Episode 009: The Angloid Khanifesto

Glowie and Capy break down the TikTok creator @khanifesto161, a self-described communizer/leftcom who rejects Marxism-Leninism and actually existing socialist states (AES). The episode explores a series of takes arguing that only “full communism” matters, while all historical socialist projects are dismissed as capitalist or irrelevant.

The conversation also dives into broader debates within leftist spaces, including left communism vs Marxism-Leninism, the role of the state in socialist development, and what socialism actually means in theory and practice.

In this episode we cover:

• The ML -> Hoxhaist -> leftcom pipeline. Dogmatism and anti-revisionism.
• Deng Xiaoping vs Khrushchev and the Sino-Soviet Split.
• Is Marx a prophet sent down by god? 
• Slander against angloids. Why don't angloids wash soap off their dishes? Why don't they like flavor? 
• Spontex: The daddy of leftcoms
• The claim that only “full communism” matters, and that all existing socialist projects (USSR, China, DPRK, etc.) are just capitalism and therefore irrelevant.
• Glowie trying to comprehend the incomprehensible (what leftcoms are even talking about).
• Left communist and communizer arguments against developing the productive forces, industrialization, and poverty reduction don't matter. 
• The idea that anarchists are “more communist” than Marxist-Leninists because they reject the nation-state entirely.
• The claim that if Marxist-Leninists existed in 1871, they would have attacked Marx for criticizing the Paris Commune.
• Broader questions about theory vs practice, historical materialism, and whether communism can be achieved without transitional stages or state power.
• Leftcom vs ML discourse online, including how ultra-left positions often dismiss real-world revolutionary movements.

Follow us:

Online Leftists: Linktree

Globoid: Linktree

Capy: Linktree

Transcript

SPEAKER_02 0:03

Cappy, do we have any new patrons? Yes, we have Jet. Jet Mr. Mr. Garza, yes. And also I think that uh someone someone special deserves a little special shout out.

SPEAKER_01 0:15

Yeah, uh one of our uh Patreons, Jess Jess, uh made it possible for me to get a ring light and a 4K webcam. So thank you, Jess.

SPEAKER_02 0:25

I'm I was just uh feasting my eyes upon this photo you sent over of your new setup, and I gotta say I'm jealous. Look at this. You're like living in the space age. This is like some sort of Chinese space programs uh shuttle or something. This is amazing.

SPEAKER_01 0:38

Yeah. No, it's cool. Yeah, I'm I'm I'm excited. I'm excited for the next stream.

SPEAKER_02 0:43

Yeah, so a lot many people have noticed that uh previously on the live streams for uh patreon.com slash online leftist Tuesdays and Thursdays, where we stream anywhere from an hour, hour and a half, two hours, uh the more uppity chat is the the the shorter the stream g because they need commensurate punishment for their uh disobedience. But uh when they're good it's longer. But during those streams, some people have pointed out that your box, uh your video uh earlier, it looked like a uh a quote unquote rectangular box of sorrow.

SPEAKER_01 1:16

Oh yeah, no, it was atrocious. It looked it looks like an UVU call from 2010.

SPEAKER_02 1:23

Okay, yes, it was definitely uh 2G Skype call. And also uh some people with uh people such as SOCOM noting that it looked like you you were like SpongeBob when he had the suds.

unknown 1:34

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 1:36

Yeah, apparently. Yeah, and does as a big as a big SpongeBob fan, does that feel like some sort of betrayal that that would be weaponized against you in such a way?

SPEAKER_01 1:46

Um a little bit. I'm not offended though. I think I I do love SpongeBob, so to be compared to uh to Spongebob is is is fine with me. Even when he's sick. I do get looking like that when I'm sick.

SPEAKER_02 1:59

It's very interesting to have something weaponized like that against you, something so near and dear to you, which is almost like what almost what left comms do with Marxism.

SPEAKER_01 2:09

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 2:10

No, absolutely, absolutely. And and towards that, towards that line of dialogue, we have a a prime candidate here, somebody that I had first encountered scrolling on TikTok, and I was just like, what is this? Who is this ridiculous person? This little angloid degenerate named Khonifesto. Yeah, I think it's Konifesto. Now, what is the deal with this? Is he Islamic?

SPEAKER_01 2:36

He doesn't seem that cool. I'm not sure. I um obviously they are immigrants to Britain, uh, his family at least. Um I'm not quite sure though what it what he is.

SPEAKER_02 2:46

Um Well generally the KH designation means like con that means like a Muslim, right? It's a name that he's gonna be.

SPEAKER_01 2:55

I never um I never he used to I think he used to have another name. I I used to be mutes with him moots with him like two years ago. I used to comment on my stuff and like my stuff, but back when you were left comm. Well, I was never. Oh, okay. I was never. Uh but a lot of people who became left comms were not left comms. It's this weird we see this weird uh pipeline where people go from being Marxist-Leninists and then they they might play around with Maoism for a bit, but usually they end up at Hosiaism, and then from Hosiaism, you know, they're they're critiquing revisionism, revisionism, and then they end up being left comms. That happens quite frequently.

SPEAKER_02 3:33

Is it almost like the way that people get into like libertarian politics and then they start dabbling in like conspiracies and then maybe like anti-Semitic tropes, and then they sort of circle back from that? They sort of go, Oh, okay, I was just sort of like mentally exploring, and I'm sort of like, e, and then they sort of recess and go back to a more sustainable position. Is that like what the Hosiaism is or the leftcom is? Is that some them sowing their wild oats and doing like the wild what if speculation?

SPEAKER_01 4:06

Yeah, uh, I mean, basically, right, they become almost fanatical, fanatical dogmatists. What what you know, what happens the reason why they become Hosiaists is because they they're they don't like revisionism, right? And it seems that seems logical. You be an anti-revisionist, Marxist, Leninist because revisionism is bad, but um they become very dogmatic, and then they're the only thing that's more dogmatic than a hoxist is a left con.

