⏲️ TIME STAMPS ⏲️ 0:00 : Preview 22:20 : Show begins!🔥 - Quick Announcements 24:30 : Sponsor - Upside (Use code FNF & Get Cashback on gas & food) 26:30 : Guests Introduction & stance on communism 30:00 : Rules for the debate 31:00 : Andrew - Communism is the ROOT cause of the degradation of United States 37:00 : Haz - ‘DEBT’ is the root cause & communism will help cancelling the debt 40:00 : Will communism help pay off the national debt? 44:00 : Andrew explains why communism doesn’t work 47:00 : Haz disagrees 50:00 : Round 3 : How does communism prevent people from stealing? 53:00 : What if we have a single party dictatorship like China & Soviet Union 58:00 : Sponsor - Bio Complete 3 (Learn how to cleanse your gut) 1:00:00 : Superchats! - France🇫🇷 is a failed society 1:01:00 : Tune into Fresh&Fit News tomorrow 1:02:00 : Is communism the reason behind mass famine? 1:03:00 : Communism & Ownership 1:06:30 : Is sharing resources a good idea? 1:16:30 : Was Ab0rt!0n promoted by Communism? 1:21:00 : Communism Vs. Capitalism - What is the root cause of degeneracy in the society? 1:27:00 : Are they to blame for Communism / B0l$hevism? 1:31:00 : Are they overrepresented in the positions of power? 1:34:00 : Did Stalin d!e poor & Do communist use state resources to enrich themselves? 1:38:30 : Sponsor - 1775 Coffee 1:40:00 : Superchats! 1:42:00 : Communism & Morality - Is it moral to be a communist 1:49:00 : What’s the victory condition under communism? 1:51:00 : Population crisis & the decline of birth rates 1:58:00 : China eliminated half of their population 2:00:00 : Industrialisation & the explosion of productive forces 2:06:00 : Why we couldn’t have supported 8 billion in the 1700’s? 2:10:00 : How does Christianity fit into Communism? 2:20:00 : Debate starts to get heated 2:22:30 : Sponsor - Nucific 2:24:00 : Superchats! - Jacksonhinkle shows up in the chat 2:28:00 : Communism & Free Speech 2:32:00 : Hegel’s theory 2:36:00 : Andrew doesn’t believe Haz is a muslim 2:40:00 : BACK to the main topic - What led to the degradation of United States? 2:46:00 : Is it worth it to sell out your neighbour for money? 2:50:00 : Communism Vs. Capitalism - What is moral & what is immoral? 3:07:00 : Violence under communism Vs. under capitalism 3:08:00 : Christian Vs. Muslim 3:11:00 : Join the CastleClub brotherhood - freshandfit.locals.com/ 3:12:00 : Sponsor - 1775 Coffee 3:13:00 : Superchats! / Switch over to CastleClub🏰 -- CastleClub Switch -- 3:18:00 : Is there an objective truth & should we be pursuing it? 3:22:00 : Is God’s nature the truth? 3:39:00 : Closing statements 3:44:00 : We’ll do a Part-II on this 3:45:00 : Zoom call begins! / Caller #1 - Why don’t Haz go live in a communist country? 3:47:00 : Caller #2 - Why does Andrew not have a stance in every debate? 3:51:30 : Andrew asks the caller - Did Mohammad F a 9 y/o girl? 3:53:00 : BRUHH!! - Does daydreaming about s**king D makes you g@y? 3:57:30 : Caller #3 criticises Haz’s view on Capitalism 4:07:00 : Caller #4 / We get death threats all the time 4:12:00 : Caller #5 - Alexander Dugin & the history of communism 4:15:00 : Caller #6 - Christian Vs. Muslim debate 4:19:00 : Caller #7 - Shoutout to Kaz 4:19:30 : Caller # 8 - IS Haz a J**? 4:20:00 : Caller #9 - Andrew got jokes😆 4:21:00 : Superchats! 4:24:00 : Sponsor - Pawsitive (Healthy pet food, snacks for your dog) 4:26:00 : Outro / See you tomorrow
Great show fellas. 3:13:27 the end of the show here cue the music and let the fat lady sing Haz won and bested Andrew. Haz pointed out Andrew was arguing in hypothetical and Haz was in reality, Also Haz pointed out with different words that Communism has more good morality because in the 21st century the century we are in. it does not spend millions so kapoof innocent millions, instead it's building Belt and Roads and the fastest trains in the world well we USA the capital of capitalism have the slowest.
@FreshFitMiami You guys should check out the cam newton podcast with the dr Cheyenne bryant. She was shaming cam newton for being with multiple women and not wanting to get married
I mean Andrew tried with the silliness, first on the JQ - Bolshevik myth he soon conceded on, and then later on what "society means", clearly unable to keep up with Haz' level. To be fair though, his good faith prevailed through the majority of it.
@@jackm1758 I think you lack interpretation skills... Haz fled from Andrews arguments at every turning point. Dude didn't even have proper examples at many times.
The dichotomy between the atmospheres when a bunch of women are talking versus when a bunch of men are talking. It’s like going from talking philosophy with 6th graders to college professors.
You can have very intelectual debate with women, but main problem here is format (number of guests, personal-oriented questions, moderation) and choosing of guests - instragram models, OF girls, gold diggers....
Yeah being a moderator, you should just allow each person to make concise points without anyone getting significantly more time to speak. Just know when to interject when someone is bringing up too many topics in one monologue, like Destiny who will argue 30 different points at once
@@gb-fs1tz Because they are from the people who survived. That's what communism ultimately is, half the people stealing from the other half until the victims perish.
@@panama2468 dunking again I see this is not how you win people over to your side. You are only hurting your side LMAO. 🤣 communism will never be a thing don’t worry.
Who's quote is this cuz it's fire as hell...from now on before I spend 20mins explaining to someone why they're actions make sense I'll ask "what did you think would happen when u did this?"
90 minutes in and Holy Mother of Buddha on a cracker if I had a drink every time Andrew had to say, "Ok, I concede ..." only to then pivot to something unrelated I'd be under the effing table.
"so he made his leaders eat austere food, so what!? That doesn't mean he didn't have absolute POWER to do ANYTHING he wanted! So authoritarian!!" This said by someone who went by the handle "BigPappaFasc" You can't make this up. Stick a fork in the "Christian Nationalists" they're done. They're liberals who clutch pearls at authority.
Microcosm of this debate Andrew claims “Many people promoted abortion under Stalin” Haz asks for names and who Andrew says he has no clue move on to next ahistorical claim.
Communist countries always have had much more abortions than Christian countries, obviously. It was communist policy to deal with starvation, like the Chinese one child policy.
Another dirty trick in this debate. Andrew did horrible. Is stalin communism now? If he isn't, then it's relevant that abortion was legal since inception in the soviet union, was made illegal by stalin to fix the plummeting birth rate (which failed ultimately), then was made legal again 2 years after his death.
Because Haz is hard-headed and answers in bad faith to every question, just because it's a hypothetical question. I don't trust a guy that is incapable of thinking in hypothetical scenarios, while at the same time promoting a system that was never shown to work in practice.
Non communist here. Andrew had no business debating this guy. He was not prepared or even of that ilk . If anything Andrew should have interviewed this guy and taken more of a learning position with some challenging criticism. Andrew is not facing an equal here.
i think its really difficult to debate communism without the ability to bring up the massive failures of it like how has tries to deflect by saying the famines and the deaths directly associated with communism are explainable by other factors and theyre nonsense also andrew didnt dig in on him enough why death for his cause is moral where death for another cause is not its obvious hes okay with violence when it comes to uplifting what he believes in but never articulates why he believes that in a meaningful tangible way other than the same buzz words that every communist known to man uses has served Andrew slam dunks that he easily couldve taken advantage of but didnt surprisingly while has had more quick answers to questions if you actually analyze what he says its a whole lot of nothing and is not realistic it was a very sloppy debate on each end tho neither were exceptionally convincing
you cant WIN as a communist supporter, not in debate, not in real life. All he did was not get destroyed. Its like arguing for the Flat Earth Theory, or arguing ""number of genders". a Masterdebater will still lose against a novice debater because hes arguing a ridiculous point.
Andrew easily beat this guy, the problem is its a 4 hour debate and Andrew doesnt have 4 hours of knowledge on communism. you only need to know 1 thing about communism to win the debate: Look up communisms failures in history and the success of capitalism. But after we use this argument, we still have to debate for 3 more hours, so of course Andrew is gonna run out of ammo!
First debate I seen Wilson - at best reach a draw Appreciate him taking on a tough topic and a tough opponent though Both men did a nice job Hope they have future discussions
I like Andrew, I came to watch this because of him but he really lost this one. It was hard to watch. He was way too emotional and clearly not very prepared. It's a win for Haz.
Im not too much of a fan of Haz but i am a Marxist-Leninist. Its really pleasant to see fans of Andrew being open minded to what others have to say. I say this because i have seen plenty of people in this comment section say Haz got destroyed/Haz lost
@@ZeroStuffGR I wasn't a fan of Haz as well, because he had said some really stupid things and was angry towards fellow comrades for some very minor misunderstandings. But he has changed quite a lot.
how is andrew arguing against the population went from 1 billion to 8 billions in 100 years ? thats just a fact and the reason for it is technology and industrialisation. the fact that its going down now have nothing to do with it going up in the first place wealth is a requirement for population growth people chossing to not have kids doesn't make wealth not a pre requisition(wealth is not having millions of dollars its just that there is enough food and resources to sustain a population)
The problem with your supposition is that you have the perspective of a lobotomized NEET, and haven't the capacity to *zoom out* and look at the bigger picture. You haven't the benefit of considering (perhaps you aren't even aware) human history as a whole. You think a hundred years is an eternity, when it is merely a brief instant.
Im usually a fam of andrew, and i dont really agree with haz, but now that ive read these comments im absolutely convinced andrew lost. Im converting to communist Islam now.
This perfectly illustrates what Haz was critiquing later in the debate regarding propositional logic. Andrew's argument fell into the trap of abstract reasoning without grounding it in the material and historical realities that shape human existence. Instead of addressing the concrete factors behind population growth, he got lost in a theoretical discourse that missed the point entirely. Haz's point was about how propositional logic can often lead to irrelevant or misguided conclusions when it’s detached from the actual, lived experiences of people.
