Everybody's never debating communism versus anti-communism and we're starting right now with the communist sides opening statement Thanks so much for being with us brenton and swolateria the floor is all yours Hey folks name is brenton langle. I'm a poet playwright author bring a nominated comic creator author of snow white zombie apocalypse and Most recently Darudey shadow of the people which was just successfully funded on Kickstarter But you can still pre-order it go check that out And swole do you want to introduce yourself and then I'll go into my opening? Okay, I'm not getting that from swole, so I'm gonna go straight on. I'm good. I'm good. Sorry guys. I was muted. I Am a swolateria. I have a small youtube There's a bit of static if you're able to I think your mic might be giving off a little bit of feedback Okay, try this again. That's bad. I I am the swolateria. I have a small youtube channel about 3,000 subscribers Where I do Marxist content. I am an orthodox Marxist aka Trotskyist and I also have a fitness channel as well Great So to stop so to start off tonight. I think what I might do is acknowledge my esteemed opponents I genuinely hope things have been going on well for JF with his fruit trees on his wilderness homestead Which is no doubt a bit difficult to keep running what with the weather and soil conditions and oh, yeah The lack of an additional $25,000 from the late Jeffrey E. Epstein. Yes, that one the one you're all thinking of He's why JF has a career as a YouTube influencer I'd like to acknowledge mr. Malinu who it seems is here after being banned from nearly every mainstream social media company under the Sun from YouTube to PayPal to MailChimp? Congrats on that last one by the way I'm sure that took some doing and if anyone's wondering why please feel free to consult the Southern Poverty Law Center and the anti-defamation League, but I'm compassionate so in deference to those obstacles Might I offer you an egg in this trying time? Like I know you're really really into eggs like like unbelievably so I can assure you They're fresh laid by my chickens just the other day and don't worry the chicken that laid them was white I made sure I know that's like really important to you and by the way, you know kidding aside That's not a joke. I will send you the eggs. Just give me a PO box or something But in the meantime, what in the world have I gotten myself into well It's a debate where I will be discussing communism with a couple of intensely weird people on the internet I wish I could say this was a rare occurrence, but apparently I hate myself and or love ulcers So here we are. I anticipate a lively debate I'm sure at some point Steph bot will get triggered and accused me or my partner of wanting to literally murder him And I expect we'll hear a number of accusations and atrocities thrown around with all the grace poison nuance of a confused bear Rolling its way through a campsite Why? Because conversations about communism scare the absolute beat Jesus out of the out of a very specific type of person exemplified by my two interlocutors So what is communism and why is everyone in the West so frightened of it that they will often jump right into the arms of fascist dill weeds? Well, for the answer, we can look to two places etymology and history Communism is a society based upon the common ownership of property. That's where the comm comes from What is common ownership of property? You ask well to answer that question We must first define property and that brings us to Roman law and one of the founders of political anarchism Pierre Joseph Prudone Who examined the concept in a series of essays titled what is property and what is property? According to Prudone and every socialist who came after him including Marx property is defined as the ability to use abuse or destroy that which is owned for any reason or no reason in short property is a Social relationship between a person and an object between the owner and that which is owned whose reality is rooted in law Human judgment and social custom from this Prudone came to three conclusions The first and most famous being property is theft Which is to say that objectively speaking when human judgment human custom are removed from the equation There is zero material difference between just the acquiring property and stealing property It may be counterintuitive, but to quote Shakespeare nothing is good or ill But thinking makes it so and who has a title to what is a matter of opinion precedent and power nothing more? Second Prudone observed that property is liberty which is to say man's liberty Which is the ability to act within and upon the world in accordance with one's desires is tied directly to one's access to property in other words If I want to run a marathon I must have food and shelter and medicine and somewhere to actually do it if I am denied these things I cannot therefore my liberty is limited or expanded by my material circumstances Finally Prudone concluded that material that property is impossible Which is to say that this legal relationship is entirely imaginary It exists as a mental tool as a projection of human minds within human culture to aid our interaction with physical reality and each other When we know who has a right to what and who does not we are less likely to be in conflict At least in theory in actual material reality property is the stuff of wars and murders and genocides At least when it is improperly managed Now socialists break property down into four subtypes Capitalists only recognize two the first being public property and the second being private property Why won't they think beyond this because they are afraid They are afraid that if people think beyond the false dichotomy of government and non-government ownership that we will descend into chaos and conflict But let us not be cowardly and let's think a little further don't accept it Just try it out And so we come to two more types of property namely personal and common and hey, there it is again communism Personal property is the property that an individual uses and possesses in actual reality This is what prudone was referring to when he said property is freedom Because all of our ability to act and live and love comes from this relationship It is our access to the means of existence This is what society at its most positive exists for to provide us with these things so that we may have liberty And when we contribute back to society our task is to provide for others with access to these things This is the great human project. It is in a word Emancipation this is distinct in socialist philosophy from private property Which has a specialized definition in anti-capitalist critique Private property from a socialist standpoint is theft because private property is not access to the means of existence Rather it is property secured by the state which is to say the military and the police on behalf of the elite i.e. capitalists as in those individuals who through historical circumstances Owing to the bugs in our financial political and cultural systems have come to own property Which they neither use