SPEAKER_02 4:34

It's very interesting. So there was a line of dig uh dialogue, uh there was some discourse in the chat where somebody asked about a specific party. Do you remember this? And I was like, I don't know about them, and they turned out to be anti-revisionist Hoshists.

SPEAKER_01 4:50

Yeah, I forget what party that was. I forget.

SPEAKER_02 4:52

Um APL, something like that. Yeah, was it uh were we talking about it was a blogger that which is like in a very small party, a YouTuber blogger.

SPEAKER_01 5:05

I don't know if we were talking about like espresso uh espresso Stalinists. Yes, which is a blog I happen to like a lot. I think it was that guy, yeah, who's a hojist or whatever. He he yeah, yeah. He's he's he's fucking weird. Some of his shit's good. The blog has some real good shit on it. Like if you want to read about Stalin, that's the place to go. But uh guys you don't want to read about much else.

SPEAKER_02 5:25

Guys, what do Americans think of the APL? Uh Vaughn is the only reason I've ever heard about the APL. Apparently his name is Vaughn.

SPEAKER_01 5:32

Yeah, yep.

SPEAKER_02 5:34

Yeah, so it's the APL. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 5:36

Uh oh, the American Party of Labor.

SPEAKER_02 5:40

Okay.

SPEAKER_01 5:40

That's yeah, okay. I I've met um when I uh you know got to see Grover Fur give a lecture, it was hosted by um the All Marxist Leninist Union at Rutgers University, which is connected to the APL. So I actually have an American Party of Labor like um packet that has like their party um stuff in it and everything.

SPEAKER_02 6:02

That's very interesting. And uh through that dialogue, so they say anti-revisionism. The the reason I asked about that is the anti-revisionism, and it seems to me that anti-revisionism is fine, and that's something that we don't uh we like. Although I would say that the better dialetician we are, the more quote unquote revisionist we will seem to people who dogmatically treat Marx's words like a blueprint and less like a framework, right? Yes. So, but uh to me, branding uh yourself as anti-revisionist is similar to somebody who calls themselves a free thinker. Now we like free thinkers, but it's a red flag when someone says, I'm a free thinker, I identify as such, which means they they usually ascribe to you idiosyncratic beliefs. Yes, yes, I agree. It's like uh, oh, I do my own research. It's like, no, doing your own research is good, but leading every conversation with I do my own research is usually what like a conspiracy theorist that says. Yeah, it's indicative of other problems.

SPEAKER_01 7:07

It's fucking weird and I don't know if redundant is the word, but like, yeah, you're a Marxist-Leninist, you're supposed to be anti-revisionist. That's just how it fucking works. Like, I you know, I don't think it dogmatism's an unfortunate thing because dogmatism it in in a way it's the fault of revisionism that dogmatism, uh, that dogmatic Marxism became so popular because um due to revisionism, these people have swung too far in the opposite direction and they've gone dogmatic, right?

SPEAKER_02 7:38

Can you give me some examples of uh g uh actual uh revisionism?

SPEAKER_01 7:43

Yeah, I mean I think that um that uh Khrushchev, for instance, is a great example of a revisionist, uh, but he's not even like the arch revisionist. Like destalinization was bad, but I you know, again, it maybe some people would disagree, but Khrushchev was still a communist, right? Like I do believe Khrushchev believed in communism, um, and and I think his foreign policy speaks for that. Uh Khrushchev was also vehemently anti-US and anti-West. Someone like Gorbachev, however, Gorbachev was not a communist, right? Right? He was a that's a revisionist, right? He he completely abandoned the core principles of Marxism, the principles that we take as universal. And it wasn't like a question of oh, our material conditions are like this, so we have to do something a little different. And it wasn't theoretically justified uh using Marxism or anything like that. The dude was a capitalist.

SPEAKER_02 8:44

Okay, now with the context and the sort of normalization of uh a successful communist example of using some mechanisms that were previously relegated to capitalism, with how with uh with the ascendancy of China, if we cast a um a retrospective eye on Khrushchev, could we see that he was trying to do some NEP type stuff?

SPEAKER_01 9:13

So, um, I mean, maybe an argument could be made, but the thing is, is that the um Deng Xiaoping coming to power and Khrushchev coming to power were really two completely different things when we start to look into them. Uh Dong Xiaoping said, right, first of all, we should be clear Deng Xiaoping hated Khrushchev, fucking absolutely hated the dude. And Deng Xiaoping um you know said back then, he was quoted as saying, There are little Khrushchevs everywhere. They're everywhere, they're in the party, they're here, they're there, they're out to get us. He hated Khrushchev, right? So Dung was was uh was not a revisionist. Dung put forward the four cardinal principles, which were principles that have to be followed by Communist Party members, things like not abandoning the socialist road, never abandoning the dictatorship of the proletariat, and stuff like that, right? Um so it was it it was sort of uh it was completely different. Uh Dung said himself, we will never do to Mao Zedong what Khrushchev did to Stalin. What caused the Sino-Soviet split? Was it related to that? The Sino-Soviet split occurred after the death of Stalin. Um, and it was l in large part due to the revisionism of the Soviet Union. Um there were definitely some other factors in there. It's it's honestly hard to pick a side on that because although, yeah, revisionism in the Soviet Union was bad, um Mao started to have some really disastrous policies at the time. His three worlds theory, the idea of Soviet social imperialism and stuff like that. Um that wasn't great either. You know what I mean? So um but the Sino-Soviet split was like the worst thing to ever happen to the communist movement.

SPEAKER_02 10:51

Do you think it's out of that fractionated uh international body of communism that weasel weaselly little characters like Kanifesto for spraying into action? The large revisionist missteps that l made everything seem like revisionist, like a cut-and-paste comment that you could give.

