Online Leftists
Memeing on online leftists.
Online Leftists
Episode 005: Anti-Centauri Action!
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
GloboidTV and RedArmyCapybara dive into the increasingly strange world of online anarchist discourse by examining the TikTok account Green Ancen, an anti-authoritarian “centauri” creator who positions themselves against Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, and socialist states while claiming to represent a more radical anti-state position. The comrades look at their videos attacking Marx, Marxism, the concept of the proletariat, and the idea that a workers’ state could play a role in revolutionary politics, among other things.
They discuss the broader debates between anarchists and Marxists and explore how internet discourse around socialism, the state, and revolution often drift into confusion and outright absurdity.
In this episode we cover:
- The rise of Green Ancen, an anarchist TikTok creator whose content has shifted from broadly compatible-left posts toward aggressive anti-Marxist and anti-communist arguments.
- Claims that “statists are nationalists” and that anyone who supports the use of a state in socialist revolution is inherently an authoritarian nationalist and reactionary.
- The ongoing TikTok feud with other leftist creators, including unfounded accusations that critics like Comrade_Ash are “white nationalists” and “larpers.”
- Green Ancen’s attacks on figures such as Madeline Pendleton, along with accusations that Marxist-Leninists are secretly capitalist or CIA-aligned.
- Arguments rejecting the classical bourgeoisie vs. proletariat distinction and replacing it with alternative frameworks.
- Claims that Karl Marx was reactionary because he supposedly failed to deconstruct race, ableism, and other modern social theories.
- The broader anarchist argument that police, prisons, ICE, and other institutions exist to defend the state, so opposing them logically requires opposing the concept of the state itself.
- The claim that revolutions are inherently anarchist and that “authoritarian” socialists betray revolutionary movements.
- A wider discussion about how debates between anarchists and Marxists play out online, including accusations that MLs are government agents or that anarchists are spreading anti-communist propaganda.
- Green Ancen's complete misunderstanding of Marxism.
- How anarchists plan on handling the enforcement of laws and rules and how revolution could be carried out in a decentralized and anarchistic manner.
What even is a centauri? The world may never know…
Follow us:
Online Leftists: Linktree
Globoid: Linktree
Capy: Linktree
Yeah, so a lot like normal, do you want me to ask you, you know, do we have any new patrons?
SPEAKER_03Uh yes, we have Gavin, DZ, Cramdar, Mr. Braindead, and Nova. And Cappy, I have to say that last uh live stream that we did on Patreon was thoroughly enjoyable. In fact, I think we ran over. We did like two and a half hours.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, yeah. Well we could have kept going all night with that.
SPEAKER_03It was a lot of fun. And we didn't even hit so I don't know. I want to keep that one a little bit close to so the the title of that one was what Incels and Black Pill Dialectics.
SPEAKER_04Yeah.
SPEAKER_03I want to keep that one a little bit close to the vest. You know what I mean? Because some of these specimens are still in the wild, and we're it's an ongoing monitor. Uh uh it's an ongoing monitoring that we're doing here. So I want to keep that a little because they may be listening right now, the little weasels. The little weasels may be listening. They're out there. I'm I'm concerned for the safety of others. We don't want to instigate any school shootings or anything. So we're but if you guys want to see what's going on there, our sneaky sneaky little live uh or or sneaky sneaky little live streams that we do here, you gotta join the Patreon. Cappy, tell all these people about all the amenities that they'll get if they become a patron at patreon.com slash online leftists.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, you'll you'll get well now we have what six VODs for you to watch, and then you can join us every Tuesday and Thursday night uh for um exclusive lives that run between an hour to two hours, apparently two and a half hours. So it's an exponentially increasing cornucopia of content. It's yeah, it it it it's great. And honestly, uh those uh lives are like comedic relief. Yeah, yeah. It's it's almost like they're funny.
SPEAKER_03These these Vaughns and the podcasts are like rabbits. You you uh you avert your eyes for a moment, you pop back up, there's like three or four more live streams for you. Yeah. Yeah, it's good stuff. Okay, so today, the focus of our attention today, with my incredible wit, untrained, unseasoned, as it were, just raw intellectual power, and Cappy's vast and almost uh professorial ins uh understanding of dialectical materialism and all the shapes and flavors, uh, our the subject of our discernment uh that we are going to diagnose, critique, and react to today is a little character that I like to call Green Ansen. You know why? Because that's their username. Yep. That's that that because it's green.ansen on TikTok. Now, Cappy, right off the bat, how would you categorize this person, just sight unseen for the audience? Um infantile anarchist.
SPEAKER_01I don't even sure. Like, is are they an anarchist? Yeah, they they claim well, they talk about anarchism by name. And uh in the one TikTok, which I believe we're gonna be go going over uh during this podcast, they they specifically bring up uh Malatesta. Um they they uh are I believe telling Ash to read Molotesta or maybe Madeline Pendleton to read Malotesta or something like that.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, every time I heard Malotesta, I would assumed it was a joke because it seems like they're saying a bad thing in Italian or Spanish.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, um Malotesta's actually like a a nice guy. I've read Malotesta. I just think that uh you know he was too optimistic.
SPEAKER_03It seems like bad, it isn't bad in Spanish is Mal, and then Testa is like like testes, so he's like Mr. Mr. Bad Balls or something.
SPEAKER_01I forget someone in the Discord who speaks Spanish brought that up, though. I think it might have been kittens.
SPEAKER_03Okay, yeah. I I think that she is a uh Spanglish enthusiast like I am, coming from Southern California. It's like my ears perked up because it's kind of like when you're on the construction job site and you hear some words, you're like, I'm pretty sure they just called me a bald drunk white boy. But you're not sure. You know what I mean? You're like some of those, some of those uh utterances sounded kind of familiar. I think I am the subject of scrutiny right now. You know what I mean? Like, I think it's like my ears perked up when I hear Melatessa just like that. I was like, hmm. Uh okay. So I have some notes here. Uh Green Ansen, they are an anarchist centauri. Centauri, okay. Whatever that is. Whatever that is. We are trying to up to minutes up to the recording, uh hitting record on this podcast today, Cappy. I was trying to track down this mythical Centauri manifesto that apparently exists. Uh uh some there is there is a a revolution. There are anti-Centauri rebels in the field trying to field me communication, but I did not uh reach out to them soon enough to get the full dossier on this person. So we're uh this may be this may be a person with some updates. Yeah, it's an as developing dossier that we're working on here. Yeah. So they are an anarchist centauri that is anti-authoritarian, anti-Marx, anti-Marxist-Leninist, anti-DPRK, anti-proletariat, which we'll get into, and apparently they see any kind of state as inherently oppressive. Now, would you say that uh seeing the state as inherently oppressive, that's like every anarchist, huh?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, and you know, um they that is that is technically correct. The state is objectively a tool of class repression, but Marxists ask themselves, right, um, who is being subjugated to that authority and who is wielding that authority, right? And in the case of a worker state, it's the working class wielding that authority over the bourgeoisie, which is a good thing.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, and the way that uh these anarchists frame it is uh like as if that um it's the rebel it's the rebels trying to take over the death star and then pilot the death star instead of blowing it up.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, no, they they uh uh it seems like this person fails to understand that uh we're not just seizing the capitalist state, that we're destroying it and building a completely new state.