nor possess but rather through force of arms are giving the ability to use abuse or destroy That which is both used and possessed and often needed by others Without the state a man cannot own another's home a man cannot control more property than he can physically possess and defend Jeff Bezos cannot own amazon against the wishes of those who work at amazon without an army of police and soldiers to beat jail And kill those who disagree Communists object to this relationship for obvious reasons when we play this game There are just a few winners and many many losers Those who find themselves in a position to command the state and its and direct its violence Where they want it to go naturally use it to secure their own interests So essentially those at the height of power within society are a big club and you and I we we are not in it And the game of capitalism the game of properties is one they created for their own benefit with rules They control in other words It's a rigged game designed to extract maximum labor and value from the bulk of society while paying back as little as possible in return This is why you can have record profits in the richest nation on earth And you can send Jeff Bezos on a pleasure trip to space while simultaneously the majority of that same nation's population cannot handle an Unforeseen $500 expense where millions of Americans teeter on the edge of eviction and one in six children Do not know where their next meal is coming from And so we come to the final type of property and the beating heart of communism Common property what communism is and how it has been understood in practice since before marks and angles likely since before recorded history Is an attempt to return to our ancestral way of life before the rise of the state A way to regain the freedom that we had in the state of nature before war before armies before governments and private property While simultaneously preserving the benefits of modern civilization The product of communism is to move as much property as possible from the public and private spheres Into the common spheres. It's literally in the name And that is what and what is common property? Well, you already know you just never realized it. It's all around us It's the air. It's language. It's knowledge. It's international waters. It's space and before the state It was also land It is our inheritance our real inheritance our birthright which has been stolen from us Before kings and armies and rulers common property dominated the globe and communists are simply those who would see its return So to understand you understand now where this fear comes from and why try as they might I don't think our opponents can reckon with this idea because it shakes the very foundations of power And those at the heights of our society feel the tremors and know how precarious their position is and for reactionaries Who are existentially devoted to preserving this very specific and let's be honest very stupid form of social hierarchy This regiment of command and obedience Communism for that communism is the stuff of nightmares because if you take away the power from the elites, what are they? I'll tell you what they are They're us and they never were anything else and any pretensions towards the contrary is pure vanity Which brings us to the failures of the soviet union and why everyone associates communism not with common property But with one very specific highly authoritarian failed attempt at reaching it for the purposes of this debate I will call it Stalinism the fact is the reason this model dominates in the minds of so many despite actual reality and real material history Is because the two greatest empires the world has ever seen Agreed that it should the capitalist west agreed that the ussr should be considered the truest example of communism Because they wanted to associate Stalin's brutality and Toletarianism with the idea and forever frighten their citizenry away from taking real power within their own society And the communist east wanted the prestige of being the vessel by which the dream of communism Couldn't last be achieved But they were all of them deceived because communism is not government control It is not totalitarianism and ultimately it is not status Communism is a stateless classless moneyless society in which the means of production Which is to say vital industry and resources are commonly owned Like the air around us and are operated by the workers who use them for the benefit not of a privileged few But of everyone where resources are distributed along the general principle of from each according to his ability To each according to his need in short it is a society that works for everyone And in the 21st century it is exactly what we need to avoid human extinction and encourage human flourishing Thank you Do we uh, do we wait for the mod? Do we Is it anarchy? Maybe anarchism not anarchy. Yeah, it's anarchy right here. Uh, all right. I'll go here. All right. So tonight We are debating communism, but since unlike our opponents. We are materialists To really understand what communism is we have to analyze it scientifically and by extension dialectically That is how and why it emerges out of the present society, which happens to be capitalism But in doing so for the purposes of this debate, we also have to consider the the libertarian formulation of markets and uh, and property Uh, and that relates to and how it relates to that the material reality for all the uh, right libertarian talk of non-aggression principles and voluntary contracts, your mic is uh, Swallowed twitter at i'm sorry, but your mic is uh, given that feedback again It reminds us from a lack of capital investment. I think true true It's uh, still there I don't know what to tell you I'm stuck with it Well, it's pretty bad and i'm usually i'm usually pretty easy going about mics Is there any way in which you have a second mic where you might be able to click in zoom to connect to that mic instead? I do not have See when you speak slowly like this when you speak lower than a certain level, I think you're fine Yeah, it is. So just don't go too excited. I think you'll be good. Yes. Yeah pulling a little bit home. Okay, I think that voice at the end of battery white levels, you'll be fine All right, let's let's let's try talking like this works. Okay um that's hot all right For all the right libertarian talk of nap and voluntary contract The greatest irony is that the very markets and property relations They champion are themselves predicated on the most extreme forms of coercion dispossession and violence Capitalism which i'll define here as the era of generalized commodity production based on private property And the exploitation of wage wage labor could not exist But for the mass expropriation of common lands for private profit on a global scale To quote Christopher Hitchens the history of capitalism is the history of expropriation Marks observing this process remarks on the tremendous advances in technology technique and innovation that were thereby enabled Brutal as it was this process of dispossession and collectivization