SPEAKER_01 11:10

Yeah, I mean, I'm not really sure. I think that uh as far back as people have been considering themselves Marxists, you run into people who uh treat Marxism like he uh or treat Marx like he is a um a prophet sent down by God, and that Marx's works are holy scripture. I think that that's been something that you've seen since before. You know what I mean?

SPEAKER_02 11:32

Now I I have to say, Cappy, uh, in relation to other prophets, I don't know if any other prophet or religious figures texts have been so prescient as Marx's. So if we were to evaluate the actual innate quality and predictive uh prowess of any of these texts, uh religious and or economic, I would have to say that Marx is akin to a prophet. So watch your mouth.

SPEAKER_01 12:00

No, well, hey, I mean I don't necessarily disagree with you. Marx was a very profound thinker and a genius. I mean, the dude uh essentially invented sociology, right? Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 12:10

So sociology is just communism spoken through like liberal nomenclature.

SPEAKER_01 12:15

Yes, and a sociologist is just a uh a communist with a gun.

SPEAKER_02 12:22

Um okay, so let's get so we have this guy here. He's at Conifesto 161. So it's Conifesto uh anti-fascist action, right? That's uh effectively what his handle is. What do we know about this character other than he is a left comm? I see you have a little bit of notes here.

SPEAKER_01 12:40

Yeah, um, well, he considers himself to be a communizer, I think, uh, which is just some left comms aren't communizers, but all communizers are left comms, right? Um he doesn't support AES, he considers all AES actual existing socialist projects to be bourgeois, to be capitalist states. All the former proletarian revolutions were just bourgeois revolutions, right? Um and um basically uh he laughs at at things like the you know when us Marxist-Leninists talk about the need to develop the productive forces or industrialization uh and so on and so forth. Uh we'll get further into those things.

SPEAKER_02 13:20

I so I have some uh notes on here. He's uh disgusting Britbonger. I have that. So I noticed on your last live you got restricted for clowning English people. Yeah, yeah, TikTok does not like Angloid. They they really, really hate that. So I wonder if I wonder if speaking about the disgusting innate qualities of English people are why are English people a protected class when they don't protect any other class?

SPEAKER_01 13:47

Yeah, no, I I it's it I was shocked, but you know.

SPEAKER_02 13:51

Yeah, I think you, me, and Nico have all gotten restrictions on TikTok for clowning on British people.

SPEAKER_01 13:58

Yeah, mine was for harassment and bullying, though. Nico got hate speech.

SPEAKER_02 14:02

Yeah. No, I've definitely gotten, yeah, I've definitely well it says because uh the the rationale for a temporary restriction is usually hate speech or you know, violent rhetoric, and it's you know, uh usually when you're just describing what British people are like. They're like, whoa, whoa, whoa, buddy, whoa, why are you like we understand, but like don't be so accurate. So I have here he's a degenerate angloid, like his probably his father, Spontex. I have that on here. We have English, we have probably has sick degenerate fantasies about the queen. That's a probably a safe bet, right? Um he's objectively and ontologically incorrect about stuff because he spells things with S's instead of the much more proper Z. Because you have a whole letter of the fucking alphabet. How are you gonna voice this alphabet on us with the English language and then not utilize it correctly? Utilize, did you hear the way I pronounce that with the Z? Better.

SPEAKER_01 14:54

Yeah, utilize, yeah.

SPEAKER_02 14:56

Utilize, yeah, yeah, exactly. There's much more utility to Z. Ergo, utilize uh Z are based.

SPEAKER_01 15:05

We should be using Z more, they're cool.

SPEAKER_02 15:07

Yeah, uh he probably sits on to P, of course. I think that is very that is the polite English way to do it. Um, some other ancillary things, and these are more speculative in nature. Um, that he doesn't rinse soap off of dishes and he just lets it dry on there. Have you seen that? Did you see that?

SPEAKER_01 15:24

No, that's a br that's a British thing, right?

SPEAKER_02 15:26

That is a British thing. And and that do you think that is do you think that maybe they have lead in their soap and that is a cumulative thing going on there? I have no idea why anyone would ever fucking do that. That's bizarre. No, they literally wash the dishes and then while they're sudsy, they put them up to dry, and the suds dry on the dish, and they literally will argue that that is the better way to do it. Like it never like I like they don't watch TV shows. They didn't learn just from like like absorbing media. Those are like social cues that you get from like cartoons.

SPEAKER_01 16:04

Do they do that when they wash their hands or bodies in the shower? Do they just put the soap on and then walk out?

SPEAKER_02 16:09

Uh, British people, I don't even think that they can use toilet paper because they're plumbing, they have like these millimeter thick pipes because they're all like uh they've had the same piping and the same plumbing from like medieval times. So I think m in modern day England, I think they're just going back to just throwing their waste out the window. That's fucking wild. Yeah, they're just it's just a complete degenerate island. Everything about it is backwards and perverse. And meanwhile, like how are I don't understand how communizers and left comms are even going to fix their fakes to say anything about us about uh about being revisionist when they have a whole ass royal family to fucking worry about. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 16:53

Literally uh Prince Andrew pedophilia going on. Oh yeah. No, I know, and and you know, the annoying thing is that when I was looking through uh Conifesto's uh TikTok, the majority of his TikToks, like I I swear to God, like it's funny because I've seen people say that MLs have left comm derangement syndrome, but left comms have ML derangement syndrome, which is their only content. Oh, dude, yeah.

SPEAKER_02 17:16

Yeah, that's all they have. Yeah, we can sit there, we have other content. We can sit there and glaze China. We can we have infinite amounts of content. China does something, we celebrate, we pop champagne, yay, China. When they do something, they well, that's it. There's never been a left com victory ever.

