recommend a book by Cockshot called Towards a New Socialism and The Classless Society in Motion
A New Theory of Communist Economy by Costello and O'Brien which is an upcoming book.
I've had discussions with more radical friends, and I came to the conclusion that I would vote but focusing on 3rd parties that are actively spending resources to push even somewhat radical ideas. "Leftists" aren't really known for having a ton of resources so I might as well do a little to make the most of those spent resources.
After that, I'll probably vote for local Democrats in my area to demonstrate to more liberal leaning acquaintances how little they would change over the Republicans. I also thought that I might even vote local republicans if the people I wanted to convince were alienated republican-supporting workers over democrat-supporting workers. It just so happens my area is dominated by Republicans who might have to spend more of their own resources campaigning if the elections get closer. My energy put into voting ends there other than watching videos like this for entertainment or having friendly conversations.
I don't like the assumption that another Trump presidency will be exactly the same as the first one.
Would mind doing an entire video on why restaurants won't exist in a socialist society? The idea itself could useful for organizing restaurant workers but the ideas beyond it can speak on the metaquestions that leftist discourse is failing to really ask.
Derick Varn has same points on his channel which i agree
Leftists being negative Nancies will always brighten my day!
Third spaces don’t grow into anything though. They maintain a core constituency of already left-inclined people, they’re a great thing to exist but they’re no replacement for building working class community organisations (Interested to know why ACORN and the work it’s been doing for the last 10 years in the UK to build working class power through direct action is never mentioned in your videos at all? Apart from a brief mention in the last video to acknowledge they exist)
I was a member for a few years, these days I'm a fellow traveller.
We did do a fair bit of good, the problem however is that eventually we succumbed to the same sorts of issues as electoralism.
Those things I mentioned at at 4:30 are a direct reference to the experiences people were having, I won't say much more. They certainly do a lot of good, and they're better than electoralism, but sadly it has just added to my overall disillusionment with these top down structures.
@@BadMouseProductions Fair enough. I disagree that these structures are something to be avoided though, I’m yet to see evidence that other models can be as successful in the UK’s conditions.
Also on dues paying the reason I see it as being prioritised is unfortunately just the nature of the beast if you want a sustainable organisation that can stand up to legal threats and survive in a capitalist system, otherwise how are large fighting organisations supposed to survive without being at the whim of rich donors or funders which determine the direction of the organisation more than the actual members of it. My main point of contention really is that saying that third spaces I.E. radical coffee shops is a better alternative or more progressive towards revolutionary goals I just find strange and not backed up by any evidence
@@Dan313dudewell not just radical coffeeshops lol, what I am refering to is bases. Places where you can build.
People ask for an example so I gave one from my experience, there's another one in Briz called Base which is more community center themed.
@@BadMouseProductions Yeah I can definitely see the benefits of that, I’m a rave promoter myself and trying to facilitate more politically charged spaces and using those music spaces as an opportunity for solidarity. I just think they’re a cultural supplement to every day political work within mass working class organisations, not an alternative to them
I AM a radical third space. at least I try to be wherever I go
This is just purist gatekeeping.
I disagree with your statement that the right and left are fundamentally different because the right represent the Status Quo and the Left are basically a force of progress.
For one thing I think it would be much more accurate to say that the right is a force calling for regression and the left is a force calling for progress and the Center is the Status Quo.
Which would imply that the answer to your question "why can't the left just do what the right does?" is: we totally can.
But above and beyond the right being regression and the left being progress I also think it's just wrong to characterize politics as left and right in the first place.
I don't think those categories are particularly stable, I don't think they make much sense, and I don't think we have a clear enough idea of what "progress" should even mean to state with confidence that the left is for it and the right is against it.
For example, I believe that our rapidly changing technology requires something along the lines of a "Postliberal" response (Postliberal in the Eudamonia, Charles Lasch, Patrick Deneen, Adrian Vermeule sense.)
Because as our technology, like, say, our phones, get more advanced, the capacity for harm increases.
As a result "progress" means our society catching up to the technological changes that have taken place. Which might mean a more "authoritarian" or "collectivist" or "paternalist" response.
We might need more state regulation of addictive algorithms, socialization of social media to redesign them towards positive ends. Similarly we might need a more responsive state in regards to junk food (which is itself a kind of technology or an abundance created through technology), abundant porn, etc.
All of these responses are "Right-wing" but they're also necessary, I believe, for technological progress to be beneficial rather than harmful to people's overall quality of life.