of europe's peasantry into the cities and factories Ultimately created the modern proletariat a brand new class overtaking the bourgeoisie as history's most progressive force But exploitation at home was actually not enough to fuel capitalist development It needed to be paired with expropriation and imperialism abroad The majority of the of the world in the 19th century was not very amenable to capital So the imperialist states set about Opening the rest of the world at gunpoint Colonizers tended to find it immensely difficult to get people to work in their minds and plantations Echoing today wages were not high enough to induce people to abandon their subsistence farming So coercion was required to move peasants into the labor market Imposing taxes and closing commons constraining access to food evictions and often a right violence You know voluntary contract Some 55 million dead later in india china and congo alone markets suddenly and miraculously found themselves open The industrial revolution And success of europe more broadly therefore had nothing to do with culture Values or race as my slippery opponents have argued before Quite the opposite it was achieved by the robbery of wealth and productivity of dozens of other countries There's never been a more collectivist mode of production than capitalism Its ability to conscript expropriate and dispossess are historically unmatched 99 of human history bore witness to the same percentage of people Living off the land in small district atomized farms communes and villages only to have all that flipped on its head in two centuries As marx and angles pointed out this collectivization was an immense leap forward in the progression of human society because not only Did it increase human freedom and productivity by orders of magnitude? But it crucially set the stage for the democratic takeover of society by the working class thereby enabling the abolition of class and the state altogether and i think we all agree here that we want to get rid of the state Communism is the classless stateless moneyless society Uh, and it necessarily emerges out of its lower phase socialism a state of material abundance Which in turn emerges out of the transitional phase of a worker state Which under the right conditions emerges out of the contradictions of capitalism itself What Stalinists and right wingers share in common is the belief that the ussr china cuba vietnam, etc Our socialist societies. Thanks for stealing my point. They're rented by the way Um, they are not and we're not these are worker states in varying degrees of deformation and degeneration Excluding china, which is now a simply capitalist state by any measure The common resort from rightists is to proudly declare the no true scotsman fallacy But it is not a logical fallacy because neither marx nor lenin ever believed that socialism could be achieved in backwards semi-feudal peasant societies like russia cuba or china They said it openly marx explained that socialism could only be achieved in the most advanced industrial nations Because that's where the productive forces were the most advanced The russian revolution the greatest event in human history Was a gamble one meant to inspire workers in germany england france and america to follow suit That gamble ultimately failed due to the murderous betrayal of the leadership of the german social democrats Leaving the bolsheviks isolated to defend the revolution from a civil war in 14 imperialist powers They succeeded in defeating their external enemies, but the revolutionary backbone of workers councils aka soviets were devastated by years of war and They were powerless to stop the rise of stalin and the emerging emerging bureaucracy. He represented Stalin went on to achieve many successes, but at the high cost of liberty democracy and millions of lives the un The un what The unprecedented economic and military success of the ussr ensured that every subsequent revolutions took a Stalinist character highly bureaucratic top-down and illiberal What i just described is a scientific and materialist analysis of society and how it changes through time My opponents on the other hand are at a disadvantage trapped in a mind in the mind prison of philosophical idealism They have no idea what to make of the state why it exists who it serves and how to overcome it ironically It is they who are the utopians in this debate Almost as if to mock themselves. They simultaneously reject the state as coercive on the one hand while defending the very economic system It was built to reproduce on the other If human emancipation is the goal then the abolition of private property and and commodity production are the necessary prerequisites personal property is not private property Until all of us are free from these forms of domination. No one is free commodities are objects produced For the purpose of exchange rather than use thus enabling markets Markets have existed for most of human history and they are not inherently bad or good But they do not exist in the abstract In a system of generalized commodity production unequal distribution of wealth and private property the kind advocated by opponents The competition in irrational anarchy of markets necessarily pushes wages down D skills labor and trends towards monopoly state oppression and imperialism Of course, as we have seen historically Early capitalism did pass through a short phase of relatively free markets alongside incredible Worker exploitation. However, dialectics teaches us that society is never static and that it has a direction The laws and contradictions of capitalist productions necessarily start devolved into monopolies and cartels Then mature into imperialism and finance capital Dripping with blood at every step of the way But as capitalism continues to decay far beyond its best before date and the class struggle intensifies the capitalist the cap The democratic control of the economy becomes the instinctive demand put forward by the ever-increasing forces of the proletariat Ultimately transforming we're coming to that close for the opening statement I'm like two sentences away ultimately transforming from a class In itself to a class for itself and taking the reins of society once and for all Only then can work be transformed from alienating misery to the creative expression of free Individuals all in there. You got it. I want to say thank you very much to our guests for being here Who by the way are linked in the description and want also let you know folks if it's your first time here at Modern day debate. We are a neutral platform hosting debates on science religion and politics We hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you are from and with that We are going to kick it over to the anti-communism team. Stefan and jf. Thanks so much for being with us. The floor is all yours Thank you. What's our policy on swearing here?  