SPEAKER_01 17:35

Yeah, it's just crazy to me too, because like even if they disagree with us and think that we're wrong, that's it's weird to hate communists, even if say we are wrong. It's weird to hate a communist for being wrong more than you hate the bourgeoisie. Like, I'm not a huge Hoshia fan. Uh Tito did a bunch of shit that pisses me off, and I would put them above any capitalist in the fucking world. And left com.

SPEAKER_02 17:58

Tito is and hoxious. I don't I'm like neutral to them at best, but like leftcoms are actively wreckers. Yes, yeah. I mean, that's the difference. Uh, another we have a final speculative item here. Do you think he fancies a jack of potato with chuna? With chona. With china probably. Probably most likely, huh? That old geezer loves chona. Yeah, they like now uh what do you think about that? What do you think about the potato and tuna combo? Do you think that that is sort of like part of a caloric and or nutritional deficient d uh di deficiency that would lead to someone like sort of ascribing uh or uh taking up left calm ideology? Do you think this is born out of nutrition and lack thereof?

SPEAKER_01 18:44

I think it's just born out of the fact that they don't have fucking taste buds. Like Jesus Christ put some fucking cheese, bacon, and chives on that shit.

SPEAKER_02 18:51

Yeah. Now the fact that they have poor taste, is that why they're anti-China? Because they're all about flavorful dishes and colorful arrays of food. Yeah. Yeah. That could be. Okay, so we have that. So I think that's a good intro to uh English people and left comms, uh leftcom uh derivatives of them. Uh the whole communizer thing, still don't understand it. I uh literally it's just anarchism with extra steps. I don't even understand what it is they're doing. It's like the most ideological, the most idealistic thing I've ever heard.

SPEAKER_01 19:27

Yeah, it's anarchists who don't want to admit that they're fucking anarchists. They're basically, yeah, they're like ancoms. Right? Yeah. I mean, there are some differences. See, uh Valkyir sent me some articles um on communization theory, and I tried to read multiple articles, and honestly, I'd get like halfway through, and I'm like, this is garbage.

SPEAKER_02 19:50

Honestly, the only thing I know, and I can discern a communizer is when, like, literally, and this is literally true, is when they're low-key calling for color revolution in in socialist states. That is the only way I can tell. Because left comms, they don't even necessarily do that. But with communizers, every single one of them, because it's popularized by Spontex, who's a Euro supremacist liberal, uh, he's I don't even think he's an anarchist. I think he's literally a liberal, right? He's a white supremacist, Euro supremacist, um, regime change stochastic uh adjut proper. That is all he does is literally call for regime change in developing and non-Marxist social experiments like Burkina Faso and um uh the uh uh Iran, Iraq, anywhere the bath party's ever been. He's like low-key fomenting hate and color revolution there.

SPEAKER_01 20:52

Like, bro, why don't you do something about your own fucking government?

SPEAKER_02 20:56

Literally. It seems like they take up the side of Israel whenever they can, oddly enough.

SPEAKER_01 21:02

Yeah, I mean, they'll claim the Israeli working class because they don't have any conception of labor aristocracy or the particular contradictions that come with settler capitalist states rather than non-settler capitalist states.

SPEAKER_02 21:17

Oh, is that because they're British? It very well might be. They've they've been they've been indoctrinated to think that like call colonialism is good and there they're and the settlers there are valid, so they have been sort of proactively preempted from seeing how disgusting Israel is.

SPEAKER_01 21:38

Yeah, I mean, well, Britain invent like was occupying Palestine first, right? Britain also helped invent Israel, so it wouldn't shock me.

SPEAKER_02 21:46

However, but you think that they would be more hardwired because the term terrorism was literally invented to describe Israeli action at after the the bombing of the Prince David Hotel that was targeting British diplomats. Had just finished giving Israel weapons. I actually didn't know that. Yeah, no. Uh and the queen told her dying day referred to Israelis as terrorists. Interesting. Because she oversaw all that. She was like, no, these people you can't trust them. Like literally. This broken clock is right twice a day, right? Yeah. Okay, so let's look. So we have this. What is this first uh TikTok we're gonna look at here?

SPEAKER_01 22:26

Uh yeah, the first so the the first one is is um is kind of goofy. It's it's basically uh it actually is quite shocking because the the this whole thing is just basically him saying he doesn't care about anything that's not you know uh abolishing wage labor, class, and commodity production, right?

SPEAKER_02 22:45

And though and that includes things that are that are going to inevitably lead to the situation's dynamics and conclusions that he wants?

SPEAKER_01 22:52

Yeah, well, yeah, so like uh it in the he makes it very clear in the video. He he's basically like, I don't give a fuck about developing the productive forces or pulling people out of poverty. Okay, let's check this out. Let's see what's up.

SPEAKER_00 23:05

Take for other communists. I don't care that China lifted millions out of poverty. I don't care that the US starts industrialized from a feudal nation very quickly. I don't care about nation-state building. The only thing I care about is the production of communism and the escalation of caste struggle internationally. Have we abolished wage labour? Have we abolished the proletarian condition? Have we abolished caste? Have we abolished the fact that there's a separation from producers from production? Have we abolished commodity production and the law of value? I don't care about this liberal capitalist nation-state building framework. I don't care about socialism in one country and vanguardism if this is all it leads us to do. Why don't we just become social democrats that measure productivity rates, that measure innovations, that measure the quality of life for workers? Why don't we all go live in a Scandinavian country if this is the end goal for communism? And even if it's not the end goal, why do we care about this? How will any of this lead to communism and the production of it? I'm so sick and tired of acting as if Marxism-Leninism is just not the advocacy for social democracy. There's fundamentally zero difference between their project and a Scandinavian country, other than the fact that socialist experiments draped a red flag over their state and called it a workers' one. That's essentially it. Just because your party says that it is communist doesn't mean that it's going to do that in the future. I really hate to break it to you.