Thus, by this logic, one could consider the right progressive
Anarchist have the most poor understanding of socialism
Elections are always going to be tough when you're going around saying restaurants are bad.
Who cares at this point?! Ya'll have defined socialism to be an impossible utopian ideal, so by definition it will never come to pass. Might as well just go read LOTR and fantasize.
You say Trump was as bad as people said he was. I had to live in fear during COVID thanks to him sparking anti-asian sentiment and causing a huge spike in anti Asian violence.
Why are you still using that drawing you did of Corbyn years ago. I like your artwork but that’s not your magnum opus
Hahaha, I remembered it and thought it would be a fun call back to those who remembered.
@@BadMouseProductions fair enough
Be wary of LaRouchism , my fellows
while your a militant up in the hills, scramble down into town and cast a vote for a socialist. no biggie
We don’t need to scramble, we’re going postal from now on.
19:40 "Politics requires a degree of imagination".....buddy, you have no idea how far gone you are. At no point in any of your videos do you come close to giving a step by step guide on how exactly you plan to dismantle the entire "system" to make it "better" for everyone.
It's like saying that you're going to turn off gravity because you dropped your ice cream, and life would be so much better if you hadn't done that.
You're wasting your life trying to roll this boulder up a 90 degree sloped hill, dude. Snap out of it.
We need Lenin
Remember that clip of the simpsons in the last video?
so you're saying that instead of left wing political parties we need left wing regular parties?
none pizza with left beef parties
Certainly not. We need community power structures run from the bottom up.
We need no Parties. We should have no Parties. Parties simply represent another form of societal Elite. And as history has proven, that hierarchy won't just abolish itself.
@@BadMouseProductionsSurely there would be some space and time for (regular let's have fun) parties (as in partying, u kno) even with bottom up community power structures. :) Also, agreed.
Bro this video is kinda boogers and basically just seems like a few half-baked opinions with some cheap infographics thrown overtop to "bamboozle" your audience into thinking you made any points. If I am wrong, and I must say, I couldn't, as an American, be, I would graciously accept your presence on my stream for a debate. Mano y mano as the kids say, in Spain, I've been assured, as well as Mexico. Consider this message my leather-gloved slap of challenge, lmao (laughing my ass off)
"unskilled labor is the proper term" cmon
Oh shoot I didn't link the article.
newsocialist.org.uk/unskilled-work/
@@BadMouseProductionsFantastic article, ty
In America, both the Left (nobly) and on the Right (criminally) have moved the definition of the middle. In issues like race and sexual orientation, the Left has moved the middle leftward. The norms of today would have been seen as radical beyond all reason in the past.
Sadly, the Right has played the game, too. Mainly in areas economic.
Where are the people of Israel to go? The Palestinians want an ethnically pure religious state. In existing Israel (no Utopia by any means) Islamic people of Arab ethnicity are judges, legislators, prominent acedemics, journalists, and business people. No Jews, Druse, secular Arabs, nor Arab Christians will be allowed in such roles or in Palestine itself. Why are you supporting ethnic cleansing?
It seems to me that your objections to the like of Brand is that they are bringing in ‘the wrong people’.
How do you expect to get arguments across to such an audience? Why would they want to listen to someone they consider hostile and bigoted toward their present views?
"I'm not an ideological anti voter I've come to this opinion because of what I've seen over the past eleven years" I mean let's not use "ideological" as an insult, you have a framework that lets you analyse how things will happen and what to do which you've built from experience and theory, that's an ideology, and on the subject of voting it's basically the same one as anti electoralism anarchists have been arguing in favor of since like a century and a half now
also very interesting perspective on the restaurant bit, I used to think this was a kind of joke, because I had not thought of how yeah, it's not really a restaurant anymore if it's organized in a socialist fashion
also as for that guy talking about how we should improve our lives instead of calling for radical action, it feels like yet another in the long list of people who broadcast their ignorance of history, theory or practice as though that was something to be proud of, like the people going "oh I just want cheaper rent, is that too much to ask ?" on your last video
as for third places, I definitely agree, where I live there's always a bunch of stuff being organized in squats or in other anarchist places, though one small issue I see with them is that they often tend to be mostly just "for" people already engaged, rather than places where everyone can join and get in contact with engaged people and learn about socialism while having fun
also I love "it was a bit of a shithole but it was our shithole" in many cases I've found places that were a bit run down and disorganized and sometimes a bit dirty, but each time that all felt like not much of an issue because the place felt very welcoming, it felt genuine, it felt like a home for everyone involved, that was so much more important, and I think that sentence explains this feeling very well
thanks again for your videos, you're doing amazing work, I just wish more people would watch and actually listen to them
Nah, nothing's wrong with using "ideological" as a slur. Recall what egoist anarchists have to say about spooks/phantasms/fixed ideas.