I am and you can tell from a little bit of the salty language I am working class to the core. I grew up in a single mother household Dirt broke. I got my first job at 11. I've been paying all my own bills Since I was 16 years old came from a rough section of town and fought and bit and clawed my way up to the very top Of intellectual achievement when it came to having the world's largest philosophy show with a billion views and downloads millions of books read Working class guy arguing against the power of the state. My very very first article was a stateless society an examination Of alternatives.  That's not how they play what they do is they cheer and applaud and approve Giant multinational corporations smashing exploiting and taking away the means of production hard one hard built hard fought for By a proletariat anti-statist So that's how seriously It's almost like a parody. I thought for a second they were kidding and then what did they bring up the adl and the splc Also massive international incredibly well funded handing glove with the state organizations that regularly get in trouble with The things that they say about people. Do they check the alternative? Do they listen to the working class guy? Do they have any sympathy for the plight of a working class guy who's been smashed and exploited by giant multinational corporations? No, they absolutely applaud it and love it. So we have a kind of parody Is that I mean I really can't put it any other way It's a kind of parody because we've got hey I crowdfunded and got raised enough capital so that I can profit from my comic Oh boy, isn't it great that those multinational corporations smashed that working class guy and stripped him of the means of production In an election year for specifically political reasons. So yeah exploitation predation and so on They're totally behind it. That's sort of the thing that I wanted to mention. There's worst kindness. I've ever seen in my life It's literally a complete and total parody. All right So moving past that let's have a quick look at the basic arguments I don't know where we disagree.  I understand that theoretically you don't like that kind of stuff. Yeah I'm with you brothers. I'm a hundred percent with you.  I hate corporations Corporations is a legal fiction that allows the rich and the powerful handing glove with the armed might of the state to Create a legal fiction that allows them to profit with no risk, right? They can take all the profits they want out of this legal fiction called the corporation And when the corporation goes bankrupt, nobody can ever pierce the corporate veil And touch their own personal assets. So it is a Foggy ghost by which they get the proletariat to bend over and take it up the, you know, where So, yeah hate the state hate corporations My fundamental argument is that the initiation Of the use of force is immoral the initiation of the use of force is immoral force and an extremity of self-defense Is a regrettable necessity is morally fine Initiating the use of force is absolutely immoral whether it takes the form of the state through control regulation taxation The exploitation of children by putting them into these pink floyd brain deadening veal fattening pens of disinformation and lack of concentration camps known as government schools Whether it's creating money out of thin air and raping and pillaging the savings and economic productivity Of the working classes in particular and those unfixed incomes It is absolutely brutal whether it is starting wars and generally taking that lower Tonka toy scoop through the lower classes to send them off to be Canon fodder on the battlefield whether it is foreign policy whether it's sticking their Armed might into every hornet zest around the world and then inviting everyone in to commit acts of heinous terror in the homeland All of these are unbelievably evil and an absolute predation upon the body politic and upon the very poor Generally bear the brunt of these kinds of horrendous policies.  We've talked about it with regards to foreign policy war we've talked about it with regards to monetary policy or the creation of Money in order to fatten the purses of the ruling classes and steal from the poor and those unfixed incomes We also need to talk about it as I have continuously over the course of my show in the home The most exploited underclass on the planet are children Children and marxists never talk about this stuff because if you want to talk about where the initiation of force lands with its greatest Fist and boot to the neck is on the backs and necks of children Children have no legal rights in our current society. They have no economic independence They are legally allowed to be hit in most countries around the world The mass rape of children is endemic within society one out of three boys And sorry one out of three girls one out of five boys at a bare minimum The industrial rape of children occurs on a fairly horrible and wide scale around the world in western countries And so I've always focused on the non-aggression principle must first and foremost be applied in the home That children and I've been to stay at home dad for 13 years now So I have some experience in this matter Our children must be reasoned with they must not be punished. You must not raise your voice You must not call them names because they're in a trapped and subjugated relationship I mean that's mostly by nature They're trapped. They you know babies can't exactly go out and earn their keep So the positive and healthy and peaceful treating of children. I'm currently working on a book called peaceful parenting, so I'm hoping to get that out more but I've been talking about this from the very beginning no spanking no punishment No raised voices no yelling and you know try and keep them away from government schools where they're indoctrinated by the ruling classes To becoming as the prussian model always demanded a good little foot soldiers and good little capitalist workers So I'm not sure where our disagreement is now When you get rid of the state when you have a voluntary and relatively peaceful society I don't have in any sense the foundational Narcissistic arrogance to say how that society should be should it have money? I don't know if the money is peacefully established and not coercively put into people's lives Who am I to say people can't have money if you say people can't have money then you've got to throw in jail People who are voluntarily trading using bits of paper or cryptos or tattoos or whatever the hell people are going to end up using That's the initiation of force So I think we work to reduce the initiation of force as much as possible within society We can't do much about the state and monetary policy at least as individuals But we can certainly talk about the peaceful parenting of children Which will end up with children being raised to the point where they won't become criminals I want to go into government or betray their principles in the opening minutes of a debate So focus on opposing initiations of the use of force at personal and familial and social and political levels We then end up moving towards a stateless society what that stateless society looks like I don't know it's like saying well, we got to end slavery Then what does society look like after we end slavery? It's really hard