SPEAKER_03Well, keeping the productive forces intact. Well, all we want to change is the beneficiaries of those productive forces, isn't that right?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, yeah. But we also want to build a very strong and uh you know uh people-oriented state, right? It's not uh I don't know, the way anarchists act is is as if we're just going to seize, like say, the state in the US, the capitalist state, and then just use that state, right? But Marx himself spoke, he was like, no, you can't just do that. We're seizing state power, right? So it's building a whole new uh state to serve the people.
SPEAKER_03Okay, and then going on with this, it says older accounts started in 2021. Uh older posts are nebulous, compatible left slideshows and viewbaits. Did you see any of those that I that I had linked there about the wetlands and the climate and capitalism and stuff like that? Yeah, yeah. I checked them, I checked them out. Would you would you categorize them as such a sort of like left lib compatible stuff, not super radical, it seems like pre-anarchist necessarily.
SPEAKER_01Uh yeah, yeah, I think I would agree with that.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, and then it looks like they moved from compatible leftist posting, sort of uh view-maxing, sort of nebulous, progressive, stuff linking uh capitalism and emissions of private jets and things of that nature. And it looks like as they moved from that compatible leftist position to whatever they've uh they are now, they've somehow become more anti-com. Cappy, do you is that normal for someone to be sort of ambiguous about whether they're anti-communist or not, and then get more anti-ML, anti-com as they go left?
SPEAKER_01It can be if you don't fully deconstruct your liberal worldview and you continue to let it inform your opinions on things, um, then yeah, like if you if you come across anarchism and you decide to uh not at all engage with Marxist theory or practice in any sort of good faith manner, then yes, you're going to uh end up regurgitating things that you'd hear from the CIA, and you're not going to become any more radical.
SPEAKER_03Okay, and I do have some uh screen grabs here, uh, and let's go ahead and forward this one over to you if you've not seen these. I do see uh Green Ansen in my FYP. Uh so I I am familiar with the sort of rage bait things that she does here. So the first one here is a uh is a screen grab of her live that says Marxist Leninists are evil, uh, and then another one here that says Marxist Leninists are villains. You know, this it's this type of fair. Uh my secret informant also let me know that they had explicitly said that Green Anson had read Mein Kampf quotes on air and asked people to guess if it was Hitler or Marx who said it. So likening, so a little so she can she's throwing in a little double genocide theory as a treat.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, that that's goofy anyway. How could there is an obvious difference between Mein Kampf and the fucking Communist Manifesto? I mean, that's insane.
SPEAKER_03But I don't know, I can't imagine what clo what quotes that she's picking from the Communist Manifesto that would be confusable with uh Mein Kampf. Yeah, I have no idea. I mean, like it's insane to me. Okay, so let's just go ahead and get into some of these. So here is one of their most egregious posts.
SPEAKER_02Statists are nationalist, by the way. Um, and nationalists face the wall. Same page, same page.
SPEAKER_03Okay, so we have that, and then if you see down here at the bottom, um mask off moment, like no bra, anarch hashtag anarchism, and then she uh tagged Comrade Ash, which some of our listeners might be familiar with, which uh who's a cadre member over at the collective. Yeah. Um the implication being, the implication being that Ash is a a a nationalist. I yeah, yeah.
SPEAKER_01What do you think about that? What did you hear? It's ridiculous. What when when when I heard you know nationalists get the wall, immediately um my brain goes to this person hates Palestinians. This person doesn't like that's what you're saying, right? Palest Palestine right now is fighting for a state and a right to self-determination. So why not should they get the wall? Yeah, it's like they're an anti-Janv activist.
SPEAKER_03Shout out to Yanv in the Discord.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I mean it's crazy, right? Because that's that's the the the same type of thing. Um it it doesn't make sense. It's so goofy.
SPEAKER_03So so they're doing a chain of logic there that statists are nationalists, and Marxists are statists slash are fighting for a capital or seizing the means of production, so they are uh status nationalists, and then some of those Marxists are white, so therefore the white MLs are white nationalists, ergo, they get the wall. Yeah. That that is now I think that she after the fact is framing this as a joke. Ash made a specific response to that. Let's listen to this right here.
SPEAKER_00Green what are you doing? Why why are you tagging me in this? I'm not a statist or a nationalist. I'm a Marxist-Leninist, I'm not a fucking nationalist. Are you implying that you think I should face a wall with green? Is that what we're doing now? Weird.
SPEAKER_03Definitely, definitely weird. And then um Ash also pointed out in this original clip right here, there's four emojis. So it's like a dilapidated house, a white person walking towards it, and then fire and timber indicating is this inferring that their house should get burnt down?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I don't know. That's weird because those emojis have nothing to do with the content of the TikTok.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, is this incitement of violence against just a uh uh ML girl boss? Just a boss and ML, just uh uh an ML queen?
SPEAKER_01It's weird. It's weird. And and also i uh it annoys me because uh green here has no nuance. Not all Marxist Leninists are nationalists. It makes sense if you're a victim of imperialism in the global south and you're having a national liberation movement, um, but generally speaking, um any Marxist Leninist worth their salt in the Imperial Corps is not a nationalist. Then they have this follow-up here.
SPEAKER_02I stand by what I said in that video, um, but I just want to make a quick clarification that I obviously lack the ability to like accurately critique uh any project in the global south, much less any non-white project. You know what I mean? Like I just don't have that ability. And uh secondly, uh white nations are consistently the foundation for like systemic racism across the globe, right? Not to mention like colonization imperialism, right? So like white nationalism, like the person who I was responding to, obviously uh uh isn't liberatory nor revolutionary in any sense. I just won't make those clarifications, we'll make more in a longer video later.
SPEAKER_03So doubling down on the fact that Ash is indeed a white nationalist, so they understand global south, they understand that they're coming from someone in the Imperial Corps and they're they don't want to say anything, but they're saying no, my my my criticism was sound because they this ML is in fact a white nationalist, which they objectively are not. I I believe Ash is a Latina, number one. Number what, I think that she's Chicana.
SPEAKER_01But yeah, so I mean it yeah, it's a little peculiar, this whole framing. Um I think that that was a post hoc rationalization because people were probably commenting under there under there and being like, uh, what? Like, what about victims of imperialism? What about the global south, right? So then they go, oh fuck, you know, I don't want people to think, you know, so then they have to go, oh no, I'm talking specifically about, you know, uh quote unquote white Marxist movements, whatever.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, and and then she didn't even specifically call out Marxism Leninism. She used a faulty logic tree to paint MLs as white supremacists and then used arguments against white supremacist nationalist projects. You know what I mean? It's like, okay, we agree with that. No, yes, uh, like white supremacists, white nationalists do uphold imperialism and all that. Yes, no, we agree with that. That but the problem is you're calling MLs white nationalists, which is peculiar. Yeah, it's okay, so then we have this follow-up video. So this was like about a month-long back and forth. This person apparently also refuses uh to engage with Ash. Uh Ash has reached out several times for a debate, and this person refuses to engage. They're scared.