Andrew was so insufferable the whole debate, and he totally misunderstands Hegel, Hegel was hermetic but his conception of "man" is the Historical man, not simply an inividual
@@daemonsilver3304 Hegel is your father, bow down. Also this wasn’t arguing about wether Hegel is correct but instead about wether Andrew is correct in his understanding of Hegel.
One thing I agree STRONGLY with the communists on (me being an anti-communist) is that power doesn't come from a pen, power comes from the sword. And those willing to execute that power are deemed the leaders of our world. When Andrew comes back and responds "well sometimes you can just plant a flag peacefully", true. But as an example, the British didn't just start planting flags one day. They had a long history of "oh, you said no? thats too bad" to back any 'just plant a flag in the ground' theories.
It can come from both. Power comes from the action of people. If those people have swords, they could use that. If someone used a pen to convince them of using the sword against their opponent, who had the power?
Haz deals primarily with history and reality and extrapolates from what has happened. Andrew is far too idealistic and deals in abstracts in the name of defending moral and logical principles. I don't fault him, as a Catholic myself I get it, but as a Catholic I also think of Cardinal Richelieu siding with the Protestant League during the 30 Years War in the name of French National/Material interests, not being surrounded by Habsburg domains. Moral and logical principles Vs. Real material developments and processes among very complex human systems.
Stalin enriched himself Where’s the proof? Where? It’s because he could!!!! No he couldn’t , the party was consensus Sips water… ok let’s talk about the famines now.. No let’s talk about the moral position now
There was no consensus needed. There is only one shot caller even in communism, and it's proven by the fact that when Stalin died the USSR and the communist ideal went down the sewer where they belong.
Stalin did enrich himself though and he didn't die poor as Haz claims. He had immense wealth, lavish clothing, houses and cars. He didn't die poor by any means. Him being harsh to his subordinates doesn't suggest that he was a modest person as Haz claims.
@@Lawns-Are-Fun What do you mean citation, any credible biography of Stalin and his life would show this. He didn't die in some cabin in the woods. He literally died after having a drinking party with his closet associates. He was super paranoid. He only allowed his personal into his room when they heard him moving around to know he's awake. They found him dying after waiting for so long for him to make noise getting up. They were super scared to disturb him while sleeping but they gave in and found him sick af. He literally died infront of his comrades and family. He didn't "die alone and in a cabin" as Haz suggested, and that's what credible sources state. I don't have anything to cite because there's no need to. The burden of proof is on Haz and people like you claiming he died poor. That's absolute nonsense.
Yes, it's a basic mode of debate called an internal critique. You utilize your opponents worldview to analyze their claims and show their contradictions. Andrew is extremely good at this method and you can see the results. Haz never really pushed Andrew on his own claims, so Andrew focused on Haz's, using his own worldview and metrics to undermine them. Why would I try to convince you of the superiority of my worldview when you allow me to tear apart yours? Breaking down someone's own worldview is far more effective in changing their minds than trying to cram yours over the top of theirs while it is still intact.
If you assert yellow is the best color, I don't need to declare another superior color to debate you on yellow. The burden is entirely upon the claimant to uphold their statement.
Haz won simply by being down to earth. Andrew lost with his debate bro philosophycel tactics; irrelevant stupid hypotheticals and asking for definitions. 🦍☀️
@@dexterf.i.joseph2502 yeah, cuz asking for definitions for words that everybody knows what they mean isn’t dumb at all and a waste of time. Keep trying
This Andrew guy seems to live in a fantasy land. Every question he asked was like “But Haz! Here’s some stupid question not from the real world, with no context! Answer exactly, even though it’s made up and has never actually happened or I’m gonna soy out!” And Haz keeps going, “Dude, can we please talk about the real world?” And he’s like, “no”
Anyone living in the real world would see that Communism has failed over and over and over again. Everyone flees these countries for individual freedom. How is this even a debate?
@@candorsspot2775 "Everyone flees these countries for individual freedom." Mate, people who enter America in its souther borders are from Capitalist countries. El Salvador, Mexico, Kenya, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, are all Capitalists. Why is every capitalist has to act like such a denialist mthfckr.
Andrew really filtered here. I've never understood the hype around this guy, was open to watching this cuz I thought it would be easy to debunk communism and overrepresentation. Turns out he was totally ineffectual and basically conceded every retort of Haz. Totally bodied, this guy encapsulates the flaws of ignorant, smug rwers.
He would have been so much better at tackling this if he read the material. Too many people who try to take down communist ideology never bother their asses to read the communist manifesto or das kapital. If he had done that he could have easily called out several instances of haz lying about the goals of communism
Orrrrr he's an honest debater and is a tually able to concede points unlike most debates which are man children who refuse to accept a logic solution? He didn't concede every point, and pushed back when necessary. If hez said he concedes as well, would it simply be a self regulated win based on who concedes most? Think. That being said, I agree with many of the counter points, and thjnk these guys are actually much closer in their ideology than most are today out of ignorance and low IQ tribalism.
From my perspective, this is how the debate went. Wilson did exceedingly well critiquing Haz's Communist fundamentals when it came to justifying morality and Christian relations with Communism. Haz claims to be a Muslim yet he himself knows that Communism is premised on a rejection of the metaphysical and the emphasis of material gain and prosperity as pivotal for the society. Just take a look at his (unfortunately short) debate with Jay Dyer in which he admitted that a core foundational principle for Communism is the rejection of the metaphysical. In contrast, Wilson's Christian Nationalism has a grounding for the morality of his ideal society and the morality of it. On the other hand, Haz decimated Wilson when it came to almost everything else. The entire mini-debate around the priority of society: birth rates or increase in industrial labour workforce, was particularly unnecessary and unimpactful - something pointed out by Haz when Wilson began to reveal his position behind his critiques of Haz. Similarly, Haz crushed Wilson on the history of Communism, internal relations within the Bolshevik government, and on the degeneracy of Western society. Overall, if the subject of this debate is Communism, then I'd say Haz won the debate 70/30. However, if the subject is the three topics listed in the title, I'd probably say 55/45 to Haz.
At least finish the full debate on TH-cam with closing statements before moving to locals so people can have a clear cut idea on who won the debate and both parties can't make excuses.
@@J040PL7 eh not really. Haas had like 2 ok points in the very beginning and around the hour mark just start obfuscating and bait and switch bs he likes to do. Andrew creamed him the last 3 hrs and it wasn't even close. Ran into contradiction after contradiction and had him not be able to answer a few questions and even Haas admitted he was right about the toothpaste bit. Haas speaks well and is professional about it but dude has some serious points of contention in his beliefs that he himself couldn't answer and that's why the last 2 hrs was Andrew just destroying his worldview in real time because of those flaws.
@@BlackRavenInitiativeWere we watching the same debate? Haz was nearly lost for words by Andrew’s claim that the world could support 8 billion people in 1700s, then all that talk about human element. After that Haz was basically trying to teach him.
I think Andrew's point was that if we had 8 Billion people all working on essentials functions like food production with 1700's tech they could definitely survive. Certainly Norman Borlough's advancements in wheat production later on massively increased wheat production, but it certainly seems plausible that people could have survived.
@@sillysyriac8925 Dude you cant defend this (why this Andrew guy defend this argument is beyond me) this is like basic history it can not be possible. Remember he said no technology or what the Haz guy said even medicine bro like wtf. The main factors stopping massive human population growth in the past was food (specifically storage and production) population density problems (specifically sewage treatment, disease etc), cheap energy (oil, coal, nuclear etc) and of course the industrial revolution. Theoretically if we all lived in commune farms like a communist (ironically) as you suggested and only focus on essentials (eating wheat 24/7/365??? even if we could all be farmers and be able to grow yields every single time ) and nothing else even then it would not solve the major problems outlined. Like to be fair I think the Andrew guy got mixed up with fertility and population. It can be argued that even though some people comparably have less "stuff", people on average have more kids etc rather than we can sustain the same population in the past with less technology and material stuff. Like yeah let me just start photosynthesizing.
This debate quickly became an interview where Haz had to explain the entirety of reality to Andrew. Bro had to explain what “society” is and why there wasn’t 8 billion people alive in 500 BC 😅
@@MrShankaPererahaz doesn’t live in reality. Andrew had to ask him questions because he does not live in reality. He lives in within and ideologically captured worldview.
Debt is a inflationary force. Our economic system requires constant steady growth to maintain stability and mitigate stagnation. In that sense debt is a necessity for a free market economy. Its an unfortunate reality. What we can work towards is sensible regulation to protect consumers .
@@Uno_Floydd The Soviets did. First thing they did was cancel all foreign debts, prompting an invasion of Russia by the imperialist banksters and parasites.
This was a great debate. I don’t think either side really won but I do believe it helped the viewers understand a little bit more about both stances and the conversation I feel was in good faith most of the time unlike the recent debates we’ve seen. All in all, I think this debate does get us a little bit closer to the truth and understanding.
I like Haz when it comes to geopolitics,…however,..his political ideology, he portrays, is misleading. He is especially flawed, in his grasp, on history.
@@elisabethpoirier3963bro said two of the worst leaders in history were doing it right. Two nations that the working class starved in masses constantly
@@Joormode it's like when you see one of those hairless cats. It gives me the ick to see a hairless version of something that ought to be covered in hair. Just like, the nipples...and wrinkles all splayed out, like hide that.
@@Uno_Floydd not at all, his argument falls apart because he fails to grasp the fundamental difference between actions motivated by moral duty and those driven by profit. He tries to equate "selling out" a neighbor to the state under communism with the way capitalism encourages people to betray others for money. This comparison is very stupid. Haz points out that under communism, turning in a neighbor could be morally justified if the neighbor is, for example, a criminal like a child molester. The action serves the collective good and protects society. In contrast, under capitalism, people are incentivized to betray others purely for personal gain, with no consideration for the collective well-being. This means that capitalism inherently corrupts human relationships by turning them into transactions. Andrew's argument is objectively wrong and dumb because he treats the moral decision to protect society under communism as equivalent to the capitalist practice of exploiting others for profit. He ignores the fact that capitalism makes such immoral behavior necessary for survival, while communism allows for actions that serve the greater good.
Capitalist guy says that the earth could have supported 8 billion lives in 1700s, and the most funny part is that, he stands by that point and debates for half hour.