to know ahead of time and you can't enforce one particular Outcome or solution within society without violating the non aggression principle So when you say while the state is it pillages people and it's really bad and of course Because the foundational this is my last point the foundational reality of human life Is that people can't handle power? You know, it's so funny like we have lord acton's famous dictum power tends to corrupt an absolute power tends to corrupt Absolutely, we all accept that and then we say yes, but we need this big powerful state to organize How how the means of production are distributed among societies like no, no, no people can't handle power power is addictive power Dehumanizes power creates an inhuman need for us versus them selfing versus othering And it requires the dehumanizing of those you are going to subjugate and exploit human beings can't handle power We take away the power from parents to abuse their children We take away the power of the ruling classes to use the state and you're right. They then become like us They have to compete with us on an even playing field, which I'm more than happy to to work with and to accept Human beings cannot handle power. So if you say well, the state is really bad because it corrupts people Hey, I'm with you 150 percent But then if you say well after we get rid of the state society has to be this way. It's got to be classless It's got to be It's got to be moneyless.   The whole purpose is to oppose the initiation of the use of force What happens after that is how history is going to play out in the first peaceful scenario known to man And that's my closing statement All right. Well, Stefan has went very hard and I agree with everything I'm hearing so I will only have some complementary notes Uh, Stefan talked about children and it's weird how we have this Anti-native attitude with Brenton's intro attacking Stefan for liking eggs. Absolutely ridiculous The eggs each egg can potentially become a viable baby and they should be cherished and respected And it's one of the most important thing you can do in life to reproduce and find an egg to inseminate I find this absolutely ridiculous as an opening attack Uh on the point of the state, I think that our opponents here are attributing the actions of the state to capitalism When in fact, uh, you can you can have such a broad definition of capitalism So as to include the actions of the state During capitalism in the economy and say ultimately because people have paid taxes It's capitalism that feeds the actions of the state But neither Stefan nor I are standing for a strong state. In fact, we are combating the state And so it's uh, it's a little weird to air a critique of the state when these people know that we're not supporters of the state And then in fact, the most ideal Capitalistic society would be one with a very reduced state that I agree with Stefan wouldn't make any use of force if possible So as far as communism as Stefan pointed out, these guys can start their commune and they can live as much as non-violence will allow them To live in their conceptions of property And if they want among themselves to decide that property doesn't exist or that it's called common property So be it But there are reasons why societies didn't converge to this and I believe there are reasons why Such societies remain very small inefficient and eventually disappear It is that communism as our opponents define it with a lack of conception of private property Causes a number of issues, which I will summarize in two points One there's a lack of economic incentives for development If there's no such thing as the accumulation of private property There's no incentive for someone to contribute his best to society The reason uh, Jeff Bezos could do what he did Is that he knew that if he was successful at starting a network of distribution that would be more efficient than walmart More efficient than anything else that eventually he would be rewarded With private property if you cannot give that guarantee in society Then you have people racing for the bottom You have people not willing to engage in creative or risky endeavors The fact that that someone like Jeff Bezos ends up getting rewarded also displays to the future innovators of our world It says if you can do like Jeff if you can improve the efficiency of society so much That people are throwing money at you through the internet You will be rewarded for it The absence of such a motivation economically Is what plagues communistic society and that's why they remain small they remain familial And they remain essentially local communes And when they grow into big systems these systems will tend to be less productive than their private equivalent That's why uh Every each of us go to a private grocery store to buy private goods at the price that is set by the free market Now my bet would be that if brenton and sweat itariat would have the society they desire With a with a stateless entity or or a very small state That this society would converge toward the free market and it would essentially be a form of capitalism desirable to stefan and i So i don't take issue with their fight of the state I just think they're deluded about whether they can maintain A highly productive society without the proper set of incentives that come from capitalism Because there's a reason why jeff bezos must be a billionaire It's because he's done something that has improved and applies that he deserves that reward And we want him to hold to these billion dollars and invest them in the most productive endeavors into the future Because the community is unable to get together and determine what is best for their own future We just have to look at our democracies and see where they're headed to see how The power of the mob doesn't work to direct society We need individual innovators that are better and more intelligent and more Careful than the rest of the average of the population My second point and the second flaw of socialism and communism Is that it has a poor eugenic structure Capitalism by limiting the amount of private property that one can obtain to whatever you can sell Whatever you can obtain on the free market It essentially puts a leash on people It says if you have only thirty thousand dollar a year That's what you deserve because that's the value of your labor And if you want more than that you need to contribute more to society by inventing something By starting a company or by somehow finding something that other people want to buy for more than thirty thousand dollar a year Because of the absence of such a leash in communism and because as our opponents have presented it We distribute according to people's needs the needs become infinite The needs become infinite because people who get paid by Whatever central structure they drain from from whether it's a state or whether it's a commune or hippie hippie style farmland They will eventually drain the energy of this farmland to make more babies Socialism has no way to limit the growth of these needs and as long as you fund people bring nothing to society Just