Phantasms can come in many forms, sometimes like a lense in which to perceive the world through or an idol of worship or service; i.e, ideology, religion, interest, morality, identity, culture, h*manism, the State, common good, etc. (and dare I say addiction?).
All of these constructs are essentially coercive, and individuals would strive for autonomy and freedom from these constructs. Individuals would be concerned with their own self interest and pursuit of their own desires whilst taking care to maintain a high level of awareness to know that it is of 'their own' influence that any actions are being taken by the individual/Unique, and not on behalf of a phantasm/spook/fixed idea.
@@Grundrisse okay so could you explain to me how you're going to understand the world without a framework to describe it ? or how you're going to change it without a plan on how to do so ?
the fact that you're talking about "should" tells me you haven't understood egoism, since you're using it to just replace morality with your idea of self interest
@@anarchosnowflakist786 That sounds like a Stirnerian criticism. Very similar to say, a criticism of "the economic reading" of Stirner.
This reading happens when one sees Stirner as articulating a conception of self-interest, by which one "should," in order to be an "egoist" (to hold that "position"), they must be convinced to view the world as an endless cost-benefit analysis by which they determine what is "to their self-interest." It is meaningless to talk about "benefits" in this sense and, reading Stirner, this practice is easily identifiable as storming heaven, i.e., criticism, replacing one idea (morality) with another (economic morality).
It's been a long time since I've seen anyone on this platform properly point out what I erred in my comment.
You're right about the use of "should" and I shall rephrase it a bit. "Should" and the variation "ought to" seem to denote a normative claim here; it assumes an egoism to be realized within the egoist, a philosophy of a conceptual "self-interest" that you 'ought' to strive for in order to be a "free" egoist. They are not completely accurate words to use when discussing egoism as, if one was living with the Stirnerian ethos, they _would_ be doing what's in their best based on what their interest is, or what they desire at that point in time.
As for your question: Egoists recognize frameworks as potential useful things, but "we" are against sacred frameworks. "We" are against frameworks that are used to impede and control the individual, but we might adopt them for ourselves if they are enjoyable, useful to us or consumable; transforming them into material for our interest - in short, property. This is just the idea that consuming the sacred doesn't exclude the possibility of pursuing similar - and even identical projects, but now for Egoistic purposes where there _had been_ an ideal purpose.
How we understand "the world" or how we're going to "change" it doesn't matter, if the frameworks & plans for which could be higher than the individual, or could be imposed upon others such that they are subjected to.
Lastly, I hope you're criticizing from an egoist-anarchist perspective, and not from a bitter moralist leftoid perspective like Bookchin did to any anarchist who rejected his nonsense. Otherwise, I'll not take you seriously.
@@anarchosnowflakist786 Anarchism is pretty much a critique of ideology itself.
It is not an appeal to the most superficial promises [an] ideology makes while taking the main thinker of that ideology's words at face-value.
"No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world, I cleave to no system, I am a true seeker."
_"being organized in squats"_
What do you mean by organized in squats? Does it mean anarchists are finally getting out of their rooms and exercising in organisations?
3:01 it’s because anarchists are regarded lol
I will be voting for Trump but I still enjoy your voice and hearing your beliefs
Besides the inclusion of Midwestern Marx, not sure why his inclusion? I agree with all you said
Same reason I don't like groups like The Grayzone.
@BadMouseProductions dont know much about the grayzone, so still not sure.
@@BadMouseProductionsSo what is you're take on Hakim, Yugopnik, First Thought, Fellow Traveler, Socialism4All, or Jason Unruhe? These are mostly Marxist-Leninist that don't align themselves with the "Marxist-Leninist" you've pointed towards in the video.
@@BadMouseProductions as Ben Norton has said after he left, that channel is becoming increasingly reactionary and pandering to people from the MAGA movement and even Tucker Carlson
@@BadMouseProductions
The greyzone do some of the best journalism out there. Their reporting is second to none, and if you just hand wave their reporting away because you might disagree with a few of their points then you're, quite frankly, part of the problem.