SPEAKER_00What's up? I'm Comrade Ash, and I'm Kaj's Minister of Information.
SPEAKER_02This right here is why you should be skeptical of organizations you find out about online. Is that we have a lot of ideas. We got a lot of ideas running around in our fucking heads. Um, and we are eager. We are so, so eager to like apply them to the world around us because we know that they're right, you know. However, a lot of us just lack the ability to do anything meaningful in the real world, right? Like we have we we we the majority of us don't hold a lot of power, obviously, to to actually influence any of these thoughts that we have onto the people around us. So we tend to build organizations to try to get there, to try to garner this power, but then all we kind of do is just build these superstructures around nothing. You know? It's a whole bunch of infrastructure with no real material basis uh where we just kind of assign titles Minister of Education when we don't have any control over education to begin with. Like this is kind of why we're called LARPers so often, uh, is because we call ourselves ministers of education when in reality we're not even the basics, we're not we're not even educators yet. You know what I mean? Like, like, like you can call like Ash is an okay example of this, actually. Like she does at the very least attempt to educate on her live stream. Um But there is no there's nothing beyond that. You know what I mean? She isn't in control of of any subset of instructors in which are putting forward a particular message, you know what I mean? Like what she's the minister of, you know? I'm saying you know a lot because this is just so weird, you know what I mean? It's so weird. A common like criticism of this though is like, but Green, you don't know what they're doing in real life, they're just probably not sharing it online. Which, like, fair, you know what I mean? But there's no evidence to support that they're doing anything or that codger is anything material, you know? Like, no website, they have five TikToks total posted on their page. You know what it like where where where? Where is any of the actual influence uh insofar that you would require a minister of anything? That's the thing though, is they don't require ministers, they don't require controllers of any of these different subsects like ideology, like education, like uh propaganda, like like control over resources, agriculture, etc., etc. Because they don't have any of these things to begin with.
SPEAKER_03This is fucking insufferable. It's insufferable. I can't listen anymore. And then it also says in the caption, TLDR, touch grass. Also, I was way too nice with Ashier. She's for real a white nationalist, so. And then it says anarchism, liberation, trans, and communism as hashtags. Cappy, what do you think about this? What do you think about them? Uh uh her critique here is you're not actually what so does Anson require a degree in education for someone to be an education czar? Because I gotta tell you, I don't think Betsy DeVos had a degree in education. I think that you can get very high up, so I don't think it's that. And uh as far as their, I don't know what sort of material real world um manifestation, a subgroup of people who were organizing in real life, which I know that these people are. Yes. I I I already know that these people are organizing in real life. That's the thing.
SPEAKER_01Uh Green Anson is making a bunch of assumptions. Uh we know that they that m that they are organizing in real life. They are doing something. What the fuck is Green Anson doing too, by the way? Probably nothing. So, one, they are organizing in real life. Two, if Cadre isn't sp if that if they're a media collective or whatever they may be, um, who cares? They are educating people. Um so I I I don't think that this is a good critique at all. You know what I mean? I I do believe that all almost all of those members are actually organized in you know in various orgs or parties outside of the internet.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, I I have I I I have seen similar evidence. Yes. Now, uh can you speak to what anarchist organization in the real world looks like? Yeah, I can.
SPEAKER_01As someone who was an anarchist for six years. Yes.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, so is so Anson, is she upset that there's not f uh uh photos of these people in a park unwashed saying things?
SPEAKER_01Well, that's yeah, so uh when I was uh during the Occupy Wall Street movement, when I was organizing with anarchists, it did start out with a small group of friends, and we would have general assemblies in the park and pass motions that didn't really matter, and eventually we lived in a commune. And it it's not that we didn't do anything to reach out to people and to try and make connections with working people, but we didn't really do anything um super important. It's not that we didn't help anyone, but we didn't get anything done. It left me very disillusioned and living in the woods at one point, right? So, like, uh that's what turned me to Marxism in the first place. Uh, there really was no structure or anything like that. Um and honestly, a lot of people were starting to get sick of us when we were occupying certain areas. Um, you know, I don't know. It it's weird. There again, I don't think Anson is organizing or doing anything.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, so basically she's just talking about the trope of like sort of which I can see is kind of fair, like calling yourself the the Kamazar of fucking un understand I am the Kamazar of understanderings. You know what I mean? I am the knower, I am the czar of knowing stuff and bhabada babadi bah and sort of, but I think that's sort of a naming convention that is very common in communist circles, right? It's almost like cute, it's an allusion to it or something.
SPEAKER_01Well, here's what I think is that, right, uh a cadre really can't function necessarily outside of a party structure, but that doesn't mean you can't start a media collective on the internet to try and educate people.
SPEAKER_03Right. I agree. Okay, on to the next one. So let's go. So it it and and that one in particular I put to show that again, she affirmed in the caption of that one, she affirmed again that Ash is a white nationalist. It was like apropos of nothing in a non-germane fashion uh fashion, completely unfounded, which is like slanderous, right? I think that might actually be I think that might actually be an actionable legal claim. Like you can't call me a white supremacist. Like, what are you doing? Like I'm absolutely like if from an ideology standpoint and everything else, everything I organize to do is counter to those people, and I'm those people's number one enemy. No, and you as an anarchist actually uphold. Like you you are uh uh uh aiming to create a power vacuum by which those groups would come into immediate ascendancy. Yeah. So like you're actually an ally to the white nationalists, irrespective of, you know, so it's like this whole thing stinks, it's suspect.
SPEAKER_01It's and it's it's try like it's almost like Fed jacketing, but with white nationalism. Like Ash is uh like diametrically opposed to white nationalists. Yeah, and a Chicana, by the way.
SPEAKER_03Which is, I guess, technically, like there's like Nick Fuentes's and other stuff out there. So I guess but every literally all of her, she's always Platforming um uh people of different ethnic minorities, she's doing work and she can't even do the typical criticisms that anarchoids do against MLs because uh Ash is very active in uh mutual aid stuff. She's always doing mutual aid posts for comrades of different uh ethnic minorities, yeah. Uh and and things like that, which is very evident. If you just go uh go on Ash's TikTok, which is what is Ash's TikTok? I don't even know. Uh I I is it just Ash or Comrade Ash? It's Comrade Ash, maybe. Let me and which you can see if you go to yes, comrade underscore Ash's TikTok. Shout out to Comrade Ash. Uh, you which you can see yourself just like look through their stories, they're always trying to help some someone out. Yeah. Even the normal anarchist talking points against MLs don't even work on Ash. It's sort of like the worst case scenario. If you were going to pick an ML to slander, like Ash is a very bad choice. To try to try to slander as a white nationalist. Yeah. So let's go into this next one. So this is this is again, keen-eared listeners may remember this is a post. Uh, this may be the first post, the first TikTok that we listened to on this podcast, which was uh one by a dude named Best Comrade, who subsequently deleted all his accounts. In after recording and previous to release, he deleted his entire online presence. However, this is a re-upload of the edit that features Cappy in it, that is sort of like mocking online leftists, ironically, as a leftoid himself. Mocking Hassan, Madeline Pendleton, and I think uh Mocacino and Comrade Cappy himself here in here in person. Green Anson was very taken by this.