because they have needs You are creating more people with needs and more needs into the next generation This system is unsustainable And i've never heard in all of my career of debates on modern day debate Not a single socialist or communist came to solve this issue So i'd like to hear swaritaria and brenton today How do you deal with the fact that you are creating an infinite chain of need because you're letting Anyone with needs benefit from the products of society and that is it for my introduction You got it Thank you very much gentlemen for those introductions and want to let you know folks We are very excited next week a debate on race and crime as you can see at the bottom right of your screen It is going to be a controversial one. You don't want to miss it Hit that subscribe button as we have many more debates to come and with that Thank you very much all four of you gentlemen. We will jump into open dialogue. The floor is all yours Yeah, so I have a couple of quick answers for stef the first thing was you did not get banned from social media Over your anarcho capitalist stuff like I was on this channel not too long ago Arguing with dr. David freedman about anarcho capitalism dr. David freedman son of milton freedman is not banned You got banned for the ethno nationalist stuff and you know, if you know, that's not true First of all, I mean You have no idea why I got banned.  I'm not an ethno nationalist. I oh my god It's right there. That is an incitement to violence Before we go too far down this line of discussion. It is off topic We are here to debate communism. I do want to read you director. I'm just answering a direct question The other thing that I'll point out is if inciting violence, what was that? I'm saying that when you Push forth that particular type of rhetoric It is dehumanizing and it causes people to not not you not me not even jf necessarily the people who are um that So this is outside the spoke the uh If you're going to accuse me of inciting violence, you better put some shit behind those words Yeah, so what I'm saying is is that when humans have a natural block in our mind when it comes towards doing violence towards other humans Essentially, you don't eat your own kind. It's built into us probably by evolution We can see this evidence by the fact that in world war two, for instance A lot of soldiers did not actually shoot to kill their enemies and uh armies had to put in specific methods of training to cause people to not see their enemies as you do not know the called pseudo speciation A quarter of a billion people were murdered by their own governments often left as socialist or fascist governments communist Okay, but that doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about. I'm talking about specifically When you try to make these large Unsubstantiated statements about IQ dehumanizes the yes. I know we're off. So we were off of that But given that you did bring this out I do want to give stephan the last word before you go back to communism because this is something sure because I do Want to answer his other questions. So there's apparently talking about I mean I thought it was scientific socialism or scientific communism talking about the science of IQ differences Is not science designed to reduce social conflict and violence within society. It is the very Think that that's not how it is Oh, you may think that but that's not how it is.  Do you think that here comes the category of not wanting to kill others? I think that there's a lot of people who don't want to kill others They just happen to be not communists So i'm going to let swole answer that but here what I wanted to say also on the on this on this point because I wanted to answer these specific charges So you accused essentially swole and I of being hypocrites. Now, here's the thing Let's say that we were hypocrites like we're not because you've got an imaginary version of anarchists and communists in your head Where the idea like communists can't be effective like within a market Just try making an argument, but even if we were I'm making an argument here, steven. Let me finish even if we were Hypocrates even if we were hypocrites that wouldn't mean we're wrong if a doctor who smokes Tells you smoking is bad for your health. Is that doctor wrong?  Do you even listen to yourself? Here's the difference. So first off. That's not an ad hominem. That would be an insult Worst, it would be poisoning the well.   This is now just to close this parent is this though I will say to brenton if you think that stating a fact is inciting violence How about Enforcing a deception over that fact. We have a choice in society either we're going to talk about the truth or we won't and you make a fetishist dichotomy here by Suggesting that talking about the truth would be an incitement to violence, but If it were true, that might be true. Yeah, if it were truth, it would be true, but it's not See communists are very concerned about free speech because communists steal the hundred million people in just a hundred years So they're very concerned about violence. You see the violence again You're trying to paint us with the the freaking excesses of the ussr the exact thing that I said you would do Recording with the artist so you're saying they killed too many people what number of people would be okay to kill Let me let me answer this question That's like saying the excesses of the holocaust like there's some reasonable number I've heard Once I've heard you argue this Poleteria your mic is like I'm looking at the meter. It is off the charts. I need you to if you can turn your game down It's it's still it's still fuzzy You're best swole if you can answer this now, okay, it's still fuzzy I gotta tell you man, even if you can go out and find a mic right now. It's it's not the it's no no It's not the mic. It's it's literally the computer like this happens when It's the drivers or something if you can be audience a wonderful chance to listen to a communist saying there was just excessive deaths In the Soviet Union. It was just too many You know, you're playing a word right, but they just went a little it was like maximum was too high They just went into the red. Yeah, so when people talk about excesses in this incident That's not at all what we're actually referring to. It's a figure of speech seven. You should know that now It's not a figure of speech. You're saying I would like to so swole answer you get you're doing good If I if I keep if I keep my voice low again and go for this one. Let's let's see if it works Okay, so yeah the the hundred million dead figure. I've seen you mention this a few times before seven and you know Google is very easy. It's very very easy to to Yeah, it's it's certainly something uh famously that book was trashed by its own key contributors Who denounced the book as sloppy and biased scholarship its own key contributors Where you got the data from by an author quote obsessed with arriving at the total of 100 100 million kids. Let me finish I gotta tell you it's full of terriot. I'm gonna give you five seconds to make each point It is that bad. I've