Communism doesnt even have any argument so idk wtf youre talking for, Communism has been tried multiple times in every continent and has failed SPECTACULARLY every time. You guys then say" that wasnt real communism" well it goes to show we cant even get past stage 1 of communism to EVEN SEE this "Real Communism" Because theres an extremely high chance the leader will be corrupted.
There is no proof that it couldn't work. If you teleported 8 billion people with the enough farms (on available land) to feed them, and had them work those farms with the existing technology of the time, there is nothing saying they couldn't survive. This was never disproven.
Because they deal in logical absolutes and think they reflect reality. The entire debate was the communist guy trying to have a real debate with concrete bases while the other guy wanted to have a debate about the "logical kingdom" in his head.
@@DemoniacCat Concrete basis for what? You think there is a country on earth that doesn't have "authoritarianism?" And when you call every country on earth authoritarian, what does that mean for the word itself? "Authoritarianism bad" is a fake slogan developed against Soviet style democracy that put the people first: Root out corruption you are authoritarian. Crack down on crime you are authoritarian. Industrialize without taking unrepayable debts and don't make policy changes that turn your country into a banana republic you are authoritarian. And whenever Communists use the state to benefit the overwhelming majority of the people it is called authoritarian.
Bc he doesn't actually know the material history of the things being discussed. Its typical of idealist intellectuals like him, they love to spend time arguing in fantasy land instead of discussing real and true event that have an effect in reality
@@panama2468 You're right except for one thing: He is not an idealist. He does not believe in idealism. He has openly rejected both philosophical idealism, and political idealism. As a Christian he cannot be an idealist as that would entail man makes reality and not God. This would be against Christian trancedantal views.
Just an FYI, Blue haired college aged screechers throwing tantrums about culture war stuff are NOT communists (even if they claim to be). Agreed with comment above-check out infrared and Midwest Marx.
@@KimVait’s normal to engage in a dialog though - Andrew didn’t really say anything - he just asked skewed questions to try and trip up Haz but then Haz answered them, and Andrew would just cry.
bro it's failed every single time at the cost of millions of lives. why, because a smart guy can make a convincing argument for it? Look at the reality, that's why history is valuable.
That is the dangerous thing about communism. It can be made to sound very attractive to those that aren't aware of its consistent history. It has never worked and always ends in mass death and suffering. No system is perfect but what would you rather choose, the downside of capitalism (walmart is a monopoly), versus the downside of communism (all individual liberties being taken for the "collective", no winners or Elon Musks are allowed, no individual motivation to be the best or innovate)
bruh i dont like capitalism but the communists literally forced their own people to stay in borders , so they could not know what the west looked like. The soviets also built the Berlin wall, not the americans. The insecurity and defeatism of communists in the cold war should teach you everything about which system is worse. And as a european , i have to say that the east communistic countries were iterally starving their people to death with food shortages , while killing them in demonstrations .
So a debate is basically Andrew interrogates , but doesn't have to actually understand what communism is, and he doesn't have to explain why capitalism is morally better than communism
2:06:43 the reason we didn’t have 8 billion people then is simple. Hydrocarbon. We hadn’t discovered petroleum yet. Michael Rupert has an excellent book and documentary about this called collapse. You should look into it. Another of his good books is crossing the rubicon.
I think Haz’s point was-sure new technology comes about, but it’s the use of that which increases the productive forces. New technology could come out and effectively not substantially change the productive forces.
We need to see the Haz vs Jay Dyer debate that ended before it could begin. It would be even more interesting if this channel could host Haz and Jackson Hinkle vs Andrew Wilson and Jay Dyer.
Haz is pretty much the anti orthobro crusader at this point Even though i agree with Jay dyer on most things his debate with haz was an embarrassment, Jay purposely conflated 2 different metaphysical claims which would be a metaphysics (more specifically ontology) under his paradigm, but then tried to force haz to concede to the same position (which doesn't make sense since they have 2 different paradigms??). Then Jay getting called out for lying and dodging was harsh to watch. While Andrew did much better than Jay did, he did not do good at all in this debate either, and i really don't like saying that since i heavily disagree with the economics of haz.
@@Chair-g6b It's nice to see someone share that observation. I'm coming at it from the other end of things having been a believer in Marxism leninism for some years and following Infrared for a long time and more recently coming to discover orthodoxy and coming to appreciate various orthodox content creators like Jay and trying to grapple with the apparent beef between communists and the Orthodox church. I feel like there's a rich dialogue to be had that hasn't been covered before.
@@crater35 Certainly agree with you there on the last part, so many fruitful conversations to be had! I myself was orthodox up until a few years ago as i was influenced by TAG (until i discovered hermetic metaphysics and triadic spinozism) which i think is far more coherent (due to issues of causal interruption caused by Christianity) though i still have massive love for all my friends who still believe! The orthodox churches are beautiful! certainly go visit one some day if you wish! It seems to me that the history between the 2 sides seems to be rather deeply ingrained in customs from centuries ago that are imposed largely due to dogma and scripture (not that there is an issue with that). However Haz being religious himself manages to harmonize his position with his belief, makes me wonder if such possibilities can extend to Christianity.
Christianity and communism have uncanny similarities (Acts 2:44, Acts 4:32). "The believers held everything in common." I think a reconciliation is possible.
Communism is a condemned proposition since the Bolshevik revolution. The book of Acts is a voluntary community of believers, not a top-down society statist system lol
They held all in common VOLUNTARILY and it was very few people at the time. It can’t be enforced on the scale of hundreds of millions of people. Communism is enforced at the point of a gun and isn’t voluntary when the state adopts it.
Andrew is a horrible debater swearing, and his hypotheticals are ridiculous. "If there was only one family, is it a society?" He always does this."What ifs" all the time.
Not even close. Haz got caught in like 10 contradictions and even lied and said he’s a Muslim….. Why do you bots keep saying Haz won when he clearly got cooked
Andrew stans can’t digest this debate. Cognitive dissonance on full display. (For the record im a huge Andrew fan, follow, enjoy, never miss a live or debate. But not blinded by my general appreciation and admiration)
as a longtime fan, Haz is one of the best guests you guys have had on! Completely changed my perspective, it’s criminal what they don’t teach us in k-12!
Facts. Andrew is a great eristic, like many right wingers are. They are amazing at debating and arguing, but they suffer from doing no research and not knowing the background history of what they are discussing. Socialists, like Haz, are also good debators, but they are better dialetics. They debate, but bc they answer to a higher calling of doing the best for the most amount of people, they cannot argue in bad faith nor make disingenuous arguments. And so, while Hazs information is accurate and true, his aims are above and beyond that of simple sophistry or debate, and so he cannot use the same tricks and tools that right wingers use to slip verbal nooses.
“Patience of a saint” but let’s ignore his lies and deception. Said Christians thrive in China and how he’s a Muslim. Just a couple examples of lies, ah yes a Saint.
1hr 20min in it seems every time Haz pushes back with answers Andrew wants to pin the thing he is critiquing to the exact moment in history and wont allow for Haz to explain how things move forward
All of Haz's criticism's of capitalism, can be turned or matched in communism because the same thing that motivates humans to be immoral in capitalism can still exist under communism. Cosmetically it may look different, but it's still immoral. For example, if your criticism of capitalism is that too much wealth winds up in the hands of a few people and they use that wealth to exclude competition through some kind of cartel or monopoly, that same phenomenon can exist in communism. Maybe they don't make money (because communism is moneyless), but they may horde resources (precious metals, energy, food) and exclude others. Not only can it happen under communism, is has and does happen.
Haz covered this point in the debate. by the values of the society in a capitalist liberal mode the monopolists have done nothing wrong according to the societies principles whilst in a communist communitarian society they have and thus can be held to account with justified resistive uprisal. by liberal privatistic standards whats wrong with private monopolies even gained by lobbying/bribery according to the values of classic liberals( violent action non withstanding)?
@@cazzac4817 Sorry, friend. I read your message multiple times and I don't understand what you are saying. It's probably my ignorance and I apologize. I don't know what "capitalist liberal mode" means, or what it has to do with monopolists. Why couldn't "monopolists" be held to account with "justified resistive uprisal" under capitalist liberal mode (whatever that means)? In other words, what prevents it? Second, You prefaced another argument with "by liberal privatistic standards." Are these standards published anywhere where I can view them objectively rather than take your word for it? I have never heard of these standards. Privatistic is not even a word, and you seem to have made it up along with some of the other terms you used. which suggests that definitions should be clarified before any further discussion can be had.
@@brelanarchy8023 the Liberal capitalistic mode is the mode of Production we have from it's inception in the late 1600s to today based upon/derived from classically liberal values. The question is according to these classically liberal values what have the monopolists done wrong( violence not withstanding) in order to justify the breaking of their monopoly through governmental or popular intervention? The last sentence was just reiterating the question privatistic means to instantiate "the private" ( as in ownership as described by haz not in regards to personal use or administration but sovereignty distinct from common ownership or personal ownership). You statement was that both modes have capacity/tendency for this "corruption". My counter was that the distinction is that one has a principled justification for this tendency the other out rules it based on its principle.
@@cazzac4817 You said "the question is" and then followed by a sentence with no question mark. Sorry, man. I just can't follow your logic or reasoning to even find a place to disagree or agree. You make a lot of assertions using terms that I've never heard anyone use. Your clarification about the meaning of "liberal capitalist mode" only made it more confusing rather than clarifying. What happened before the 1600s, prior to liberal capitalist mode? Where did you learn this term? Can I read up on it? Is English your second language? To me capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Liberalism is merely the political and moral philosophy of individual rights and consent of the governed. When you mingle the two words you are cramming a lot of ideas into a single term. If you agree with my definitions of capitalism and liberalism then I think I understand what you mean by liberal capitalistic mode. I don't know why I have never heard of this term. Which one has a principled justification? Is there a principle behind private ownership? If public ownership of the means of production is principled, then why are so many violations of civil rights committed on public property? Services that operate on the funding of public taxation are some of the most corrupt organizations that put the private sector to shame. Lets not forget that in the USSR, productivity was stifled because people would work slowly to fulfil quotas because if they worked fast to fulfil quotas, the central planners would raise the quotas. This incentivized people to do the minimum amount of work, which is precisely why communism is synonymous with starvation. As for liberal capitalist mode, it is synonymous with abundance and overconsumption. Pick your poison.