SPEAKER_00I have owned and operated a business for 13 years.
SPEAKER_02I tell them it's easier to find And they say anarchists are CAA capitalist liberals show. This is really funny, dude. Oh my god. Oh my god. MLs are capitalists, and I I I'm gonna die on this hill. I'm sorry, I can't after watching that. Like, oh my god. Anyways, it was all a ploy. Um, me and Madeline Pendleton, best friends. Um, they actually pay my bills, so any internet beef, totally manufactured, um, just like how they manufacture shit in China with their 16-year-old workers.
SPEAKER_03Uh, okay. Uh another unfounded claim of 16-year-old, like what I don't know what that is. Is she is she inferring that like labor laws that which may allow 16-year-old, like 16-year-old works 16-year-olds can work in America, as as I understand it. Isn't that right, Cappy? I had a job at 16 years old.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, so are they saying I don't know what I don't even know what that's they're trying to claim child labor, which is illegal according to the labor laws in China.
SPEAKER_03Right. And it's uh and we have American Republicans here trying to wither those child protection laws away domestically, meanwhile, there is more enforcement against that in China than there are than there is here. Yeah. Number one. And uh number two, the claim of uh so she often does this. So I'll get into this later. I'll get into so we have something queued up later, but she often uh takes says, like, hey, you're saying CIA talking points. She she exhibits binary thinking and says that, oh, you think I'm a CIA paid shill and I'm an ad uh and I'm an agent and cointel. It's like I didn't say I'm saying that what you're doing now is State Department talking points. You're saying the things that the State Department says. Oh, you think I'm a Fed. It's like uh I didn't say I would say that if I thought you were a Fed. I don't think you're smart enough to be a Fed.
SPEAKER_01No, yeah.
SPEAKER_03We're number one.
SPEAKER_01No, no one's ever saying that that they're actual agents of the State. What what we're saying is that their talking points are are the same as the st as as the State Department. You know what I mean? So they're shilling, but they're not necessarily agents.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, and sh they don't seem to understand that because I think that number one, they're very young, and number two, they're sort of like room temperature IQ, and number three, they're bad faith. Yeah. Right? So they're they're sort of doing what is that reducto ad absorbum or whatever. They're doing r uh reductive fallacy.
SPEAKER_04Yes.
SPEAKER_03To say, oh, this guy thinks I'm literally the director of the CIA. No, no, dog, I'm not, I'm not saying that. Um uh what about the the MLs being capitalists? I would say smart MLs are post-capitalists and understand that ride capitalism until the wheels fall off so as to maximize our productive forces.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, so what bothers me about that is that um certain communists um may very well be uh petite bourgeoisie, in which case, uh, yes, uh, they are. Um I guess Madeline Pendleton would technically meet that criteria, although her business is um it's a cooperative, so it it's it's um more of a socialist structure. It's far more fair uh than than than than the job I work for. But my issue is that to say Marxist-Leninists are capitalists, like what makes you a capitalist is your relationship to the means of production, right? And if you do not own a means of production if you that in which you can exploit another person with, if you do not own capital, then you are objectively not a capitalist.
SPEAKER_03Right. Well, they reject the bourgeoisie pro distinction, as we'll see right here. So maybe that uh maybe that all went uh over their head and rolled off their back like uh water, like water off a duck's back, because they reject the bourgeoisie pro distinction, and we'll we'll see why right here.
SPEAKER_02Absolutely, I can. Uh disability doesn't really exist, at least not in any uh objective sense. Disability is just a tool of the state uh meant to keep individuals down from society. Societies naturally are inclusive and operate in ways that everybody can participate in, at least in the majority of its functionality. Disability, or the concept of it today, is a way to separate individuals from the society based on the amount of labor power that they can output. If your system of liberation doesn't include this, then you're protecting the uh systems of oppression that the state necessarily has. The only way, the only way to protect any marginalized individual or community is to empower them to control their society. This is a major reason why we're why we reject the proletariat virtuous distinction, because neither of those two classes includes disabled individuals, at least not under Marx's uh conception of what those words meant. The same principle applies to children, the same principle applies to the elderly, et cetera, et cetera. This is also why we're pro-gun, right? Because the only way uh to guarantee that uh marginalized people's rights are protected is to give them the power to protect them. They're the only people who are the most maximally interested in protecting their own fundamental human rights.
SPEAKER_01So so what society are they talking about? I don't even know. And and and first of all, it's not even true. Uh what they're saying is is not are it are they saying that no disabled people sell their labor power? Because that's untrue. There are plenty of disabled people who do work, which would make them part of the proletariat if they're selling their labor power.
SPEAKER_03And I think that they mean du jour uh classified, so they only they're saying only disability is recognized by the federal government, maybe. So again, they're using the federal term, they're using the federal federal categorization of some people under the American Medical Act and the American Disabilities Act, I guess, uh, as who is or is not disabled, because yes, there are very many people who were otherwise abled who are functional members of the working class and th therefore proletariat.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I mean, um I grew up with um with a uh a disabled person who who worked. It was a job that was um made like it was specifically it worked for them, right? They they couldn't work a normal job, but they did work at this, you know, specific job that was made so that people like them could have work. Um it would be weird not to consider them part of the working class considering that they were literally selling their labor power. So they're specifically talking about people who cannot participate.
SPEAKER_03Who cannot work and and who cannot work, yes. Yeah. And that they're saying that how does is is there is there a germ of something that that can be nodded to in there? That because I do see, Cappy, if we're being straight up, and we don't want to lie to our listeners here, we want to be, we want to embolden our listeners to you know have nuanced conversations about stuff. There is a lot of conversations I've seen online about distinctions about the the uh revolutionary potential of the lumpin. Yes, the the the non-workers, and I think that some of the dogmatoid marzoids, they they some of the labor aristocrat glazers, they sort of downplay right the lumpin' potential. Yes. And I think that the the material conditions in America right now with the lumpen are very much different than Karl Marx's time, and therefore there may not be such an exhaustive look at the revolutionary potential back then. Absolutely.