never had anybody with such a bad mic. I'm sorry for being so Oh, you have had people with a worse mic james. You absolutely go ahead name them brenton. Wait, You know, I know that's a lie. What is the guy? That one who's never that gap in guy from the from the early debate who like no didn't even get couldn't even get his The mic Let's get on with the debate All right The real number is a fraction of that a quick google search is enough to make that abundantly clear But given this fact, uh, you think stepher might might ask himself Why do exactly zero historians take this book seriously? Does it have anything to do with why exactly zero serious philosophers take on rand or write libertarianism seriously? Well, these texts are written for 14 year old edgelords. That's because the non-aggression principle Possibly cites famines hold on cites citing famines and not wanting us to believe All right, if you want examples of how they they came up with that number, uh, they they included basically literally everyone who died in the ussr during Stalin's years including the world war two deaths All the famines which uh, necessarily, you know, weren't necessarily Stalin's fault, although he did act Exacerbate the big famines weren't Stalin's fault. Have you not?  We're going to die. Yes, absolutely millions of people. He's not evil.   It doesn't matter.  It doesn't matter. They're just as dead Like it doesn't the point being is yeah, so if you want to talk about like the famines, yeah, if you can if swole If you want to talk about the famines for instance, you know Those were can be dropped directly at the feet of troffin lisenko was a scientist who rejected evolution Uh and said some things that were so we shall we say politically convenient for Stalin's power And thus got raised to the highest levels of power within soviet society His ideas about planting like for instance planting seeds too close together because in his mind Plants were comrades and would not compete with each other if they were the same species led to absolute disastrous results And then the propaganda machine lied about it And this and everything was put into place is that it's the if you if you just had different people With this unbelievable level of power. I mean the argument is you need a different me. Let me I give you a chance to speak right Sure, so if you just had different individuals inhabiting this incredible power structure Of centralized coercive control over property everything would have been fine And my argument doesn't matter who's in power when you have that much power It's always going to go badly. You can't take some people out put other people in and have it work Well human beings can't handle power and so it's I don't disagree with that I don't disagree with that point But again, if you're going to try to drop something at the feet of socialism as in like socialist philosophy and ideology It is important to understand where there are personal failings and where there are structural failings The personal failing was on the part of of trafim lisenko the structural failing was on the part of the ussr itself and its Paranoid system of propaganda that was the problem. It's propaganda Didn't cause the famine. No, it literally did finish individuals didn't cause the famine You know what caused the famine Collectivization of the farmland violation of property rights and the stripping of property for the soldiers No, because we know that it's not true because they collectivize the land They collectivize the land in spain and that didn't happen and in fact when they collectivize the land in spain It was a giant boom of food Like that was the one thing the anarchists especially because we're amazing at was feeding absolutely everyone So we know for a fact. It was not the collectivization. It was specifically lisenko So social it's not anarchism. You understand anarchism means without rulers socialism means centralized control over the anarchism has always been the left wing of the socialist movement in the sense that we have always been the direct action oriented Anti-state libertarian like the very first person to ever call themselves a libertarian was joseph de joc Who was an anarcho-communist which is about the closest indigene anarchism mean without rulers Anarchism means without rulers. Okay, not necessarily without you and I are the same. Yeah, and then when you talk about One government understanding having massive control over the Allocation of resources and land and crops and fertilizer. Is that being without a ruler? No, that's being where they sent my coercive Homagogical powerful ruler. So it's the opposite of anarchism. That's why I'm saying it's the power Not the individuals that causes the problems. Okay. So first off We may agree on something like that But the fact is is that we don't agree for instance on ethno nationals You know, which you have gone on record if you if you denounce that now fine But like we definitely do not agree on that. Okay define ethno nationalism for me I don't even know as in a country where the state keeps out people that you find undesirable You said, uh, let's see back in october 4th 2015. You cannot run a high IQ society with low IQ people These immigrants are going to fail. If you don't like that fact, then you can take it up with the researchers I mean, it's not a fact, but also if you are you say your employee I had the actual author of the book So don't shoot the messenger and he found that when I the average IQ dips to be to about 90 or below Freedom free speech democratic structures market structures tend to collapse.  Don't shoot the messenger Be a mature big person and go and talk to the person who actually did the research Okay, so what I said, could you give me an example? Let's say no nationalism. That is simply a scientific fact Stefan, could you give me an example of? Yeah, swole Stefan, could you could you give me an example of a society that had a high IQ and then lost that high IQ? And then became worse off because of it A society that had a high IQ Yeah Well, we can see this. So I also uh, Edward Dutton. I had on my show as well. He's written a really powerful book called atter wits and And again, you get mad at him if you want to shoot in the messenger Not mad at him. He's just a ridiculous individual facts come along and I a IQ across the west is dropping IQ sadly in sperm counts I think I should point out by the way Maybe other reasons for that Brenton I do want to hear the rest from Stefan and then eventually you want to it's jf hasn't Okay, this guy runs By the policy of dr. Mengele, I hate to do this but Brenton, I'm ready to do you so I got to give him an actual chance to respond So it's like IQ IQ is falling now. Would we say That the west is doing better now than it was say 30 or 40 years ago No, I mean I would look I would look at this and I would say that the west in terms of unfunded liabilities in 180 trillion dollars Just in the west we have a lot of deferred poverty in national debts and after the second world war Poverty particularly among the black community, which is where we should really