@@brelanarchy8023 it's clear you're just prevaricating. Nit picking minor grammatical errors is not a counter it makes you look dishonest(you couldn't fill in the question mark yourself when the sentence began with:" the question is" ?). Prior to capitalism and the Liberal thought that underlines it, was what is commonly referred to as feudalism. Whilst there is debate regarding the rigidity and broadness of the system it is generally accepted that the land based hierarchy structure was generally used to economically organise European society. You're equivocating on my use of "principled". I'm saying that the foundational ideas(principles) between communism and capitalism are different. in capitalism it is okay to own private property. it is okay to own as much as you can, granted it was obtained voluntarily(non violently/in accordance with the non aggression principle). This fact means if someone achieves monopoly non violently they have not violated any of the foundational concepts. What is the justification for monopoly busting in regards to these principles? Communism has no such principle so it has no problem eleminating generally economically harmful behaviour in principle. You can critique communism for corruption but to stick to the point, by liberal standards I don't see how forming a monopoly (non violently) is corruption. To isolate it why is forming a monopoly under liberal capitalism bad based on the tenants of liberal capitalism?
Thats because Andrew always begins with a presupposition thats his position is right and is trying to find and make up holes in the other person argument. He always does it. Sometimes we can see it as with the population argument. He is in it to win his position, not to find truth, as many debater do.
Can someone tell Andrew what did Christianity do to the Native Americans here and in South America and the Caribbeans ,Where was there morality at 😂😂😂SMH ..Haz for president
@@iwatchyoutube9425Don't forget the many cities, buildings, churches, infrastructure and roads the Spaniards built. Also teaching them reading and writing. I don't know about you, but that is much better than ripping hearts out and eating them.
![เปิดบ้าน นาราเครปกระเทย 1 ไร่ ขายขาดทุนหลัก10ล้าน เอามาใช้หนี้!!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0jz84VFWVP4/mqdefault.jpg)
⏲️ TIME STAMPS ⏲️
0:00 : Preview
22:20 : Show begins!🔥 - Quick Announcements
24:30 : Sponsor - Upside (Use code FNF & Get Cashback on gas & food)
26:30 : Guests Introduction & stance on communism
30:00 : Rules for the debate
31:00 : Andrew - Communism is the ROOT cause of the degradation of United States
37:00 : Haz - ‘DEBT’ is the root cause & communism will help cancelling the debt
40:00 : Will communism help pay off the national debt?
44:00 : Andrew explains why communism doesn’t work
47:00 : Haz disagrees
50:00 : Round 3 : How does communism prevent people from stealing?
53:00 : What if we have a single party dictatorship like China & Soviet Union
58:00 : Sponsor - Bio Complete 3 (Learn how to cleanse your gut)
1:00:00 : Superchats! - France🇫🇷 is a failed society
1:01:00 : Tune into Fresh&Fit News tomorrow
1:02:00 : Is communism the reason behind mass famine?
1:03:00 : Communism & Ownership
1:06:30 : Is sharing resources a good idea?
1:16:30 : Was Ab0rt!0n promoted by Communism?
1:21:00 : Communism Vs. Capitalism - What is the root cause of degeneracy in the society?
1:27:00 : Are they to blame for Communism / B0l$hevism?
1:31:00 : Are they overrepresented in the positions of power?
1:34:00 : Did Stalin d!e poor & Do communist use state resources to enrich themselves?
1:38:30 : Sponsor - 1775 Coffee
1:40:00 : Superchats!
1:42:00 : Communism & Morality - Is it moral to be a communist
1:49:00 : What’s the victory condition under communism?
1:51:00 : Population crisis & the decline of birth rates
1:58:00 : China eliminated half of their population
2:00:00 : Industrialisation & the explosion of productive forces
2:06:00 : Why we couldn’t have supported 8 billion in the 1700’s?
2:10:00 : How does Christianity fit into Communism?
2:20:00 : Debate starts to get heated
2:22:30 : Sponsor - Nucific
2:24:00 : Superchats! - Jacksonhinkle shows up in the chat
2:28:00 : Communism & Free Speech
2:32:00 : Hegel’s theory
2:36:00 : Andrew doesn’t believe Haz is a muslim
2:40:00 : BACK to the main topic - What led to the degradation of United States?
2:46:00 : Is it worth it to sell out your neighbour for money?
2:50:00 : Communism Vs. Capitalism - What is moral & what is immoral?
3:07:00 : Violence under communism Vs. under capitalism
3:08:00 : Christian Vs. Muslim
3:11:00 : Join the CastleClub brotherhood - freshandfit.locals.com/
3:12:00 : Sponsor - 1775 Coffee
3:13:00 : Superchats! / Switch over to CastleClub🏰
-- CastleClub Switch --
3:18:00 : Is there an objective truth & should we be pursuing it?
3:22:00 : Is God’s nature the truth?
3:39:00 : Closing statements
3:44:00 : We’ll do a Part-II on this
3:45:00 : Zoom call begins! / Caller #1 - Why don’t Haz go live in a communist country?
3:47:00 : Caller #2 - Why does Andrew not have a stance in every debate?
3:51:30 : Andrew asks the caller - Did Mohammad F a 9 y/o girl?
3:53:00 : BRUHH!! - Does daydreaming about s**king D makes you g@y?
3:57:30 : Caller #3 criticises Haz’s view on Capitalism
4:07:00 : Caller #4 / We get death threats all the time
4:12:00 : Caller #5 - Alexander Dugin & the history of communism
4:15:00 : Caller #6 - Christian Vs. Muslim debate
4:19:00 : Caller #7 - Shoutout to Kaz
4:19:30 : Caller # 8 - IS Haz a J**?
4:20:00 : Caller #9 - Andrew got jokes😆
4:21:00 : Superchats!
4:24:00 : Sponsor - Pawsitive (Healthy pet food, snacks for your dog)
4:26:00 : Outro / See you tomorrow
Frest&fit are finished they have moved there channel for money...I predict they are going to lose views ,subs ,and are going to fans ...it's game over
Great show fellas. 3:13:27 the end of the show here cue the music and let the fat lady sing Haz won and bested Andrew. Haz pointed out Andrew was arguing in hypothetical and Haz was in reality, Also Haz pointed out with different words that Communism has more good morality because in the 21st century the century we are in. it does not spend millions so kapoof innocent millions, instead it's building Belt and Roads and the fastest trains in the world well we USA the capital of capitalism have the slowest.
@FreshFitMiami You guys should check out the cam newton podcast with the dr Cheyenne bryant. She was shaming cam newton for being with multiple women and not wanting to get married
Hey guys. Please do a vaccine vs no vaccine debate. Please. Thank
F&F bro lol how do you not post links to Andrew or Haz's channel l after give you 4 hours of content
Every time they have a high IQ debate, I like to look at fresh’s face 😂 lost
bruh is like the kid walking in on his dads convos just lost 😂
not a high IQ debate. haz has facts, wilson has assumptions and biases
@@leo8273 ah yes, the guy you agree with has the facts whilst the other you disagree with has nothing but biases.. your bias is showing.
@dietdragon6367 Because the guy you responded to has low IQ. Ask him who is voting for. I bet he says Kamala Harris.
@@leo8273 At least Andrew was humble enough to concede some points to Haz. I may not agree with Andrew on his worldview, but he's a man of principles.
This is how a debate is supposed to go. Not that other silliness on the whatever podcast
Or whatever the blue haired coomer gnome is doing
It's because the people Andrew debates on that show are idiots.
I mean Andrew tried with the silliness, first on the JQ - Bolshevik myth he soon conceded on, and then later on what "society means", clearly unable to keep up with Haz' level. To be fair though, his good faith prevailed through the majority of it.
@@jackm1758 I think you lack interpretation skills... Haz fled from Andrews arguments at every turning point.
Dude didn't even have proper examples at many times.
@@uUuWolf16uUu like?
2 men talking they both listen. 10 girls talking. Nobody listens
Comment of the night! Well said!! :)
The dichotomy between the atmospheres when a bunch of women are talking versus when a bunch of men are talking. It’s like going from talking philosophy with 6th graders to college professors.
The difference between men and women right there.
Thats what happens when you gather low info women.
You can have very intelectual debate with women, but main problem here is format (number of guests, personal-oriented questions, moderation) and choosing of guests - instragram models, OF girls, gold diggers....
If it's open panel and the debate is going fine and has been agreed by both, please don't jump in with the minutes
@@muloshanzi915 you got 30 seconds
10 seconds
Right it's so dumb
Completely agree. It’s bizarre to interject when they’ve mutually agreed to debate especially when they’re in the midst of conveying a point.
Yeah being a moderator, you should just allow each person to make concise points without anyone getting significantly more time to speak.
Just know when to interject when someone is bringing up too many topics in one monologue, like Destiny who will argue 30 different points at once
Really impressed with this interaction! This is how debates should be every time. Thoroughly enjoying this one!!!
People that never lived during communism love saying it’s a good thing 😂
So do a majority of the people who DID live under it. And a majority of the people who CURRENTLY live under it.
There is plenty of Russians alive that did live under communism that say it was good, are they all just crazy?
@@gb-fs1tz Because they are from the people who survived. That's what communism ultimately is, half the people stealing from the other half until the victims perish.
@@gb-fs1tz majority ? How can you possibly know that majority say it’s. Good thing ? Where do you live and where have you lived ?
More than 90% of China supports their government.
No nation should be in debt to a family/class. That’s insanity
There isn't a class that everyone is in debt to. Morons just say it's a class.
It’s really easy to not be in debt.
@@stevied3400sure, it’s so easy that the US is at all time high with Americans owing over 17.3 trillion in consumer debt.
@@carlh.h.2242 It is easy. It's no ones fault but your own if you can't control your urge to buy the next new thing.
Usury in Catholic nations?
A Communist and a christian nationalist walk into a podcast....
At least none of them are Protestants or Evangelicals
Stalinist* which makes them identical when it comes to social issues.
@@joebenson528 Stalinism is just Marxism-Leninism aka standard 20th century communism
@@joebenson528 golly gee, its almost like being conservative or traditional works when it comes to social issues 🫢
@@panama2468 dunking again I see this is not how you win people over to your side. You are only hurting your side LMAO. 🤣 communism will never be a thing don’t worry.