SPEAKER_02 24:31

Just an ass and I naive take. First of all, yes, it would be better if you were a social democrat. You're literally an apolitical Brit. Yes, it would be better if England got reduced from if one worker bee got migrated from Imperial ass England to a social democrat state. Yes, that would be a net benefit. And like it's it's literally, I don't care. Abolish work, abolish wage labor, abolish commodity production. Again, we this is we're retreading the same thing, but you like if you do not if you do not build up your productive forces, your country will be overloaded or overran by imperial warlords. If you if you don't do that, if you don't militarize, the US will come and invade you. I don't know how like what do you he literally comes from a warlike colonial former superpower. What does he mean? Why why do these countries all trying to defend themselves and raise their production value? That's so weird coming from a fucking Brit bonger. Brother, we're all still recovering from your fucking nefarious influence.

SPEAKER_01 25:47

Yeah. I I look, so like the thing is, is if he doesn't care about the development of the productive forces, then he doesn't care about like the material uh uh preconditions for abolishing class society. Like you literally you have to develop your productive forces if you're a backwards society. How do you completely abolish all the things that he hates if you're underdeveloped and you you know you're encircled by imperialist countries and you do not have the productive capacity to do so? It's impossible.

SPEAKER_02 26:19

Let's let's take a different tact on this because I literally don't understand. What does the left com want? Okay, so they have a blood, they have a they have a bloodless revolution, they have uh they talk, they they encourage everyone and they they do these they do they make a astounding argument and everyone decides to put down their weapons and not ever interfere with their socialist project, right? That's number one. That's what it presupposes, right? Yes, they're not industrializing, they're not militarizing, they're not building up their productive forces, they're not doing anything. What so he's talking about the abolition of wage labor, of um the um the the the value form, the getting rid of work, right? Yeah, and immediately at one stroke. Right. No transitional stuff. So how no, but how does that work? So in a left comm society, um so there's no money.

SPEAKER_01 27:17

Yeah, well, I mean, right, even Marx, which again, through practice, because practice has a fucking unity with theory, we've we've come, you know, we we've come to understand that it it it hasn't worked out exactly like Marx thought. But even you know, Marx thought that um there would be a a transitional period between capitalism and the first phase of communism, and by the time you reach the first phase of communism, what we call socialism, um money would no longer exist. No, they don't care about that. No, no, no, no.

SPEAKER_02 27:44

They're not Marxist in that way. They don't care about the first phase, they don't care about stages, they don't care about anything else like that.

SPEAKER_01 27:51

They do, they have an idealized uh version in their heads that they want to write transitional.

SPEAKER_02 27:56

If you are not abolishing, Cappy, you're not listening to me. They have not abolished wages. So therefore, it's not communist. So, like honestly, what they want is to come to a comp okay, so let's not, I'm trying to throw extras on it. So they manage to get some land and they somehow convince no one to invade them, and they somehow uh like these Britbongers think that they sunk can somehow defend it, or maybe that's off the table, or they're just LARPing and imagining, well, once everyone in the world doesn't become violent, then I'm gonna be able to do what I want, like a bullied kid who can't move once once everyone stops being mean, I'll be able to build the sandcastle without people stomping on it. Is that what they're talking about? And in that situation, are they talking about how would a left calm society work? Like, do people just are they just assigned tasks and they go and do those for no money because there's no wages out of a like a social contract that everyone is relegated to do X amount of tasks and then they they live in a house for free and they go to the store and there's no overweight people that eat more than other people, so it's equitable. Uh like how does that work? Is there like a credit system for food, or how do they make sure that the some people who were uh have a propensity for overconsumption or hoarding do they have countervailing things for that? Is it a credit system? How does it work?

SPEAKER_01 29:25

Um, I'm not sure. I'm not sure. It's never really explained. However, I do think a lot of the things you just mentioned are feasible after um generations of having no no right now.

SPEAKER_02 29:38

No, like what do they want? I mean, it's no no, but what what does it look like right now? This is what I'm saying. They're not happy until this happens and no community. Well, that's why I can't answer the question because what do they want right now? What do they want right now? What does their society look like?

SPEAKER_01 29:53

It's I don't know, it's something that only exists in an ideal world.

SPEAKER_02 29:57

Okay. So there's no wage, there's no labor, every there's no commodity production, so there's no trade with other countries.

SPEAKER_01 30:06

They're jumping to the end goal.

SPEAKER_02 30:08

Well, hold on. At one stock. So they draw a circle around a border uh border and there's no commodity production, I ear go no trade. They can't trade with any other country, so they uh they only have goods and services that are derivative of their own resource extraction, which is done for no cost.

SPEAKER_01 30:27

Well, no, because they think that the revolution will be international. Okay. And simultaneous, right? It will be the whole proletariat of the whole world united. That's why they don't believe in socialism in one country. They think that it will be uh the the international proletariat at once, simultaneously rising up and overthrowing capitalism.

SPEAKER_02 30:48

Is there no Left Comm Manifesto? There's no worldview, there's no like this is how it's going to do for as much as they dogmatically read Marx like to be honest, it honestly seems like they're hyper-focused. They they do seem to be hyper-focused on the end goal and not the iterative steps how he saw it unfolding.

SPEAKER_01 31:08

Well, that that's the thing. So people like me and you consider the whole process from the beginning of the proletarian revolution to the end goal as the movement of communism.

SPEAKER_02 31:18

Yes, I consider I consider trying to make a baby fucking. It starts when you start fucking, yeah.

unknown 31:24

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 31:25

Yeah. Like, hey, babe, we should have a baby, and then you start having sex, and they go, Oh, stupid, they think that having a baby is having sex. It's like, brother, you that's the end result. This is how it starts. We have to fucking, we have to whine and dine a little bit. I gotta take her out for a date and maybe, you know, get a couple cocktails in us and fucking light some candles. We have to set the stage for this thing to happen.