SPEAKER_01I mean, look, I get the argument that they're putting forward because even though a lot of Marxist tables say, look, if you don't uh if you don't own capital, right, if you don't own a means of production, then you're working class. But looking at it purely, um, like looking at it economically, if we're looking at your relationship to the means of production, if you do not sell your labor power, right, for a wage, if you're disabled and you're not able-bodied, then yes, technically speaking, you would not be a member of the proletariat. But that doesn't mean that A, you're not oppressed, uh, which obviously d I think uh Asen or Green, whatever their name is, understands they are oppressed. Right. Um But that doesn't mean that the that the proletariat is going to leave you behind. Because we believe that everybody has a right to food, clothing, housing, and health care, and we don't view the value of a human being by whether or not they can produce there's more to the value of a human being than whether or not they can produce, right? We we don't believe in leaving anyone behind.
SPEAKER_03How did uh projects like the USSR and DBRK deal with people who were otherwise able and not uh able to contribute to the productive output of a society?
SPEAKER_01Yes, so I think that there are a couple things. One, they try and um they try and find work and jobs that um that people like that are able to do, and two, if you're not able-bodied and you can't work, then they take care of you. It's that simple.
SPEAKER_03Right. Okay, which is probably more of a guarantee than you would get from a quote unquote anarchist society. I really hate it because like I don't want to be pedantic, but what society are they talking about? Wouldn't that in a a sort of society, in as much as it could be described, would have to be enforced by some sort of state system, which they inherently object to, right? Yeah. Um anarchists are ableists. Who's gonna build the wheelchair ramps? And they not not only that, they're against the sort of federalized uh medical um uh codes that would, you know, make insulin safe or manufacture things at low or no cost for its citizenry.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, well, don't you know we're gonna make insulin in the bathtub.
SPEAKER_03These are these are unforeseen complications that anarchists do not anticipate for and refuse to engage with. Is that what this is?
SPEAKER_01I mean, I guess. I I'm sure that there is some theory on it that I've not read. Uh, but yeah.
SPEAKER_03I mean, I've never gotten a clear answer. But okay, so we have that. To this point here, sh have you heard of this term, the Gwythjinn? No, I've never heard that. Okay, well, they they go into some of this. So this is uh how I think some of what they think is the answer versus the proletariat. So they reject proletariat bourgeoisie distinctions, and also they reject the proletariat in in entirety, especially as they uh see it defined by Marx. Let's listen to this. They're responding to a thing here that says it is an ancient Welsh term referring to manufacturing. They just wanted to take a special word for their followers instead of just saying normal saying pro like a normal person. Okay, and then let's uh this is uh Green Ansend's response to this.
SPEAKER_02Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. And wrong. That's that's five wrongs-ish in this one comment. Crazy word. I'm gonna address all of them because I'm just like that devoted to the Gwythkin. Okay, devoted to all you poogie bears. So, first off, most importantly, Gwythkin and proletariat, or prol for short, are not equivalent, not even a little bit. So because we're in leftist spaces, I'm gonna assume we're working off of Marx's definition of proletariat, which is a little bit different than his like original conception, but that's okay. Uh Marx defined proletariat as uh the class of modern wage laborers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labor power in order to live. In short, it just means in order to be proletariat, you A, do not own the means of production, uh, and B, uh have to sell your wage labor in order to live. That's what it means to be proletary, at least according to Karl Marx. Now, Gwytkin. Gwytkin refers to anybody who contributes to society, whether it is economically or socially. Or at least that's the modern conception of that word. So in order to be a Gwytkin, it doesn't matter if you have the ability or capacity to work, it doesn't matter if you sell your wage labor in order to live, it doesn't matter if you're part of the modern-day class of wage laborers, it doesn't. Our definition includes people with physical and mental disabilities insofar that they can't work. It includes children, it includes the elderly. Proletariat does not, or at least that's not like the classical definition of proletariat. Second of all, uh guytkin is like two words kind of pushed together. Uh the the original Welsh word is gwith, which means to work or of working, right? That's kind of the like direct translation. And gin, which means former, right? G-Y-N former. So we're saying we are post-work. We're trying to get past this idea of like we are laborers. Yeah, I know. We're trying to bring in humanity into the definition of the class structure in which we are a part of. Second of all, it's not ancient. Right? Even a little bit. Like the original uh Celtic word obviously goes way, way back. Um, but like the actual word gwaieth only goes about uh uh goes back to about uh uh uh the 15th century. So that's like six centuries ago. It's not it's not ancient, right? But semantic semantics, right? Semantic semantics. It's not about our followers, right? Like even a little bit. Almost all people are Gwythkin. The other two classes are Gif You and Cypho Three, but we can go back into that another time. So yeah.
SPEAKER_03You and Uma Thurman. Okay, so so w did she say motherfucking Sephiroth? Something like that, yeah.
SPEAKER_01Bro, is this Lord of the Rings? What is this? So goofy too. I mean, historically speaking, the revolutions, uh proletarian revolutions that have occurred, of course, are led by the proletariat, but the masses, the general masses take part in that, whether they are elderly or kids or uh or unemployed, um, peasants, whatever it may be. So, um, we're you know, we're not excluding anyone from the revolution.
SPEAKER_03Right. So, yeah, this is another fal false dichotomy that is sort of like a what they see as a definitional gacha, because while there was a strict uh definition for who was the proletariat, it does not indicate that everybody else would be left by the wayside. You know, who does suggest that is most anarchists. Yeah, right. They're like, okay, because I I know some of these leftoid anarchists want to think that they are the only anarchists, but every ANCAP is an anarchist. And I gotta say, people say, oh, they're not really anarchists. I'm like, I can't tell the difference. What do you mean? They're they want the same goal. They're trying to destroy the state because they want a private military force and they want company towns. And and unfortunately, anarchists have to contend with the fact that anarcho-capitalists exist. There are those people. And they're fundamentally much more, they have they're fundamentally much more capable of enacting what they want than you are. So unfortunately, you have to contend with those anarchoids, and guess what? The disabled are gonna be the first to go. If they have their way, disabled people are gonna go into camps. Yeah, absolutely. Now we have this post dovetailing right into that, where uh I have a note here that says Marx is reactionary because he didn't deconstruct race plus ableism. Let's give this a listen, and then I'm sure Cappy will have some stuff to say about this. Oh, we don't even have to listen to this one. Okay, in this quote, so it's basically so in this post they say Marx was an old white man in the late 1800s who did nothing to deconstruct racism plus ableism. The basis of his theory cannot be liberatory. In fact, his very name is Reactionary. And then in the caption it says, I don't even like the word reactionary. I guess you wouldn't, but you gotta know your audience. Am I right? Cappy, what do you think about this?
SPEAKER_01Um, well, I I I think, see, it's it's interesting because there have been a lot of um uh black Marxists, for instance, and uh black socialists and communists such as Kwame Tore, who pushes back against this idea that Marxism is Eurocentric and stuff like that. But I'd like to share a quote from Marx himself. Uh Marx once said, I quote, labor in the white skin can never free itself as long as labor in the black skin is branded. So obviously, um, you know, it it's to act like racism wasn't a thought in Marx's mind at all is is can I mean just fucking read Marx and and he mentions it more than that. Um he has a whole book on on the uh civil war in America uh and stuff like that. Uh he was very happy uh that the uh you know that that's that slavery was ended in the US. You know, I don't um Green turns Marx into a fucking monster.