"You cannot reason a person out of a position that they did not reason themselves into."
Who's quote is this cuz it's fire as hell...from now on before I spend 20mins explaining to someone why they're actions make sense I'll ask "what did you think would happen when u did this?"
@@whosennigad Jonathan Swift
Sure you can. I was
You have to cut out the "not" xD
talking to JQers in a nutshell
2:06:00 This is where Andrew definitively LOST.
90 minutes in and Holy Mother of Buddha on a cracker if I had a drink every time Andrew had to say, "Ok, I concede ..." only to then pivot to something unrelated I'd be under the effing table.
"so he made his leaders eat austere food, so what!? That doesn't mean he didn't have absolute POWER to do ANYTHING he wanted! So authoritarian!!" This said by someone who went by the handle "BigPappaFasc"
You can't make this up. Stick a fork in the "Christian Nationalists" they're done. They're liberals who clutch pearls at authority.
Time stamp it. Never heard him say that
@@Uno_Floydd Not once did he say that Commie lover telling lies
@Uno_Floydd he said it at least 3 times
@@talutboura5523yeah he never says that. Give us a time stamp.
"we can support 8billion people today we couldn't do that in 1700"
Andrew : prove it
😆😄😅😂🤣
My favorite part lol
@@aliciarucker29 hilarious 😆
What was that
@@danialhadad1332 you don't get it ?
He never proved it.
If 8 billion people existed in 1700, and all those people farmed with their 1700 technology, why couldn't they support themselves?
Microcosm of this debate Andrew claims “Many people promoted abortion under Stalin” Haz asks for names and who Andrew says he has no clue move on to next ahistorical claim.
Communist countries always have had much more abortions than Christian countries, obviously. It was communist policy to deal with starvation, like the Chinese one child policy.
Another dirty trick in this debate. Andrew did horrible. Is stalin communism now? If he isn't, then it's relevant that abortion was legal since inception in the soviet union, was made illegal by stalin to fix the plummeting birth rate (which failed ultimately), then was made legal again 2 years after his death.
Andrew keeps asking him the same questions and just doesn’t accept Haz answers. W Haz @2:53
This Andrew thinks he is more knowledgeable than he is.
@@borisnegrarosa9113 when he isn’t debating low IQ only fan woman, and instead someone capable, he definitely struggles more.
Deflections and pivots are not answers. They are derailments and evasions.
Because Haz is hard-headed and answers in bad faith to every question, just because it's a hypothetical question. I don't trust a guy that is incapable of thinking in hypothetical scenarios, while at the same time promoting a system that was never shown to work in practice.
@@Leonhart_93 Clearly works in China and Vietnam
Non communist here. Andrew had no business debating this guy.
He was not prepared or even of that ilk . If anything Andrew should have interviewed this guy and taken more of a learning position with some challenging criticism.
Andrew is not facing an equal here.
I'm an Andrew/Crucible fan and I agree. First time I've ever seen him lose
i think its really difficult to debate communism without the ability to bring up the massive failures of it like how has tries to deflect by saying the famines and the deaths directly associated with communism are explainable by other factors and theyre nonsense also andrew didnt dig in on him enough why death for his cause is moral where death for another cause is not its obvious hes okay with violence when it comes to uplifting what he believes in but never articulates why he believes that in a meaningful tangible way other than the same buzz words that every communist known to man uses has served Andrew slam dunks that he easily couldve taken advantage of but didnt surprisingly while has had more quick answers to questions if you actually analyze what he says its a whole lot of nothing and is not realistic it was a very sloppy debate on each end tho neither were exceptionally convincing
Correct
you cant WIN as a communist supporter, not in debate, not in real life. All he did was not get destroyed. Its like arguing for the Flat Earth Theory, or arguing ""number of genders". a Masterdebater will still lose against a novice debater because hes arguing a ridiculous point.
Andrew easily beat this guy, the problem is its a 4 hour debate and Andrew doesnt have 4 hours of knowledge on communism. you only need to know 1 thing about communism to win the debate: Look up communisms failures in history and the success of capitalism. But after we use this argument, we still have to debate for 3 more hours, so of course Andrew is gonna run out of ammo!
First debate I seen Wilson - at best reach a draw
Appreciate him taking on a tough topic and a tough opponent though
Both men did a nice job
Hope they have future discussions
Wilson is a trash debater
I like Andrew, I came to watch this because of him but he really lost this one. It was hard to watch. He was way too emotional and clearly not very prepared. It's a win for Haz.
Im not too much of a fan of Haz but i am a Marxist-Leninist. Its really pleasant to see fans of Andrew being open minded to what others have to say. I say this because i have seen plenty of people in this comment section say Haz got destroyed/Haz lost
@@ZeroStuffGR I wasn't a fan of Haz as well, because he had said some really stupid things and was angry towards fellow comrades for some very minor misunderstandings. But he has changed quite a lot.
how is andrew arguing against the population went from 1 billion to 8 billions in 100 years ? thats just a fact and the reason for it is technology and industrialisation. the fact that its going down now have nothing to do with it going up in the first place wealth is a requirement for population growth people chossing to not have kids doesn't make wealth not a pre requisition(wealth is not having millions of dollars its just that there is enough food and resources to sustain a population)
Are there 8 billion people, though?
@@dmagcia do you have access to the internet ?
The problem with your supposition is that you have the perspective of a lobotomized NEET, and haven't the capacity to *zoom out* and look at the bigger picture. You haven't the benefit of considering (perhaps you aren't even aware) human history as a whole. You think a hundred years is an eternity, when it is merely a brief instant.
@@dmagcia yes. are you saying there arent?
Educational discussion by Haz
Never heard of Haz before this show... But he's a smart guy. Gave him a follow.
That 2006 is telling
@@Uno_Floydd How exactly?
@@ZeroStuffGR children are commies and activists
No thanks
Im usually a fam of andrew, and i dont really agree with haz, but now that ive read these comments im absolutely convinced andrew lost. Im converting to communist Islam now.
LMFAO
I hope this is sarcasm because you sound really stupid.
Hahahahaha I hope this is satire because that's completely delusional. 🤣
Love the satire
haz-hive-is-a-lot-like-dave-smith-hive....quick-to-the-bait!
Andrews argument about humanity vs technology causing population growth was awful. He was arguing for no reason.
He wants to win an argument no matter how silly it is. He isn't really a totally good faith actor.
He doesn't seem to understand that these 2 support each other.
This perfectly illustrates what Haz was critiquing later in the debate regarding propositional logic. Andrew's argument fell into the trap of abstract reasoning without grounding it in the material and historical realities that shape human existence. Instead of addressing the concrete factors behind population growth, he got lost in a theoretical discourse that missed the point entirely. Haz's point was about how propositional logic can often lead to irrelevant or misguided conclusions when it’s detached from the actual, lived experiences of people.
@@Octavian2 ha and you are Andrew won this debate with ease commie
The people come first. Necessity being the mother of invention & all that.
Love Andrew but Haz definitely destroyed him in the debate
I hope this is satire
Same. He was awfully unprepared for this, slower overall, interrupted more often and made many fallacies. Was bad faith too I'd say.
Andrew "two people can constitute a society" Wilson
That’s true lol.
@@mattbryant8320 no its not.
@@StalinsSecretPolice yes it is.
@@mattbryant8320 Societies require community. Two people are not a community
@@StalinsSecretPolice if that’s what you think you don’t know what the word community means lol.
No doubt Andrew is a good debater, but damn the commie destroyed him and Andrew began to say silly things lol
One hour in, thats where it seems like he's heading. 😂
Accept the fact that absolutely nothing the commie is saying is realistic.
The commie destroyed him? Two people watch the same thing yes see two different outcomes.
Infrared rising
Can I have what you’re smoking @jack
I like this Haz guy's argument.
Andrew was so insufferable the whole debate, and he totally misunderstands Hegel, Hegel was hermetic but his conception of "man" is the Historical man, not simply an inividual
You honestly believe he read any Hegel?
@@Octavian2He was too busy having paranoid delusions of Jewish people under his bed and in his closet lol.
Don't simp for Hegel if you don't want to be pilloried for stupidity.
@@daemonsilver3304 Hegel is your father, bow down. Also this wasn’t arguing about wether Hegel is correct but instead about wether Andrew is correct in his understanding of Hegel.
Misunderstood? Theres interpretations for a reason and he gave his and haz gave his lmao “whole debate” and u picked the hegel discussion LMAO
Haz wins, Andrew is emotional & upset when he cannot force Haz to concede to Andrew’s illogical or disingenuous comparisons of hypotheticals.
Very good & informational debate
One thing I agree STRONGLY with the communists on (me being an anti-communist) is that power doesn't come from a pen, power comes from the sword. And those willing to execute that power are deemed the leaders of our world.
When Andrew comes back and responds "well sometimes you can just plant a flag peacefully", true. But as an example, the British didn't just start planting flags one day. They had a long history of "oh, you said no? thats too bad" to back any 'just plant a flag in the ground' theories.
It can come from both. Power comes from the action of people. If those people have swords, they could use that. If someone used a pen to convince them of using the sword against their opponent, who had the power?
Haz deals primarily with history and reality and extrapolates from what has happened. Andrew is far too idealistic and deals in abstracts in the name of defending moral and logical principles. I don't fault him, as a Catholic myself I get it, but as a Catholic I also think of Cardinal Richelieu siding with the Protestant League during the 30 Years War in the name of French National/Material interests, not being surrounded by Habsburg domains.
Moral and logical principles Vs. Real material developments and processes among very complex human systems.
@@biafranrepublican4389 nonsensical if theyre both logical except one is complete and one relativistic
Stalin enriched himself
Where’s the proof?
Where? It’s because he could!!!!
No he couldn’t , the party was consensus
Sips water… ok let’s talk about the famines now.. No let’s talk about the moral position now
Its not that he did, its that he could.
Stalin is dead, but what guarantees others wont?
There was no consensus needed.
There is only one shot caller even in communism, and it's proven by the fact that when Stalin died the USSR and the communist ideal went down the sewer where they belong.
Stalin did enrich himself though and he didn't die poor as Haz claims. He had immense wealth, lavish clothing, houses and cars. He didn't die poor by any means. Him being harsh to his subordinates doesn't suggest that he was a modest person as Haz claims.