SPEAKER_01 31:49

Well, that's yeah, like this video kind of right, nothing counts if it's not full communism.

SPEAKER_02 31:56

Yeah, and he doesn't he just doesn't care. He doesn't care. And yeah, if we were gonna do that, why don't we be a social democrat? Okay, are you a social democrat?

SPEAKER_01 32:05

No. Okay. I mean, look that the that beginning part pissed me off because um, I mean, he doesn't care about po you know poverty reduction, development, industrialization. Like uh, like maybe he just takes those things for granted because he's from an advanced economy, but those of us who you know grew up in poverty or live in poverty like in New Jersey, you know yeah, absolutely. Uh you know, I I grew up with a a single mother in in a impoverished area on food stamps, like yeah, seems like a means for Jersey, not posh Britain, not posh London town with fancy kings and queens around in their gilded carriages. Yeah, but you know how enticing that is to impoverished people? When I when I tell my mom about China and I show her 800 million people have been pulled out of extreme poverty in in the last 40 years, her eyes light up, right? It's it's very enticing. And to people from underdeveloped countries that have no productive capacity, of course, industrialization and developing the productive forces is enticing. They're underdeveloped.

SPEAKER_02 33:10

And I think that, like, for instance, even like um that one I what draws to mind is that the you've read that article, I'm sure, the Black Bolshevik, uh Black Bolshevik uh or whatever.

SPEAKER_01 33:23

Yeah, Harry Haywood.

SPEAKER_02 33:24

I I well I read an article necessarily, it may have been developed or a series of his writings. Harry Haywood, yeah, and he was talking about why they're not trots. And it was because he's like, We were fucking inspired by the USSR. Actually, existing socialism is the best adjutrop towards it being a working model. Like, I don't understand watching China spend what two trillion dollars or whatever it was, a trillion dollars on a continental wide or a full China-wide um a bullet train system that could fly from Chicago to uh or that could travel from Chicago to Atlanta effectively in a half hour's time, where even if you and I uh uh got first class tickets on a plane without stops, that's a two and a half hour trip. China can now do that in a half hour for what I imagine is very affordable daily transit rates.

SPEAKER_01 34:22

Yeah, it makes people's lives better. That's why left comms have lost the plot. They forgot why they became Marxists in the first place. They don't care about people.

SPEAKER_02 34:30

They uh it it it they're just chasing an ideal. They're like literally it and I hate that these words get uh bassed around so much, but this is a true idealist.

SPEAKER_01 34:40

No, absolutely it l legitimately is. Um, and like it like what you you mentioned this before though, that like right, and Marx says this himself that communism is not like a static ideal we impress on reality, right? That that is to say that like we have to conform our ideals, our ideology to material reality, right? We have to subjugate ourselves to our material conditions. We cannot just force something um onto onto material reality. That this right, the whole point of Marxism is to analyze your conditions and build something that works within those conditions to try and change the world. It's a methodology and a form of analysis that we can use in order to create a a a new world.

SPEAKER_02 35:29

Do they do you think he honestly thinks that China is not closer to implementing communism than all of the left comms put together in England? Like uh does like does he think that they are no closer to like honestly to implementing like the end goals or the lower form of communism?

SPEAKER_01 35:49

Yeah, no, I do believe that he he he um does he just they're just bourgeois, it's not communism. But the thing is too, is that like whereas like Maoists will consider like the Mao era to at least be communist, most communizers and left comms don't even think it was then. China has been a capitalist state since 1949, according to them.

SPEAKER_02 36:11

Bizarre. Okay, what else do we have here? That's just a very, very asinine video. Let's see what the number two.

SPEAKER_01 36:17

Anarchists are more communists than MLs because they reject the nation state outright. Okay.

SPEAKER_02 36:25

It's all gonna be more of the same, huh?

SPEAKER_00 36:27

There's a lot of Marxist Leninists bashing anarchists on this app, and let me just say one thing. I'm not an anarchist personally, I don't agree with a lot of anarchists that are platformists necessarily. Um, but let me just say one thing. On the disagreement on China or nation states, a lot of these anarchists are fucking correct. They're more communist than some of you Marxists out here. I'm not gonna lie. So every time there's a communist creator in here that's an MO that's talking about fuck anarchists, but it's very rich to me for them to essentially criticize anarchists that want to abolish the nation state whilst as Marxists wanting to affirm the nation state. I don't know, man. Some of these anarchists are more communist than some of you MOs, and I don't think that's controversial.

SPEAKER_02 37:08

It's extremely controversial, it's asinine. You're an anarchist. Yeah. You're literally an anarchist. That's why you that's what it is. It's like, can't we just get to the utopian part where everybody just high-fives each other and no one no one gets paid a wage? Uh uh anarchists are great, they abolish everything. Isn't that fantastic? Yeah, and then they leave themselves wholly open to new waves of warlords. Like, what are you talking about?

SPEAKER_01 37:33

Um I was saying that this is a mischaracterization because I feel like Canifesto acts like Marxist-Leninists' ultimate, you know, like absolute idea is a society with a state, but it's not. We all we all understand that the state did not always exist and it will not always exist, but we we asked the question, right, how do you get to that point under real historical conditions? How do we actually go from a society with a state to a stateless one, right? And what we have found is that through practice is that you have to build a really strong state in order to eventually get rid of the state. It's a contradiction. But that's that's that that's what makes it dialectical, right? Like there, like, of course it's a contradiction. Um and I don't think he can fathom that.

SPEAKER_02 38:21

I I honestly, I just really I think that this is honestly bizarre because it is an idea that can only come from a land ruled by a decadent inbred pedophile family that just got done colonizing the world, just safe in their tiny reclusive echo chamber. Yeah, yeah. It really only can, and that just ignores the cries of the proletariat and admonishes all of them forming Marxist-Leninist parties toward seizing power to stop the avarice of westoid countries like the one where this guy is uh running his mouth from.