SPEAKER_03Not only that, I think that what people don't get is I would say even in Karl Marx's time, the disabled were probably not probably mu the mentally disabled, but I feel like there was more of a social structure to take care of the disabled during his time than there is now in late-stage monopoly capitalism. There may have been.
SPEAKER_01So obviously all you know, I I mean, look at Marxism in general. Where did all of the proletarian revolutions occur? In the global south. So obviously they didn't find it to be Eurocentric. In the areas where it may have been, they they updated it because Marxism is a living, breathing science. It's not a dogma.
SPEAKER_03Well, the successful revolutions happen in the in the global south. Yeah, yeah. There were very many attempts by westoids. It's just the only the only the the Prussian variety of westoids seem to work. I don't know, are Prussians westoids? Prussians? Sort of, yeah, a little bit, maybe some of them.
SPEAKER_01I I don't know.
SPEAKER_03I I guess. Yeah, good question, huh? Kind of betweens? Yeah, they're sort of they're they're westoid adjacent, they're Eestoids. I don't know. You know, I don't I don't know about that one. Um yeah, I forget what I was gonna say with that. Oh, uh as far as you said uh that Karl Marx didn't touch upon very many things, I would also like to say that he didn't touch upon kids, which which mar uh is a marked distinction from the Epstein class that we have running society today. Another point in his favor. Um okay, so let's see here. So this next one here cops, ice, and prisons only exist to protect state interests, so being anti those necessitate the position of being anti-state. We're cooking Cappy. Here's the next one.
SPEAKER_02There are elements and institutions that states have to have in order to function, at least in the modern world. Things like police and jails and ice, immigration services, all of these things you necessarily have to have if you have a state for any amount of time. So if you're anti-cop, if you're anti-prison, if you're anti-ICE, then you're anti-state.
SPEAKER_03But the problem is police officers exist in China, they exist in the USSR, and they exist in the DPRK.
SPEAKER_01Yes. Be yeah, because they have a fundament. So here's the thing, uh what what what what she's missing. There is a social character and a class character to uh to uh jails and police and stuff like that. Um they're very much different in a revolutionary society than they are in a capitalist society.
SPEAKER_03Right, and I do agree that in uh the American capitalistic context that these institutions and organism the organs or uh arms of the state do serve to protect the bourgeoisie, class interests, and private property and all that. I think that's fair. Of course. Yeah, I think it's a fair criticism, yeah. And yes, being anti those things domestically in the US, this is sort of like a an obvious position for an Americanoid, westoid, someone safe in the Imperial Corps to make, right? And not realizing that other societies are fundamentally different and yet have those, they do have people watching the border. They do have people patrolling the streets to make sure rapists aren't around.
SPEAKER_01Or whatever. Well, that's the thing, is that um uh prisons and police in a socialist society are are to actually protect the people. The the interests of the people are at their heart. They're not protecting private property, they're not protecting a bourgeoisie. They're they're essentially, you know, facilitating a society and protecting the revolution and so on and so forth.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, and I recall seeing that uh the uh police officers, the the beat cops, the street cops in the USSR were particularly beloved.
SPEAKER_01People like really enjoyed them. Yes, and I and some some um uh like uh Pat Sloan referred to them as the militia, not right it it there is a distinction. Uh but also same with the prisons. The prisons were were for reforming and socializing people to try and turn them into active members of society so that they wouldn't commit crimes, so that they could build a life. And that's why uh the Soviet Union went through leaps and bounds to make sure that prisons were fundamentally different than capitalist ones. You had prisoner self-governance, you had um education programs where you could get trained in a certain trade and and get a diploma, and then they'd hook you up with job opportunities when you were going to get out and stuff like that. Um it it was a and it was far different than than the way capitalist prisons work.
SPEAKER_03And and it's not just capitalist prisons, it's it's the radical Christian core of America. This was a Christian nation, and the idea of of rehabilitation up until the mid-20th century was one of spiritual, it was spiritual rehabilitation. They like there was prisons like in the American South that would literally put you in a hole in the ground until they thought you were saved, until you like, you know, went, you know, uh beg beg Jesus for forgiveness and stuff. They're literally talking about spiritual rehabilitation.
SPEAKER_01Yes. Yeah. And the thing the thing is too, another part where it departs is the Soviet Union did not want you to be trapped in a cycle of committing crime, going to prison, committing crime, going to prison, right? The the US doesn't care if you're in a they the the prisons here create that cycle themselves.
SPEAKER_03And inasmuch as they do have rehabilitation programs in America, it's like holding up a candle to the sun, the systemic things that are going to keep you from raising those uh meritocratic chains from, you know, emancipating you or whatever, you were still, it does they do whatever they can to keep keep you down, in including like when you get out of prison and on parole, people in public housing can't have people on parole there, so they split the family up. There are so many things that that negate the sort of rehabilitative programs that American institutions have because the sickness is systemic. Yes. Yeah. Okay, and then also another point on this thing that I would like to say is not every country has an ICE. Not every country has a paramilitary border thing that operates in and throughout the country. You know what I mean? They don't have that. Very many countries have a border patrol, but I think some of the uh and in fact, uh ICE is a new uh is a new thing itself. And it there aren't many countries that have analogs to what ICE is, effectively, which is like militarized immigration police. Yes, essentially the Gestapo. Okay, so let's see here. They say anarchism isn't lawlessness, and I put in parenthetically, isn't it definitionally, though? Like it is. You reject anything that would constitute what you describe as a law, and in as much as you don't, it's just because you're calling your vest your your organ of governmental power a thing by another name. Oh, these aren't Supreme Courts, these are the people's court.
SPEAKER_01This, you know, this isn't this, it's that. I think the difference is that anarchists, right, instead of having a state to deal with stuff like that, they think that the neighborhood will do it. Oh, some guy uh commits some heinous act against a woman in this neighborhood. Well, the people in that neighborhood will drive him out. And it's like, that's good, you're just gonna drive him into another neighborhood. You know what I mean?
SPEAKER_03Yeah, they there's there's they are fundamentally unable to answer problems like rapists or pedophiles. I thought prison abolitionists had bad arguments in that regard, but it's like anarchists take the cake. They're like, we'll just g kick him out. So you're just going to sweep pedophiles into another what do you, the Catholic Church? Yeah. You're gonna do a March of the Lemmings? Like, what do you mean? But we won't get into the the rapist abolitionist thing here. That's a kind of a side conversation we're having. What is this? Uh so let me get into this. Anarchism isn't lawlessness, isn't it definitionally, and private prisons only exist to protect the monopoly of violence against anti-state actors who I think that they were primarily talking about anarchists, along with ICE and the police. So this is uh this is going back into uh okay, and then this comment here on this post to which a Green Anson is replying, this is black and white thinking, abolition of current system does not mean anarchy and lawlessness. Obviously, this is all key architecture to a society, but it doesn't have to be fascism or anarchy, binaries like that. Who knows what the rest of this comment is? Let's listen.