@@geovellidrivecitation?
@@Lawns-Are-Fun What do you mean citation, any credible biography of Stalin and his life would show this. He didn't die in some cabin in the woods. He literally died after having a drinking party with his closet associates. He was super paranoid. He only allowed his personal into his room when they heard him moving around to know he's awake. They found him dying after waiting for so long for him to make noise getting up. They were super scared to disturb him while sleeping but they gave in and found him sick af. He literally died infront of his comrades and family. He didn't "die alone and in a cabin" as Haz suggested, and that's what credible sources state. I don't have anything to cite because there's no need to. The burden of proof is on Haz and people like you claiming he died poor. That's absolute nonsense.
Andrew loves to have no stance just critique everything
Yes, it's a basic mode of debate called an internal critique. You utilize your opponents worldview to analyze their claims and show their contradictions. Andrew is extremely good at this method and you can see the results. Haz never really pushed Andrew on his own claims, so Andrew focused on Haz's, using his own worldview and metrics to undermine them. Why would I try to convince you of the superiority of my worldview when you allow me to tear apart yours? Breaking down someone's own worldview is far more effective in changing their minds than trying to cram yours over the top of theirs while it is still intact.
If you assert yellow is the best color, I don't need to declare another superior color to debate you on yellow. The burden is entirely upon the claimant to uphold their statement.
Nah you cooked Bro, I've been Tryna tell everyone that@@thepewplace1370
LOVED this episode the 3 hours felt like 30 mins
Thats how you know it was solid
Haz won simply by being down to earth. Andrew lost with his debate bro philosophycel tactics; irrelevant stupid hypotheticals and asking for definitions. 🦍☀️
You live in a fantasy...wth 😅
@@gabismom77 I love how you gave zero actual examples of your assertion, just like your empty-headed buddy Andrew Wilson
You think asking for definition of terms is irrelevant? In a debate rooted in definitions? That's dumb bro. Like, very dumb.
@@RobClayJokeryou actually did the same. Accusations with no evidence.
Please, tell us a specific issue you disagreed with Andrew.
@@dexterf.i.joseph2502 yeah, cuz asking for definitions for words that everybody knows what they mean isn’t dumb at all and a waste of time. Keep trying
Please more of this guy 🙏
This Andrew guy seems to live in a fantasy land. Every question he asked was like “But Haz! Here’s some stupid question not from the real world, with no context! Answer exactly, even though it’s made up and has never actually happened or I’m gonna soy out!”
And Haz keeps going, “Dude, can we please talk about the real world?”
And he’s like, “no”
Anyone living in the real world would see that Communism has failed over and over and over again. Everyone flees these countries for individual freedom. How is this even a debate?
@@candorsspot2775
"Everyone flees these countries for individual freedom."
Mate, people who enter America in its souther borders are from Capitalist countries. El Salvador, Mexico, Kenya, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, are all Capitalists. Why is every capitalist has to act like such a denialist mthfckr.
Seems you are the one who lives in a fantasy world Andrew won this hands down
@@millwallholdings you're delusional
Andrew tests logic, you fail to even see the test because of how braindead you are.
Andrew really filtered here. I've never understood the hype around this guy, was open to watching this cuz I thought it would be easy to debunk communism and overrepresentation. Turns out he was totally ineffectual and basically conceded every retort of Haz. Totally bodied, this guy encapsulates the flaws of ignorant, smug rwers.
He would have been so much better at tackling this if he read the material. Too many people who try to take down communist ideology never bother their asses to read the communist manifesto or das kapital. If he had done that he could have easily called out several instances of haz lying about the goals of communism
Orrrrr he's an honest debater and is a tually able to concede points unlike most debates which are man children who refuse to accept a logic solution? He didn't concede every point, and pushed back when necessary. If hez said he concedes as well, would it simply be a self regulated win based on who concedes most? Think.
That being said, I agree with many of the counter points, and thjnk these guys are actually much closer in their ideology than most are today out of ignorance and low IQ tribalism.
From my perspective, this is how the debate went.
Wilson did exceedingly well critiquing Haz's Communist fundamentals when it came to justifying morality and Christian relations with Communism. Haz claims to be a Muslim yet he himself knows that Communism is premised on a rejection of the metaphysical and the emphasis of material gain and prosperity as pivotal for the society. Just take a look at his (unfortunately short) debate with Jay Dyer in which he admitted that a core foundational principle for Communism is the rejection of the metaphysical. In contrast, Wilson's Christian Nationalism has a grounding for the morality of his ideal society and the morality of it.
On the other hand, Haz decimated Wilson when it came to almost everything else. The entire mini-debate around the priority of society: birth rates or increase in industrial labour workforce, was particularly unnecessary and unimpactful - something pointed out by Haz when Wilson began to reveal his position behind his critiques of Haz. Similarly, Haz crushed Wilson on the history of Communism, internal relations within the Bolshevik government, and on the degeneracy of Western society.
Overall, if the subject of this debate is Communism, then I'd say Haz won the debate 70/30. However, if the subject is the three topics listed in the title, I'd probably say 55/45 to Haz.
Another ACP win, way to go Haz!
He never proved any points, just constantly evaded.
Cope louder so the ppl in the back can have a laugh too
@@Ryanosaurrlike most people who think those ideals are of any value
What claims did he justify specifically that makes you say he won?
Infrared rising 🦍🦍🦍🦍🦍
At least finish the full debate on TH-cam with closing statements before moving to locals so people can have a clear cut idea on who won the debate and both parties can't make excuses.
You need closing statements to know who wins the debate?
@@bruno4499you need to see a whole debate to know who won a debate.
@@J040PL7 eh not really. Haas had like 2 ok points in the very beginning and around the hour mark just start obfuscating and bait and switch bs he likes to do. Andrew creamed him the last 3 hrs and it wasn't even close. Ran into contradiction after contradiction and had him not be able to answer a few questions and even Haas admitted he was right about the toothpaste bit. Haas speaks well and is professional about it but dude has some serious points of contention in his beliefs that he himself couldn't answer and that's why the last 2 hrs was Andrew just destroying his worldview in real time because of those flaws.
@@BlackRavenInitiativeWere we watching the same debate? Haz was nearly lost for words by Andrew’s claim that the world could support 8 billion people in 1700s, then all that talk about human element. After that Haz was basically trying to teach him.
@@BlackRavenInitiativeAndrew conceded the entire debate and then made some obviously bad arguments that haz tried to to walk him through.
I find it weird he referenced Christianity’s “Win Condition” instead of capitalism’s when he was arguing morals….
Me and my 8 billion homies back in the seventeen hundreds watching this though interdimensional vibes created from human labor. hahahahaha
How's about those means of production 😂
THE HUMAN ELEMENT!!?!? Lol
I think Andrew's point was that if we had 8 Billion people all working on essentials functions like food production with 1700's tech they could definitely survive. Certainly Norman Borlough's advancements in wheat production later on massively increased wheat production, but it certainly seems plausible that people could have survived.
@@sillysyriac8925 Dude you cant defend this (why this Andrew guy defend this argument is beyond me) this is like basic history it can not be possible. Remember he said no technology or what the Haz guy said even medicine bro like wtf. The main factors stopping massive human population growth in the past was food (specifically storage and production) population density problems (specifically sewage treatment, disease etc), cheap energy (oil, coal, nuclear etc) and of course the industrial revolution. Theoretically if we all lived in commune farms like a communist (ironically) as you suggested and only focus on essentials (eating wheat 24/7/365??? even if we could all be farmers and be able to grow yields every single time ) and nothing else even then it would not solve the major problems outlined.
Like to be fair I think the Andrew guy got mixed up with fertility and population. It can be argued that even though some people comparably have less "stuff", people on average have more kids etc rather than we can sustain the same population in the past with less technology and material stuff. Like yeah let me just start photosynthesizing.
@@sillysyriac8925That makes no sense.
This Andrew guy really likes to interrupt but doesn't want to be interrupted...
He is a tool
You have to forgive him! Too many debates with destiny
Andrew is completely outclassed, the dude is hardly qualified to be debating haz. This becomes more obvious as the debate goes on.
Nah, no way. Only women refuse to engage in hypotheticals to that degree, I would never put someone that doesn't on a comparable leve.
Andrew understands every answer Haz gives but he drags repeatedly coz if accepted it feels he losing debate 😂
There have been many such cases over the course of Infrared's Great Digital Long March.
@@gb-fs1tzwtf are you talking about
@@Uno_FloyddHaz is Infrared
This debate quickly became an interview where Haz had to explain the entirety of reality to Andrew. Bro had to explain what “society” is and why there wasn’t 8 billion people alive in 500 BC 😅
Lmao
exactly, Andrew came with a bad faith. He was dodging that point which is highly crucial to the debate
@@MrShankaPererahaz doesn’t live in reality. Andrew had to ask him questions because he does not live in reality. He lives in within and ideologically captured worldview.
Haz didn’t explain why there wasn’t 8 billion people alive in 500 bc. All he did was show that he doesn’t understand exponential growth
@@RonBurgundy-xc7zgbruh....
Cancelling debt is a good thing. Debt allows elites to take everything.
how do you cancel debt?
Generally that means the government prints a ton of money and pays the debt, and simultaneously inflates the dollar
Debt is a inflationary force. Our economic system requires constant steady growth to maintain stability and mitigate stagnation. In that sense debt is a necessity for a free market economy. Its an unfortunate reality. What we can work towards is sensible regulation to protect consumers .
Except you can’t cancel debt
@@Uno_Floydd The Soviets did. First thing they did was cancel all foreign debts, prompting an invasion of Russia by the imperialist banksters and parasites.
@@petrol_prophet bank type number in computer, bank delete number from computer
good debate, very respectful
This was a great debate. I don’t think either side really won but I do believe it helped the viewers understand a little bit more about both stances and the conversation I feel was in good faith most of the time unlike the recent debates we’ve seen. All in all, I think this debate does get us a little bit closer to the truth and understanding.
I like Haz when it comes to geopolitics,…however,..his political ideology, he portrays, is misleading. He is especially flawed, in his grasp, on history.
@@MaxStArlynHaz’s grip on history is super solid.
@@elisabethpoirier3963no, it literally is not. It’s based on communist talking points which is filled with half truth propaganda.