I myself don't like some of their reporting on issues like renewables and some of their rhetoric on vaccines but on the whole they do fantastic work.
I read through most of Project 2025. I still need to finish it, but except for the usual Republican whining & crying about diversity and shit, it isn't some radical far-right manual. The majority of the content is looking at the executive cabinet, explaining the roles of the major offices, explaining how they coordinate between Congress/President/Bureaucracy, and some relatively tame ideas on house keeping. I mean, I've probably written more "radically undemocratic" things from my Leftist perspective than this shit. In reality, I commend the authors on making a plan about transforming the government instead of fighting and bickering about Voting blue & revolution vs reform like the left is.
It will put the Right in power for decades. That's not commendable.
He lives???!
I think america has been pretty fascistic since jim crow
I take issue with the Restaurant part 16:50, not because I necessarily disagree but because your argument kind of just isn't. You say the difference is well defined, but at no point was a definition that was useful to that argument brought forward. It feels tautological, and you've given nothing to hold onto. Like what is the real difference you're talking about here? How are you defining "Restaurant"? In the game of "what job are you going to have after the revolution?" I frequently see for myself something that I personally would continue to define as a restaurant as a probability. Sure it's a maybe a co-op of some kind, but that doesn't change the definition. We'd be out here in the community cooking food together and serving it to people all day. What's the definitional difference between what we have now (which encompasses LOADS of different forms and formats all under the same definition) and what would necessarily be the outcome according to the stated logic? Because an International, isn't much use without the sharing of cuisine.
Tbh I'd recommend this lecture by Sugrue on the issue of definitions. He again does that 'chair-bench' thing.
th-cam.com/video/X7Rb56kZQSk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ZfZdAhatMEgM3Mcg&t=1416
For me its about understanding where Restaurants emerge from and how their entire social form will be different under different circumstances.
Like if you've worked at a communal kitchen you can entertain that it is vastly different from what 90% of us think of a restaurant being.
Your straw-man of ML-s is laughable. Nobody is saying you shouldn't criticise Stalin, but that when you do, you should look at him in the historical context and with actual provable data, not liberal "hurr-durr Stalin-big sponn morbilion dead". Otherwise yes, I agree.
One of the problems with this discourse is the way its presented. As if the only two sides of discussion are Robert Conquest or the ML perspectives.
There exists perspectives, even within mainstream academia, that are not simply a straw-man. Kotkin and Getty are of course two popular ones.
But in general what I've found is that even when ML's push for nuance, they'll often end up citing claims like those of Grover Furr. That's not nuance that's just apologetics with more complexity.
@@BadMouseProductions having multiple perspectives on leftism is a privaledge what only 1st worlder leftists have the luxury of exploring
remember as socialists we are trying to irrevocably change the world for ever and for better, its unscientific and untrue to state that "all paths to communism are all valid" because we know thats not true. Many forms fail at the methodological level, take titos Yugoslavia which was a left communist deviation that eventually collapsed due to economic mismanagement inherent in decentralized market co-ops, or anarchists' spain, with it failing due to its disorganized military. As leftists, it is our responsibility to channel revolutionary energy into the most efficient path towards communism, to do otherwise is sacrificing many lives that could've been saved otherwise.
@@bob-lk5et I'm aware, I made a video explaining that 5 years ago.
If that is the case then the USSR also failed. So you're not proving much with that. You can't just pre-suppose something is the correct way.
@@BadMouseProductions Yes but you made no effort in exploring why it eventually molded into a new form that didn't work, your observations start and end at "did thing work" which is flawed because it ignores material realities and doesn't build off of methodology. No self respecting ML will ever state that the ussr was prefect and going forward, all we need to do is copy verbatim what they did. That also ignores OUR current material realities, but we cannot treat AES examples as being completely static unfiltered projections of what theory stated, and thus their results being a naked reflection of that theory.
@@bob-lk5et eurgh. When have I ever argued that ML's think they were perfect?
The Material Conditions do not in and of themselves explain away a state's decision making process. What people are talking about is the ideology that gives way to these decisions being done. Namely a centralised system run by a self-professed cadre fulfilling the revolution on behalf of the working class, not by the working class themselves.
Dont take this the wrong way, I dont mean any offence.
But the amount of Americanisms you use make the videos somewhat difficult to watch.
All the best.
Vocab wise or content wise?
@@BadMouseProductionsVocab wise.
Again, no offence, but British people speaking American English is a constant reminder to me that we are the Amerikkkans little lapdog.