SPEAKER_01 39:06

Yeah, no, absolutely. And uh, did he say he said in this like twice, abolishing the state, right? He did say that. Marx never ever said the state could be abolished. He never said that because from Marx up through Stalin, up through um Mao and Dung, every communist believed in the withering away of the state, that once the conditions that brought the state into being were done away with, that the state would wither away. In fact, I have a very short quote from Engels in Socialism, Utopian, and Scientific, he said, I quote, the state is not abolished, it dies out. So you're not even right, like he's not even true to Marxism. If he was a true left com and dogmatist, he would he should understand that, right?

SPEAKER_02 39:52

But that's not very often the case. Like fundamentalists are way more severe than like Jesus would have been. They are way more, they're more hateful, they're more stringent, they're more reductive, uh, they're more warlike, they're more evil. The a lot of uh is similarly, are the left com similar are they they're like falsely dogmatic, seemingly dogmatic fundamentalists who fundamentally misunderstand the the quote unquote wisdom of their prophet.

SPEAKER_01 40:23

Yeah. Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. And in fact, I should mention Conifesto criticizes Engels all the time. He thinks Engels had a poor understanding of dialectics. A lot of left comms don't like Engels. Um, and I think it's because Engels has some fire shit to say, and it doesn't conform to the the the mischaracterization that they want to put onto Marx. It it it debunks their mischaracterizations, and so they have to go, oh no, Engels just he didn't understand.

SPEAKER_02 40:54

Yeah, um I don't know. So does that mean since Engels sort of like co-wrote capital, basically, right? At the end, he sort of uh conformed it and like um structurized it towards the end, right? The end of the volumes, does that mean they reject cap uh aspects of capital?

SPEAKER_01 41:13

I'm not sure if they do that, but I know that Conifesto rejects anti-dering, which is a fantastic work on dialectical materialism uh by Engels. Uh a lot of them reject uh on authority.

SPEAKER_02 41:26

Um there are a few other Engels works that that uh is the video in in where he says that uh Marx didn't even tell uh the people who talk about being in dialectical materialism are fun fundamentally wrong because Marx only used it to analyze capital specifically. He only used it for economic analysis.

SPEAKER_01 41:48

Did Canifesto say that?

SPEAKER_02 41:50

Yeah. There's another video of Canifesto. Yeah, it's do you want me to find it real quick? It's pretty obnoxious. Uh do do do do do. It's one of these. 328, 324. I don't I don't care. We'll just skip to okay. Let's go to the third video. Yeah, I I can't find it. But yeah, no, he definitely posted that. Okay, this third one, if MLs existed in 1871, they would have called Marx an ultra-left petit bourgeois labor aristocrat for criticizing the Paris Commune. Okay. Ah. Oh yeah.

SPEAKER_01 42:29

This one's words on his screen.

SPEAKER_02 42:30

So hey Marx, where's uh where is your revolution where you Ababul Shop? This is first of all, you know my uh take on this. Yeah, fuck Marx. Like yeah, Marx, like yeah, Marx was wrong about a lot of shit. I like Lenin and Stalin and Mao and Xi Jinping way more. I like Dong way more than Marx. They actually did stuff.

SPEAKER_01 42:54

You just said Marx was a prophet earlier.

SPEAKER_02 42:56

Well, okay. Compared to Jesus.

SPEAKER_01 42:59

I know that it's okay.

SPEAKER_02 43:01

So it's like this it's like Jesus and then Marx over him, and then every leader of an actual existing social state is above Marx. Because they actually applied stuff in actual material conditions and not just like we're doing world bread.

SPEAKER_01 43:18

Yes, the practice is fucking important. Um ultimately, though, right? That bottom part is crit is a jab of people like us because you know we'll hear some shit being talked about China and we'll be like, yo, you you left comms have never had a revolution. Like, who the fuck are you to criticize, right? So that's why he's saying that. But ultimately, I thought this this TikTok was goofy because no, we wouldn't call Marx a left comm armchair labor aristocrat uh for critiquing the uh Paris Commune, because Marx was correct to critique it. But what I think is funny is that the critique that Marx had is definitely something I don't think Conifesto would agree with, because Marx and Engels critiqued the Paris Commune for not utilizing centralization. and authority enough. Right.

unknown 44:02

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 44:03

It doesn't, it's adine on the face of it. And not only that, Marx supported almost all forms of socialist revolutions, even if he felt they were utopian.

SPEAKER_01 44:12

He would critique it, but yes, he he even with like the um the uh peasant rebel uh the peasant rebels in Russia, the Narodniks, um he exchanged letters with them and and talked very highly of them. He critiqued them where he thought they were wrong, but he didn't just reject them. He wasn't a wrecker. No, not at not at all. But also I wanted to point out this is this video at least to me it's a false equivalence because it's assuming that Marx's critique of the commune is you know equals modern left com critiques of socialist states, which it doesn't.