@@elisabethpoirier3963bro said two of the worst leaders in history were doing it right. Two nations that the working class starved in masses constantly
@elisabethpoirier3963 maybe with rose colored glasses 😂
Great call takeing out the timer and just letting them debate !
Hey I’ve never seen haz but he really impressed me about communism great points from both sides
You’re right. Andrew cooked him.
Amazing debate. Im somewhat of a libertarian but i have to admit Haz did great
Andrew Wilson with no beard is so weird ..I had to get used to that :)
@@Joormode it's like when you see one of those hairless cats. It gives me the ick to see a hairless version of something that ought to be covered in hair. Just like, the nipples...and wrinkles all splayed out, like hide that.
1hr 16 mins in and this Haz guys is seriously cooking, bro is good
2:47:50 in and he is getting cooked by Andrew
@@Uno_Floydd not at all, his argument falls apart because he fails to grasp the fundamental difference between actions motivated by moral duty and those driven by profit. He tries to equate "selling out" a neighbor to the state under communism with the way capitalism encourages people to betray others for money. This comparison is very stupid.
Haz points out that under communism, turning in a neighbor could be morally justified if the neighbor is, for example, a criminal like a child molester. The action serves the collective good and protects society. In contrast, under capitalism, people are incentivized to betray others purely for personal gain, with no consideration for the collective well-being. This means that capitalism inherently corrupts human relationships by turning them into transactions.
Andrew's argument is objectively wrong and dumb because he treats the moral decision to protect society under communism as equivalent to the capitalist practice of exploiting others for profit. He ignores the fact that capitalism makes such immoral behavior necessary for survival, while communism allows for actions that serve the greater good.
@@thechuube8442 straw man fallacy
@Uno_Floydd you dont even know what that means lmao. You're wrong, lost and confused, stuck in the anglo box of rigid dogmatism
@@thechuube8442 ad hominem.
Capitalist guy says that the earth could have supported 8 billion lives in 1700s, and the most funny part is that, he stands by that point and debates for half hour.
Andrew L
that was so frustrating andrew is an id*ot for that.
Communism doesnt even have any argument so idk wtf youre talking for, Communism has been tried multiple times in every continent and has failed SPECTACULARLY every time. You guys then say" that wasnt real communism" well it goes to show we cant even get past stage 1 of communism to EVEN SEE this "Real Communism" Because theres an extremely high chance the leader will be corrupted.
@@themilitantvegan2515 Indeed
There is no proof that it couldn't work.
If you teleported 8 billion people with the enough farms (on available land) to feed them, and had them work those farms with the existing technology of the time, there is nothing saying they couldn't survive.
This was never disproven.
Now this debate is good publicity! I’ll definitely share it with my group.🍻💯
Why is the "anti-enlightenment" guy such a pansy about authoritarianism lol
Because they deal in logical absolutes and think they reflect reality. The entire debate was the communist guy trying to have a real debate with concrete bases while the other guy wanted to have a debate about the "logical kingdom" in his head.
@@ND17-23 there are concrete bases, the ex - USSR , Cuba, Venezula , North Cores to mention a few
Exactly. He doesn’t have a coherent worldview. Even though I disagree with Haz on quite a bit, he at the very least has a coherent worldview.
@@DemoniacCat Concrete basis for what? You think there is a country on earth that doesn't have "authoritarianism?" And when you call every country on earth authoritarian, what does that mean for the word itself? "Authoritarianism bad" is a fake slogan developed against Soviet style democracy that put the people first: Root out corruption you are authoritarian. Crack down on crime you are authoritarian. Industrialize without taking unrepayable debts and don't make policy changes that turn your country into a banana republic you are authoritarian. And whenever Communists use the state to benefit the overwhelming majority of the people it is called authoritarian.
@@SavingNational what are you talking about? Andrew has the most coherent worldview.
Why Andrew don’t answer anything and just going to a different tangents?
Bc he doesn't actually know the material history of the things being discussed. Its typical of idealist intellectuals like him, they love to spend time arguing in fantasy land instead of discussing real and true event that have an effect in reality
@@panama2468 this coming from the commie apologist
@@oboroth51I know right, ironic 😂
@@panama2468
You're right except for one thing: He is not an idealist. He does not believe in idealism. He has openly rejected both philosophical idealism, and political idealism. As a Christian he cannot be an idealist as that would entail man makes reality and not God. This would be against Christian trancedantal views.
This dude was the only commie that made sense. Didn't know they existed! :D
Midwest MArx, Caleb Maupin, Richard wolf. theres plenty if you get outside your echo chamber.
Just an FYI, Blue haired college aged screechers throwing tantrums about culture war stuff are NOT communists (even if they claim to be). Agreed with comment above-check out infrared and Midwest Marx.
@@anab0licRichard Wolf is a beast 💯💯💯
Because you have been wrongly led to believe that Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders as Communists
it makes a lot of sense ideologically.
The problem is that it never works in practice.
Fresh's voice sounds different this episode. More natural. More relaxed. Good improvement!
Lol
yeah version 16.3 just dropped thats why
No skanks stressing him out 😅
Because he’s bored, zoned out and doesn’t understand most of the philosophical & societal concepts they debated
Andrew is not on Haz's level. He's not even on the level below him
Man andrew is insufferable. "i'm asking questions". It's a debate. Answer some questions yourself
Totally normal to ask questions during a debate, Sir or Mam .
@@KimVathese comments are bots
@@KimVait’s normal to engage in a dialog though - Andrew didn’t really say anything - he just asked skewed questions to try and trip up Haz but then Haz answered them, and Andrew would just cry.
@@Lawns-Are-Fun It’s okay to loose a debate.
This Haz guy seems to k ow what he’s talking about. I’m going to look into communism.
Beep bop commie bot 🤖
bro it's failed every single time at the cost of millions of lives. why, because a smart guy can make a convincing argument for it?
Look at the reality, that's why history is valuable.
That is the dangerous thing about communism. It can be made to sound very attractive to those that aren't aware of its consistent history. It has never worked and always ends in mass death and suffering. No system is perfect but what would you rather choose, the downside of capitalism (walmart is a monopoly), versus the downside of communism (all individual liberties being taken for the "collective", no winners or Elon Musks are allowed, no individual motivation to be the best or innovate)
bruh i dont like capitalism but the communists literally forced their own people to stay in borders , so they could not know what the west looked like. The soviets also built the Berlin wall, not the americans. The insecurity and defeatism of communists in the cold war should teach you everything about which system is worse. And as a european , i have to say that the east communistic countries were iterally starving their people to death with food shortages , while killing them in demonstrations .
So a debate is basically Andrew interrogates , but doesn't have to actually understand what communism is, and he doesn't have to explain why capitalism is morally better than communism
He basically conceded the entire actual debate after the break.
Two sides of the same J coin
Without the freedom to choose, there is no such thing as morality. This is obvious
@yeboscrebo4451 So there was no morality at all in the Holy Roman Empire.
@@baronn9809You know they had slaves, right?
One of my favorite podcasts. Keep up the great work.
Haz is a good debater. Andrew was frustrated
I'll take Capital C communism if it's right wing over this liberal corporatiam we have in the USA 🤷♂️
Right wing communism?
Communism is never right wing
Communism is neither left wing or right wing. It's an eternal science
Did you just have a stroke my man? Right wing communism?
He probably means no LGBT and less privileges for females and minorities.
Andrew is painful to listen to... You couldn't tell he was referring to technology and industrialization?!
-Andrew asks a question
-Haz answers said question
-Andrew: you didn’t say anything (because he can’t comprehend big scary words)
2:06:43 the reason we didn’t have 8 billion people then is simple. Hydrocarbon. We hadn’t discovered petroleum yet. Michael Rupert has an excellent book and documentary about this called collapse. You should look into it. Another of his good books is crossing the rubicon.
I think Haz’s point was-sure new technology comes about, but it’s the use of that which increases the productive forces. New technology could come out and effectively not substantially change the productive forces.
Petroleum, electricity, modern metallurgy, chemistry, antibiotics, steam power, germ theory, plastics, computers...the list is not exhaustive
We need to see the Haz vs Jay Dyer debate that ended before it could begin. It would be even more interesting if this channel could host Haz and Jackson Hinkle vs Andrew Wilson and Jay Dyer.
Haz is pretty much the anti orthobro crusader at this point
Even though i agree with Jay dyer on most things his debate with haz was an embarrassment, Jay purposely conflated 2 different metaphysical claims which would be a metaphysics (more specifically ontology) under his paradigm, but then tried to force haz to concede to the same position (which doesn't make sense since they have 2 different paradigms??). Then Jay getting called out for lying and dodging was harsh to watch.
While Andrew did much better than Jay did, he did not do good at all in this debate either, and i really don't like saying that since i heavily disagree with the economics of haz.
@@Chair-g6b It's nice to see someone share that observation. I'm coming at it from the other end of things having been a believer in Marxism leninism for some years and following Infrared for a long time and more recently coming to discover orthodoxy and coming to appreciate various orthodox content creators like Jay and trying to grapple with the apparent beef between communists and the Orthodox church. I feel like there's a rich dialogue to be had that hasn't been covered before.
@@crater35 Certainly agree with you there on the last part, so many fruitful conversations to be had!
I myself was orthodox up until a few years ago as i was influenced by TAG (until i discovered hermetic metaphysics and triadic spinozism) which i think is far more coherent (due to issues of causal interruption caused by Christianity) though i still have massive love for all my friends who still believe!
The orthodox churches are beautiful! certainly go visit one some day if you wish!
It seems to me that the history between the 2 sides seems to be rather deeply ingrained in customs from centuries ago that are imposed largely due to dogma and scripture (not that there is an issue with that). However Haz being religious himself manages to harmonize his position with his belief, makes me wonder if such possibilities can extend to Christianity.
Counting how many times Andrew say...."On planet earth", and "hang on let me finish" 😅😅😅😅
Interrupting someone as they wreck your position is top tier cope
Damn Andrew looks so young without his beard 🧔
This is a great debate asking each other questions on how there side will work
Andrew lost when he was arguing for 8 billion people in the 1700s
Haz lost because he supports a failed system of government
The commie lost the lot Spoke nonsense
@@millwallholdings And yet you provide zero argument. Such useless comment.
Same as the women coming on the panel saying "you are wrong"
@@싸넬동지-7성I mean you haven’t necessarily provided any argument of your own either.