SPEAKER_02Ignore that I changed my clothes. I am eating pasta, and it was just too much white, and I felt unsafe. But, anyways, uh, when it comes to the state, uh these are just necessary infrastructure that has to exist in order for it to protect its monopoly on violence. No one's saying the only two alternatives are fascism or anarchy. It's not what we're talking about. Uh, and second off, anarchy is not even equitable to lawlessness. That is anti-anarchist propaganda that you've been spoon fed your entire life. The necessity of prisons exists under a state because you uh a state necessarily has to be able to prevent its anti-state actors from acting. That's the purpose of prisons. It's not some moral punishment for like evil wrongdoers, right? No, no, no. It's just anybody who rebels against the fucking state, you know, in any meaningful way. And this isn't even just the anarchist conception of what prisons are. Like I fully, like, I fully recommend that you just look it up, look on fucking Wikipedia, look on, look on literally everywhere. It's just a facility facility with the abject purpose of preventing anti-state actors from operating within society. Immigration services also necessarily has to exist. Otherwise, you can't uh have full control over the citizens of your particular area if they're just allowed to go come and go wherever they please. Same thing with the cops, obviously, enforcement of the rules and laws within society. Like this is just necessary infrastructure that has to exist in order for the state to control its monopoly on violence.
SPEAKER_03Okay, Cappy, what do you what do you think about this?
SPEAKER_01Well, I mean, I think that right, um I think that it's both. Of course, um prisons they want to they want to arrest and suppress anti-state actors, um, but also they do put people who commit murders and rapes in jail, right? So it's it is both.
SPEAKER_03Um Right, and not only that, it's people who mess the money up. It's not just anti-state actors. This is sort of like reductive. So if you were going to say, if you were going to say that anybody who messes up someone's money is messing up capitalism and uh error goes an anti-state actor, that's one thing, but they didn't they're not even like really making that distinction. They're just sort of saying, so is prison just filled with activists? I don't understand the argument that they're making.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I I'm not sure. And again, it's missing all of the nuance that these things are functionally different in a dictatorship of the proletariat, which is important. We're talking about two separate things. If we're talking about prisons and cops in a dictatorship of the proletariat or a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, they're two different things.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, it's weird how these anarchoids want to cancel everybody online unless they're like a pedophile or a rapist, at which point they'll do nothing. Yeah. Or or they're also inferring that what they will do is have an ad hoc kangaroo court that will arbitrarily uh do like a military tribunal where someone is instantly put down upon being accused of something. I don't even know under which what what mandate would there be for a judge or a jury? And I've seen convoluted things like ad hoc juries that get formated by people's councils, and I guess they have stuff.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. Well, um, I don't know. The these arguments are extremely disingenuous in my opinion. I just um I don't know, it's it's really reaching. You know what I mean?
SPEAKER_03Uh let's see here. So let's listen to another one of these that you have here.
SPEAKER_02Using the state as a tool for liberation really doesn't make any sense when you think about it. Like to begin really simply, saying that the state is a tool of class oppression isn't necessarily wrong. Like, we can rock with that. We can rock with that definition. It's fine. Like for this video, we'll just assume Marxist-Leninism, Marxism, dialectical materialism, we'll assume all of it. I have no problem with that. The state throughout all its known history has been used by the owning class to oppress that of the working class, the minority class over the majority class. And under Marxist-Leninist theory, the theory is that we take over the state and use it as the majority of the proletariat to oppress that of the minority bourgeoisie. But I think it's silly to think that we can just swap those two classes interchangeably, like as if all classes are born equal. You know what I mean? Like the proletariat class has foundational, fundamental differences into that of the bourgeois, right? Like we can just talk about in terms of population, the majority percent of the minority, that of the working power, the labor that one class is able to put in that the other isn't, the amount that they like foundationally operate in. So when the owning class is designing a state, uh, they're designing this perfect tool to oppress that of the working class, they're going to specify it to their needs, right? To put ourselves in the shoes of the bourgeois for a moment, we wouldn't create a tool that could be used by any class to oppress any other, because then that could theoretically oppress our class of the bourgeois in this instance. No, we're gonna specify it to our needs to oppress specifically that of the proletariat, right? And that's what we see, right? Like within the states, uh it all this power is centralized to a few people. Like in every instance of even Marxist-Leninist projects, but also every other instance of a state, we've always seen that the power is centralized to a few people, of to a few individuals, because it's designed for the bourgeois to oppress the proletariat, not for a class to oppress another class.
SPEAKER_03Okay, I'm gonna cut this off early just so you can respond.
SPEAKER_01Cappy, what do you think about that? There the they have a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes something bourgeois, like what class is classes your relationship to the means of production. The um of course, Marxist states are extremely centralized. They're also more democratic and they involve the broad masses in the political system far more than capitalist democracies. Uh however, it is centralized, but the the people at the top of that centralization, right? The leaders of the country, uh the central committee of the party, whatever, the the the president of the country, the chairman, whatever it may be, uh, they're not bourgeois. They don't own the means of production because the means of production is collectively owned by the state, uh, through unions, through factory committees, and so on and so forth.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, I just saw there was recently like in a national congress of people who weren't party members in China. So they have all like branches of government that are enfranchising people who aren't explicitly party members to participate and have like referendums for like national policy.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. Well, that's both China and the DPRK have uh what we could call a multi-party consultative democracy. They're it that's a type of uh setup where the only rule you know legal ruling party is the Communist Party, uh, but other parties can get seats in the government and consult with the ruling party in order to come to decisions.
SPEAKER_03So they're they are making the Death Star argument. So basically, what they're saying is this is a a false satellite created to shoot a big laser and oppress planets, so therefore it doesn't matter who's at the helm at it, and it seems to be a fundamental mis mischaracterizarization of what a workers uh uh what a state led by the workers and the dictatorship of the proletariat is versus a representative democracy uh helmed by liberal capitalists.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, absolutely, you know, I would recommend that um that Green Anson here reads um Soviet democracy by Pat Sloan. It's a simple book, it's not it's not very long, and it is so insightful. And when you go through that book and and you realize how the Soviet Union functioned, you realize that there has never been a more democratic society in the world. I like it. It's good stuff.
SPEAKER_03Maybe I should maybe maybe I'll break my no-reading policy and I'll give that a uh a perusal.
SPEAKER_01It's like 300 pages, but it it goes by so quick because it's written. I take it back. No, no, hold on. Okay, it's big, big letters, big letters and written in a very um it's it's perfect for working class people. It's it's not dry, it's not boring, it's very simple to understand. Amazing book.
SPEAKER_03Okay, and then let's let maybe let's uh start to wrap this up here. Let's go ahead and look at this one. Revolution is inherently anarchist and uh authoritarians are traitors to it.