SPEAKER_02 44:49

Like Yeah no if anything it the he Marx mirrors what a modern ML would say about failed probably should have gotten nukes. Should have developed exactly should have fucking you fucked up you like too many anarchists are talking in your ear had you all fucked up yes no the like they turn Marx into the exact type of person that Marx would have criticized ruthlessly. It and do you think how much of this again like I have yet to see a left com above age 30. Spontex may be the oldest one I've seen but and he's like gee I think I'm pretty sure Spontex is just a liberal like at the end of the day that's he all he wants is like he all he does is a cry bully who just calls out and whenever the State Department targets a country he joins the chorus and does stochastic regime change adjutprop on his yeah. Let me let me also chime in and why the Burkina Fa Burkinabe people suck. No one pulled your string shut up Angloid you don't need to fucking every time oh yes Hillary Clinton pro no I don't agree with her rationale but I do agree a Godday is a problem. He would have been there singing singing the praises of everybody deposing the Bath Party Pan Africanism he would have uh if the state took action against the Marxist uh the Black Panther Party if he had been alive he would have cheered them on yes I think that some of their racial arguments are actually problematic. He would have cheered on the dissolution of every Marxist Leninist group. Well some of these people do cheer on the you know what I mean so he does that's what I'm saying no but he does if he had been around then we would have seen what a fucking sucker he is but in the modern day context because the legend building for uh Abraham Terori is is in the process so we we see how he's reacting in real time to actually existing socialist projects or non-Marxist socialist projects we see how he's low-key raising the gain and the volume on stochastic regime change things for non-utop non-utopian socialist project i.e anybody trying to actually implement anything in the absence of a worldwide synchronicity mass global change of heart along the global collective subconscious right he's waiting for some magical philosophical revolution to happen in the absence of that anything that is done is perverse.

SPEAKER_01 47:22

Yeah oh like yeah I mean that's so it's it's it's not even just Canifesto it's all of them if it's not if it's not full communism now right this sort of weird absolutist um position then it doesn't matter who cares about it and and I have never really articulate I've never heard them it they seem reactionary in that it's only negative against MLs.

SPEAKER_02 47:45

I've never heard them positively state what a communist country would look like uh look like and they say refer to Marx and then I go read Marx and I'm like buddy fucking angles and Marx they they they say first of all if you don't have one yet get a fucking bourgeoisie democracy like I don't understand if you read principles he's like first of all if you don't even have one of those yet depose the feudalists and get a bourgeois democracy like how do left comes even answer that part yeah I mean um so like we go back to the you have to have sex to have a baby yes right so if communists implement what would otherwise be described as a bourgeois democracy towards the stated end goal and are working towards hitting the lower phases or the preliminary forms of communism and the lower phase of communism is that not the the process of communism unfurling that's like saying taking a step is not a trip to the store but it's like brother I'm pointed at the store my head's looking at it and I'm walking in that direction I guarantee you I'm gonna end up there.

SPEAKER_01 48:52

Yes absolutely and and if we're viewing communism as a real historical movement right an objective uh an actual like trying to think of a way to phrase it if if com if communism is a historical process that exists objectively right then the what we are seeing right the from 1917 the first successful proletarian revolution and worker state through this whole history of the communist movement that is the real movement there is no like when these people talk about um like someone told me the other day no your you know economic determinism whatever the development of the productive forces is counterintuitive to the quote unquote real movement of communism it's like what is your real movement does it exist in real life in material reality or does your real movement exist in your fucking head only?

SPEAKER_02 49:42

Yeah it's it's it's a it's a hypothetical situation relegated to some future generation. Yeah it's it's so bizarre. So then why why the imperative to wreck movements now? If what you're talking about is utopian and they will admit themselves maybe hundreds if like do they do they recognize that it's like hundreds of years away or it leads me to believe that these people are communists in the way that like someone like literally an anarchist commune is what they want is like but the but they say they don't want that but they do right they seem to be as they seem to be promoting the idea of some breakaway state firewalling itself away from the rest of the world like the forbidden city and then coming like only having a sort of non-wage uh productive forces that are made only for need and not for commodity function where I don't even like I so it's literally a non-starter it's just it's severed from practice it's theory for the sake of theory.

SPEAKER_01 50:52

It's an intellectual exercise theory is a unity with practice if you sever theory from practice it becomes meaningless.

SPEAKER_02 50:59

It like I'm vacillating in myself because it seems like they make arguments as if the their left comm utopian idea of what communism is is is applicable or available right now but then when you hold their feet to the fire they say oh well no many things have to change and the hearts and minds of the world have to change and we have to raise consciousness and do all that which is fine if you're going to do that do that. But for me it seems like he's like denouncing social democracy but it seems like the the the citizenry that grew up in a social democracy is much more likely to not to be not anti-communist they're much more open to those ideas so even as an iterative step towards agit prop towards raising the global consciousness wouldn't actually existing social estates telling people that yes you are communist and we believe in communism be good for international communism yeah well that's that's the thing right how do you change people's hearts and minds by changing their material conditions literally but I I again this guy is safe secure and young naive safe in the imperial core and like honestly confused. That is the thing I do feel like someone like him almost feels like I feel like there's an eminence there's like an emergency into what he's saying where he's almost talking as if a country could do this tomorrow.

SPEAKER_01 52:30

They think that they think that there could be we they think that we produce enough for everybody so if the international proletariat would rise up tomorrow they they do think that they could have it because again in their heads it's it's like it's completely severed from the geopolitical situation that exists the uh internal conditions of various countries around the world like it's severed from everything that actually matters it's completely abstracted from material reality okay do we want to we're at 55 minutes do we want to listen to the fourth one uh the the fourth one I would have so much to say on it's really up to you.

SPEAKER_02 53:08

Oh fuck it no that's it alright I don't I'm tired I like who should we who should we scour uh who should we skewer next time Cappy do you have anybody in mind for the next target? No, I don't we'll have to figure one out.

SPEAKER_01 53:21

Alright everybody that's it Cappy do you have anything else you want to say to these fucking disgusting dish soap laden uh jack of potato with tuna uh eating uh brit bongers that might be listening to this uh grow up um give a fuck about things that aren't the end goal and um stop stop being British yeah stop being british go start doing pushups and start learning Mandarin I don't know what to tell you just fuck off weirdo other than that uh I do want to thank Jess one more time for uh helping me out to to get this stuff it's gonna it's gonna be awesome uh so I appreciate that and uh I guess like normal you know uh don't talk to cops and don't do anything Cappy wouldn't do that's it everybody goodnight leftists