@@NOGIMXCHAEL He’s not the one making an argument
Great debate this is how it should go down learning different things from both side so one can make a decision on which stance they want to stand with
Haz is being very clear. He is saying without technology advancement to facilitate that growth, population booms wont exist
Andrew Wilson only has bad faith arguments, and never answers questions. He’s good at deflecting
Cope harder
Christianity and communism have uncanny similarities (Acts 2:44, Acts 4:32). "The believers held everything in common." I think a reconciliation is possible.
Communism is a condemned proposition since the Bolshevik revolution. The book of Acts is a voluntary community of believers, not a top-down society statist system lol
They held all in common VOLUNTARILY and it was very few people at the time. It can’t be enforced on the scale of hundreds of millions of people. Communism is enforced at the point of a gun and isn’t voluntary when the state adopts it.
My Literature teacher used to say that "Communism is just Christianity with a reversed seal". It may look like it, but it's completely different
@@stevied3400you're right I'll stay in debt thank you sir
Communism is the beast system, in the exact polar opposite of Christianity.
Andrew is actually just not a very smart person
Andrew is a horrible debater swearing, and his hypotheticals are ridiculous. "If there was only one family, is it a society?" He always does this."What ifs" all the time.
If someone is disinterested and impartial will clearly declare that Haz won the debate
Not even close. Haz got caught in like 10 contradictions and even lied and said he’s a Muslim…..
Why do you bots keep saying Haz won when he clearly got cooked
You're on every drug ever invented or discovered. Not even remotely close or true.
Andrew stans can’t digest this debate.
Cognitive dissonance on full display.
(For the record im a huge Andrew fan, follow, enjoy, never miss a live or debate. But not blinded by my general appreciation and admiration)
the entire video was Andrew was ceding to Haz lol
@@EliteTheRealWorldhe is muslim
as a longtime fan, Haz is one of the best guests you guys have had on!
Completely changed my perspective, it’s criminal what they don’t teach us in k-12!
Yeah I agree, teach “natural rights” arguments against communism. Absolutely agree, we don’t allow evil Marxists to oppress others
or in fifa2012
Pretty bizarre how smug Andrew is despite knowing nothing about anything. Haz has the patience of a saint
Facts. Andrew is a great eristic, like many right wingers are. They are amazing at debating and arguing, but they suffer from doing no research and not knowing the background history of what they are discussing. Socialists, like Haz, are also good debators, but they are better dialetics. They debate, but bc they answer to a higher calling of doing the best for the most amount of people, they cannot argue in bad faith nor make disingenuous arguments. And so, while Hazs information is accurate and true, his aims are above and beyond that of simple sophistry or debate, and so he cannot use the same tricks and tools that right wingers use to slip verbal nooses.
“Patience of a saint” but let’s ignore his lies and deception. Said Christians thrive in China and how he’s a Muslim. Just a couple examples of lies, ah yes a Saint.
Yeah Haz got called out on many many contradictions. Dude is a very bad debater
Your joking right 😂
Saint Marx.
I like this channel.. Not just talking relationships. But also religion and politics. Loved this one :)
Trump2024 👍
He's old
@@anthonycampos8057 Joe's own kicked him out! Dementia
@@anthonycampos8057
Trump 2024 🎉
@@anthonycampos8057
Trump 2024!!
@@eew8060 old
In this age of decay, will the real Andrew jackson capitalism stand up?
More Debates! with Andrew love it
1hr 20min in it seems every time Haz pushes back with answers Andrew wants to pin the thing he is critiquing to the exact moment in history and wont allow for Haz to explain how things move forward
All of Haz's criticism's of capitalism, can be turned or matched in communism because the same thing that motivates humans to be immoral in capitalism can still exist under communism. Cosmetically it may look different, but it's still immoral.
For example, if your criticism of capitalism is that too much wealth winds up in the hands of a few people and they use that wealth to exclude competition through some kind of cartel or monopoly, that same phenomenon can exist in communism. Maybe they don't make money (because communism is moneyless), but they may horde resources (precious metals, energy, food) and exclude others. Not only can it happen under communism, is has and does happen.
Haz covered this point in the debate. by the values of the society in a capitalist liberal mode the monopolists have done nothing wrong according to the societies principles whilst in a communist communitarian society they have and thus can be held to account with justified resistive uprisal. by liberal privatistic standards whats wrong with private monopolies even gained by lobbying/bribery according to the values of classic liberals( violent action non withstanding)?
@@cazzac4817 Sorry, friend. I read your message multiple times and I don't understand what you are saying. It's probably my ignorance and I apologize.
I don't know what "capitalist liberal mode" means, or what it has to do with monopolists. Why couldn't "monopolists" be held to account with "justified resistive uprisal" under capitalist liberal mode (whatever that means)? In other words, what prevents it?
Second, You prefaced another argument with "by liberal privatistic standards." Are these standards published anywhere where I can view them objectively rather than take your word for it? I have never heard of these standards. Privatistic is not even a word, and you seem to have made it up along with some of the other terms you used. which suggests that definitions should be clarified before any further discussion can be had.
@@brelanarchy8023 the Liberal capitalistic mode is the mode of Production we have from it's inception in the late 1600s to today based upon/derived from classically liberal values. The question is according to these classically liberal values what have the monopolists done wrong( violence not withstanding) in order to justify the breaking of their monopoly through governmental or popular intervention? The last sentence was just reiterating the question privatistic means to instantiate "the private" ( as in ownership as described by haz not in regards to personal use or administration but sovereignty distinct from common ownership or personal ownership). You statement was that both modes have capacity/tendency for this "corruption". My counter was that the distinction is that one has a principled justification for this tendency the other out rules it based on its principle.
@@cazzac4817 You said "the question is" and then followed by a sentence with no question mark. Sorry, man. I just can't follow your logic or reasoning to even find a place to disagree or agree. You make a lot of assertions using terms that I've never heard anyone use.
Your clarification about the meaning of "liberal capitalist mode" only made it more confusing rather than clarifying. What happened before the 1600s, prior to liberal capitalist mode? Where did you learn this term? Can I read up on it? Is English your second language?
To me capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Liberalism is merely the political and moral philosophy of individual rights and consent of the governed. When you mingle the two words you are cramming a lot of ideas into a single term. If you agree with my definitions of capitalism and liberalism then I think I understand what you mean by liberal capitalistic mode. I don't know why I have never heard of this term.
Which one has a principled justification? Is there a principle behind private ownership? If public ownership of the means of production is principled, then why are so many violations of civil rights committed on public property? Services that operate on the funding of public taxation are some of the most corrupt organizations that put the private sector to shame. Lets not forget that in the USSR, productivity was stifled because people would work slowly to fulfil quotas because if they worked fast to fulfil quotas, the central planners would raise the quotas. This incentivized people to do the minimum amount of work, which is precisely why communism is synonymous with starvation.
As for liberal capitalist mode, it is synonymous with abundance and overconsumption. Pick your poison.
@@brelanarchy8023 it's clear you're just prevaricating. Nit picking minor grammatical errors is not a counter it makes you look dishonest(you couldn't fill in the question mark yourself when the sentence began with:" the question is" ?).
Prior to capitalism and the Liberal thought that underlines it, was what is commonly referred to as feudalism. Whilst there is debate regarding the rigidity and broadness of the system it is generally accepted that the land based hierarchy structure was generally used to economically organise European society.
You're equivocating on my use of "principled". I'm saying that the foundational ideas(principles) between communism and capitalism are different. in capitalism it is okay to own private property. it is okay to own as much as you can, granted it was obtained voluntarily(non violently/in accordance with the non aggression principle). This fact means if someone achieves monopoly non violently they have not violated any of the foundational concepts. What is the justification for monopoly busting in regards to these principles? Communism has no such principle so it has no problem eleminating generally economically harmful behaviour in principle. You can critique communism for corruption but to stick to the point, by liberal standards I don't see how forming a monopoly (non violently) is corruption.
To isolate it why is forming a monopoly under liberal capitalism bad based on the tenants of liberal capitalism?
everytime Andrew was losing he would switch to arguing over the definition of words like "society", absurd.
He started JQ'ing and immediately conceded
@@Santiago-xw7dk who did
@@dudebro91-fn7rz Andrew
@@Santiago-xw7dkWhat is JQ?
@@Santiago-xw7dk how was he jq ing. He usually doesn't approach those topics
This guy Haz is really interesting, definitely a different way of interpreting communism and it seems to make a lot of sense for America
people-ran-away-from-Eastern-Europe-and-Cuba-cause-communism-was-too-great......they-wanted-the-hardships-of-capitalism.....makes-sense!
@@Fr4nkBl4ckstraw-man
Communism wont work since people are lazy.
@@TheKidCCCPbullshit
@@Fr4nkBl4ckthe country with the most people in the world is China and it’s communist so much for your ignorant fleeing remark
This is what a debate is supposed to look like, rather than someone shouting about pets being eaten.
Andrew is like the bloodsport debate rainman. And I mean that in the most positive way 😂
Andrew truly lost me to the point where that damn commie Haz started making sense
That's bc the commie makes more sense.
Commies make way more sense, all you have to do is just start listening to them, instead of banging your head onto PragerU
And just maybe, everything they told you about communism was all a lie
Thats because Andrew always begins with a presupposition thats his position is right and is trying to find and make up holes in the other person argument.
He always does it.
Sometimes we can see it as with the population argument.
He is in it to win his position, not to find truth, as many debater do.
@@borisnegrarosa9113 Not to people who have a brain
Andrew just doesn’t want to agree with that guy on anything just talking in circles lmao
Can someone tell Andrew what did Christianity do to the Native Americans here and in South America and the Caribbeans ,Where was there morality at 😂😂😂SMH ..Haz for president
Stopped them from sacrificing their children?
@@iwatchyoutube9425Don't forget the many cities, buildings, churches, infrastructure and roads the Spaniards built. Also teaching them reading and writing. I don't know about you, but that is much better than ripping hearts out and eating them.
Horses
So what? Christianity didn't do that, people did. Christian people fought among themselves in Europe for 2000 years. And?
@@Leonhart_93 "Communism didn't do that, people did"
At first I thought he needs a blazer too, but Andrew should get a Crucible duster coat.
I second this.
Andrew completely out of his depth.
Thanks muddy