@@BadMouseProductionsVocab wise.
British people speaking in American English seems to be a regular thing now and its a constant reminder that the Yanks own us.
Y'all created us.
@@Red_Lion2000 Interesting, I've always tried to avoid americanisms but I have been travelling a lot recently and bumped into many, so a fair bit of it has probably rubbed on.
Lenin talks about when and why, and for what purpose to participate in elections. It is not to win, but to show the proletariat that their interests are not to be found in said elections. It is also to be boycotted when general strikes, or the conditions for violent action done by the proletariat is present.
This specifically diferentiates communists from "The left", for the "left" is an instrument of the bourgeoisie, no matter how radical they are on paper, because they will either spread newspapers like the trotskyists, lick the boots of china (which is 100% capitalist and always was) like the bukharinists, and will destroy the radicalism of the worker's movement by telling them "no no don't strike vote for me!" or if they would win they'll do nothing, the most scared people when it comes to the "Left" winning any election is the "Left" itself.
A true communist organizes, supports trade unions (no matter the fact they might be "reactionary" or not, which again, Lenin says is true, and that is why we must participate in the struggle)
A true communist knows that the party must not be formed around individuals, around great chiefs, but a collective, that collective being the working class and its interests. The Communist party should always be a class party which is in accord with all the interests of the proletariat, else it is a petty-bourgeois falsification of a party.
A true communist knows that said party grows and shrinks not on some electoral deadlock, but on the conditions of class struggle.
www.international-communist-party.org/BasicTexts/WhatDist.htm
Youre almost no different than the Dengists when it comes to the Dotp phase, because if your precious Dotp failed to meet the material expectations, it would literally plunge into state capitalism. But hey, it'd all be fine and there'd no need to panic since the Dotp would still follow the Communist Programme, under the Vanguard whichh would be there to promote proletarian internationalism. That is the same excuse you used under the NEP era and looked how that turned out....
As for the question of whether or not the NEP was capitalism, Lenin categorically responded: YES. Nor could it be otherwise since capitalism exists from the very moment that wages are paid in money and this money is used to buy food. This does not alter the nature of the state, which is still proletarian, and could still be proletarian since its nature does not depend on the economic structure, but on its class position and on the force of the development of the revolutionary struggle of the international proletariat (Amadeo Bordiga, Lessons of the Counterrevolutions)
@@blazinggood6637 the DOTP is capitalist, the NEP was the "capitalization" of the countryside. The dotp has a capitalist mode of production. Lenin told you countless times the DOTP has a capitalist mode of production, the NEP had a capitalist mode of production. It was the failure of the international revolution, of the german revolution, (WHICH LENIN SAID THEY ARE DOOMED WITHOUT, AND HE WAS LIKE ALWAYS, CORRECT!) and the hungarian revolution that lead to the slow but sure decisive destruction of the revolution.
You are lost if you think the DOTP would have any other mode of production other than the capitalist one. The difference here being that state capitalism under the proletariat has the goal of developing industry, and "proletizing" the peasants in the countryside with the final goal of abolishing all relations of capital, abolishing the commodity production, and thus abolishing the classes of society and the state (it however keeps existing in relation, and only in relation, to the economic "bourgeois" (or equal) right, which is the birthmark capitalist society gives the newly-born communist one), and the communist mode of production . By your definition, Marx was also a dengist.
China never had a DOTP, Bordiga and even Hoxha explain and show you this clearly.
files.libcom.org/files/The%20Amadeo%20Bordiga%20Collection.pdf (page 532)
www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/MTTPhilosophyEng.pdf
www.marxists.org/history/erol/albania/albania-1.pdf
www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-5/socialism-cannot.pdf
cugetarimarxiste.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/is-mao-zedong-a-classic-of-marxism-leninism-1.pdf
www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-7/rpo-china.htm
Both Bordiga and Lenin are correct here, you are not.
@@chargyisonline7790 I'm well aware of the possibility of the Dotp being restricted to capitalism, Marx famously saying the majority of the paris Commune was in no sense socialist, nor could it be.