SPEAKER_02Revolution is inherently anarchist and authoritarians are traitors to it. Anarchism is either the rejection of superimposed governance or it's the rejection of unjustified hierarchy or authority. Now, what necessarily has to happen during a revolution is the sublimation of the state, of the superimposed governance, of the unjustified hierarchy or authority. Now, what revolution does is it seeks to topple the current state or authority or hierarchy of the current governance. Anarchist takes this logic a step further and dismantles the state body entirely. Now, what authoritarians do is they substitute the head of the current state for another. They do not dismantle any of the power structures which exist under the current state, or at the very least, not the majority. Authoritarians for sublimate the state and then directly work with it. They work against what the revolution was necessarily fighting for in the first place. Anarchists, on the other hand, just continue the same path forward of destroying the state in its entirety.
SPEAKER_01It is so exhausting to listen to. It's bullshit. It's bullshit too. It's complete and utter bullshit. Like all of the places that socialist revolution smashed the former state and built an entirely new one.
SPEAKER_03At which point anarchists persisting and breaking it just become like wreckers. Yeah, yeah. There does in fact exist governments that serve the majority of the people's interests. Absolutely. I think that and they just absolutely it just like vehemently deny that. Do you think these are people with just like an insecure attachment disorder? How would you diagnose these people? What is what is psychologically going on with them? Did their father not hug them? Do were they were they diddled as kids? What's going on with these people?
SPEAKER_01See, I I don't like psychopolitics. I don't like to psychologize because I'm not a psychologist, and i I I just think that it is a lack of understanding of how uh things actually work in the real world the real world. So for instance, it's been clear from the last two videos that they don't understand the the um the historical necessity and development of the state. They just want to be rid of the state. You cannot just arbitrarily abolish the state. There's a reason that the state came into being, and if we wish to get rid of it, we have to get rid of the reasons why the state came into being in the first place, right? You can't just arbitrarily abolish it. It plays a historical role. But yeah, no, this is goofy.
SPEAKER_03It seems like they have PTSD. Right? They were so harmed by capitalistic society they can't look past it. So, like they had a parent that abused them, so therefore they're anti-parent. They can't see the utility of a thing past their own grievances and wounds.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, well, it is very, you know, anarchism to me is very infantile. I mean, in the video before they said that they changed their clothes because they were eating pasta. So are are they telling me that they subjugated themselves to the authority of the red sauce on the pasta?
SPEAKER_03That's not very anarchist. It could be, yeah. I I don't even know how an a I can't even imagine how this anarchist society would run. There'd be pedophiles running around, and they they are against laws protecting people from pedophiles, they're against laws that would protect people from rape, they were against I don't even know how this works so cappy. Like, let's say you're an anarchist and uh ostensibly some sort of abolitionist of police or whatever, because hey, that's that's authoritarian power, right? So what happens if who do you call when say, hey, the my next door neighbor just raped me? Well, that's the thing.
SPEAKER_01What do you even do? It's uh you you you allow the people to handle it themselves, the neighborhood. That's this is a bunch of mobs. This uh uh essentially it is mob rule. Uh this is something that authoritarian? Yeah, well, that's exactly when when she says that revolution is inherently anti-authoritarian, this is crazy, and this is something that you could read. It's like a single page by Engels called On Authority, where he points out that revolution is the most authoritarian thing there is. We're talking about a thing where a portion of the population rises up against the other portion of the population with fucking guns and and cannons to overthrow them and then subjugate them. It's the most authoritarian thing there is.
SPEAKER_03I agree, and that is what we're advocating for right here on this podcast on March 13, 2026, right here where you live. That's what we want you to do. Get the old cannon out.
unknownYeah.
SPEAKER_03So these these these anarchists, do they imagine the revolution was sort of this decentralized mass collective unconscious happening where people just sort of received a message in their dreams, just uh jump up and revolt with no centralized messaging or authority or communications or training or anything else like that? It was just people uh waving torches and pitchforks and collectively in a sort of like a slime mold in a distributed intelligence. Yes, is that how an anarchist revolution works?
SPEAKER_01More of a spontaneous and decentralized revolution, and it still is very violent, right? The the anarchists they just reject Engel's definition of author of authority. Uh or if they don't reject it, then they uh like Green did, they they call it well unjustified authority. We're just against unjustified authority, right? But then the question boils down to what makes uh authority justified or unjustified?
SPEAKER_03Uh whether Karl Marx said it was cool or not.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, usually they end up going with their feelings. It's a vibes-based analysis. Well, what makes it justified is you know, insert my moralistic take here. You know what I mean? Cappy, there's five of these left.
SPEAKER_03I can't get through five more. No, I don't know. I'm done. We're calling it we're calling it one here anymore. We have time. I I I because Cappy, remember, I have to edit this too, so I have to listen to her again. This is torturous. This is gonna be torturously put together. Okay, so and and by the way, we still never figured out what the fuck a centauri is. They are a Centauri, Centauri and anarchocentrist. I have no idea what any of this is. It's all convoluted. There was also, did we see the thing where they also explicitly rejected intersectionality up to like a year ago? We didn't even get that. And now they're talking about the the Gwyth gen. It's they're just a mess, incoherent. They're making it up as they go along, and the only thing that they know is they don't like they don't like communists and they don't like whatever, and they think communists are capitalists, and also that they don't want to abuse their white privilege or don't feel um privileged enough to speak on the Southern Hemisphere, yet they have all kinds of videos shitting on the fucking DPRK. Yeah, completely contradictory. It doesn't make any sense what they're saying. No. And it's it's it's completely like we all know a person like this, like a semantic debate bro, who think that they got you because of how they have misinternalized uh something definitionally, yeah, and therefore are creating sort of like a a piece of sophistry, just a complete definition-based debate. And but they don't understand the definitions even. And completely independently from any historical precedence. Yes. So not only do they not know what the words mean, they don't know why this the historical milieu and context from which the definitions and the reasons those words exist and the reason they were revolutionary, that it's completely uh ancillary to that, and now it's sort of a modern understanding of these words that they're using incorrectly to come to policy and conclusion positions that don't make any sense modernly or even back then. Yeah.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. And it and you know, it it if you're going to debate Marxists, you should probably read Marx a little. Um, like when just in the other video, when they were saying, you know, I don't get it, they want to liberate people by using a state, it's contradictory, and it's like, holy crap, this is exactly what you would understand if you learned about dialectics. Contradictions do exist. You know what I mean? So, like, it's just like pick up a pick pick up a fucking book and you might understand it a little better.
SPEAKER_03Pick up a book that isn't written by an anarchist, number one. Yeah. Okay, Cappy, is there anything else you want to tell these people, these people, these listeners? Uh, we definitely want you guys to go to online leftists at patreon.com, patreon.com slash online leftists. And anywhere that you're hearing this, click the link trees. Uh mine, Cappy's the online leftist one. Click all those things, follow us everywhere. Uh, we do two live streams on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Cappy, is there anything else you want to say to these people?
SPEAKER_01Uh no, no, I think I'm good. I I'm tired after that. I I'm like that wore me out. Yeah, don't talk to cops. I'm like leftists!