Sure sure but what I'm saying here is that your Dotp would cease to be a Dotp, reduced to a mere state-capitalism. Under the NEP era, the Dotp already stopped being a Dotp in 1921, and was anti-democratic. As the ICT explains:
_By 1921 soviet power had become an empty shell. Elections to the soviets were under the watchful eye of the Cheka. Similarly armed guards patrolled the factories as Taylorism and one-man management were imposed on the most revolutionary working class in history. The workers accepted this as long as the civil war against the Whites created an exceptional situation. The workers accepted this as long as the civil war against the Whites created an exceptional situation. At the same time they had also accepted the abandonment of the election of officers in the armed forces as Trotsky brought in members of the old officer class to defeat the Whites. But by the time the last White General had been run out of Russia in December 1920 there were already signs that the emergency regime was to continue. Grain requisitioning carried on, Trotsky had even announced that his Red Army methods should be imposed on the whole workforce (the militarisation of labour debate) and there were no new elections for the Soviets. Everywhere the talk was of "iron discipline" and more dictatorship. Little wonder that the Party, now increasingly a party of functionaries rather than workers was prey to bureaucratisation. This bureaucratisation in turn led to the emergence of opposition from proletarian groups within the Bolshevik Party: groups like the Democratic Centralists led by Ossinsky and Sapronov, the Workers' Opposition led by Shlyapnikov and Kollontai and Miasnikov's Workers' Group._ (ICT, 1921: Beginning of the Counter-Revolution?)
The ICT at least doesn't suffer from dogmatism or isn't literally capable of critiquing what went wrong.
@@chargyisonline7790 "Lenin was like always, correct"
Said the Bordigist calmly.
........So I guess Lenin is correct that socialism is distinct from communism in that the former is just the lower-stage of communism, when this idea contradicts Marx who regarded both socialism and communism as the same thing, interchangeably?
I guess hes also correct for calling socialism a form of state capitalist monopoly which acted in the service of the people?
_socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly_
Oh better yet according to you, hes correct in his attack to Bordiga on the matter of parliamentarism, which includes him calling Bordiga naive?
_But you, Comrade Bordiga, assert that you are a Marxist, so we must expect more logic from you. You must know how parliament can be smashed. If you can do it by an armed uprising in all countries, well and good. You are aware that we in Russia proved our determination to destroy the bourgeois parliament, not only in theory, but in practice as well. You, however, have lost sight of the fact that this is impossible without fairly long preparations, and that in most countries it is as yet impossible to destroy parliament at one stroke. We are obliged to carry on a struggle within parliament for the destruction of parliament. For the conditions determining the political line of all classes in modern society you substitute your revolutionary determination; that is why you forget that to destroy the bourgeois parliament in Russia we were first obliged to convene the Constituent Assembly, even after our victory. You say: “It is a fact that the Russian revolution is a case that is not in accord with conditions in Western Europe”, but you have not produced a single weighty argument to prove that to us. We went through a period of bourgeois democracy. We went through it rapidly at a time when we had to agitate for elections to the Constituent Assembly. Later, when the working class was able to seize power, the peasants still believed in the necessity of a bourgeois parliament._
@@blazinggood6637 That's not a mistake of lenin, but a reusage of terms.
Lenin called socialism the lower phase of communism, and specified this is not the way marx or engels used it. He was neither wrong nor right, because he invent anything, dummy.
Lenin was correct in critiquing Bordinga on parlamentarism, and Bordiga agrees. once again, read what bordiga said in the 2nd congress of the comintern, where he agreed that anti-parlamentarism "on principle" is incredibly stupid, or read Bordiga's "A condemnation of Renegades to Come"
Lenin was also correct in that regard, yes, because he specified it is the abolition of classes that precedes the DOTP, and he is correct when calling the state-capitalist monopoly (The dotp, may I remind you) without wage-labour and commodity production, thus, socialism, the lower phase of communist society. When he says the "whole people" he says so because socialism logically needs the abolition of classes to exist.
Lenin made no mistake here, it is you who cannot read.
I am not a bordigist, I am a leninist. Bordigists are in the ICT, and are the most councilist, autonomist and workerist lot I have ever seen! They think the starting point of the revolution does not matter.
Glad I'm not the only one who came to that realization that MLs and Liberals are the two forms of Statist realism we see on the "Left", it's part of why I stopped being one
25:25 I literally make mock weapons and battle with my friends, whom are a bunch of Bohemian (commies) that play music and do yoga. These spaces of micro organization are the foundation for social movement as a whole. Cafes are literally where young academics helped plot the French Revolution! We're right there!
Patsocs are cringe. Usually they rise but they fall hard. Maulpin for instance has never recovered from the accusations. Hinkle had his channel banned and has multiple times deleted all his videos.
Infrared created opportunism, sorry I mean maga communism but being banned from twitch, he has been cautious on what he says and does.