focus our efforts on alleviating poverty Poverty was declining one percentage point every single year after the second world war until lbj's great society and welfare state programs the welfare warfare state of The social planning for for the underclass as well as of course the war in vietnam and kimbodia Of course to some degree as well So we had a situation wherein for the first time in human history Poor people had a very real shot of getting out of poverty and particularly the black families and the black communities That tragically was destroyed by the warfare welfare state and now we've created a permanent underclass I think that's actually pretty bad. So we do have an example where things I think have gotten worse IQ has tended to decline across In america and other places and these are you know, it's like it's a pretty objective test. It's been around for 100 years It's been well validated Every scientific IQ has been raising i'm sorry IQ has been raising up to the 70s And then what you call what they call the flin effect has reversed since the 70s stabilized then and then we're getting lower So much lower in fact that in many leftist places of america right now There is a movement to stop testing people to stop imposing standards for success in universities And so definitely what you say is true before the 70s after the 70s. We're going this is just the opposite direction Actually, that's not true. I mean it's still going out. That is true Well, tell me about the data from which scientists do you claim? This is this is off topic. We're completely Those of you who don't know and we won't debate this now. So there's a a measure of the sort of most concentrated Intelligence it's called the g-factor and they called it the g-factor because they couldn't really think of a good word IQ is a good measure of how to take tests But there's a law processing power called g and the g tends to be declining although you're right and in some metrics IQ is increasing but the sort of most common underlying processing power tends to be Going down so and of course we can see it's very well correlated And this has been talked about a news wake in other places that gdp tends to be correlated to Average IQ within a country again.  So let me get this just straight. You are not an ethno-nationalist And you do not think the government should keep out People who have low IQs Government should not exist at all. So you're asking me to to deploy an institution. I think is morally invalid So I don't even know how that I've denounced the state and then you're saying What do you want the state to do something? Did you not follow the earlier argument? Was it I mean again? I don't believe a word you say half the time because because this is first off a lot of times ANCAPS define the state completely different than traditional anarchists do We normally define the state as the military and the police ANCAPS and libertarians tended to find the state as the government specifically as like the The the body that is exist for the creation and mediation of policy So if you tell me your anti-state, but then you make statements that seem to say that you're okay, or at least Will entertain the idea of keeping certain people out because you feel they are incompatible with the society I'm sorry. I'm not I'm going to have a hard time believing you when you tell me That people should be kept out who are incompatible like you're just arguing with some bizarre straw man in your head Again, this is you are on record of having said this Oh, I have said now if you did not mean that people out who can't participate in this What are you talking about on record? Okay, give me the quote. Give me the quote big guy Give me the quote. You are importing a gene set that is incompatible with success in a free market economy You said you if you are bringing in groups with average lower IQs, it's going to be a problem Now I don't believe that the state should keep them out at all How do we stop that? How do we stop that? Yeah Well, I mean the big idea of course would be to rely on private charity rather than the welfare state Because the welfare state and this is private security to keep people out and to halt the free movement of peaceful people All right Yeah, so this is this is an old argument You can go back to Milton Friedman. You because it's not even my argument So again, you're just shooting the messenger and the argument is you can have open borders Or you can have a welfare state, but you cannot have both And again, you can get mad at me, but this is not even my argument. So I mean, that's a terrible argument You absolutely can and I'll point I'll point to brand I'm very disappointed here because so let's hurry up. I asked for scientific evidence He says it's outside the subject. So somehow data cannot be brought in this subject according to Well, I asked I asked what is the the evidence that the Flynn effect Is not reversing and that it's continuing in the last 10 years And you said we're not going to talk about that. It's outside of the subject. Oh, I said literally google it like Okay, well who got it and tell me tell me which scientist has published a study in the last 10 years claiming the Flynn effect is continuing in America I'd like to continue that after this debate now Brent on your point There is a way to private property That you can have a reduction of the free movements of people if all of the land is guaranteed by the state It doesn't exist without the state Well, private property is not just guaranteed by the state people are willing to protect it themselves through their own actions and security forces Private property has emerged naturally In in societies of monkeys that were protecting their bananas from the other monkeys That's not private property. That's a personal property. Yeah, you can't even have a debate Without private property. You can't have a debate personal property. Personal property again I don't care about how you label it in the end if people own lands in a libertarian society There may be people who try to enter that society but are incapable of acquiring lands Because they're incapable to survive on the free market incapable to sell their labor or sell products This argument is ridiculous because there's plenty of land for everyone We're nowhere near a point where we don't have enough land and there you will not reach enough people who agree with you And will want to keep that many people out Not when people can only control the land that they can physically defend by themselves and use It's not possible. The borders are too large. The world is too big It's the government that prevents people from gaining access to lands and i'm sure we're on the same page as far as this goes Which is when the government prevents you from going out and homesteading when the government prevents you from freely building roads when the government reserves massive Areas of land for its own use or or whatever it is They're preventing people from going out and using the land one of the greatest barriers to the productive and enjoyable use of land Is the state and i'm absolutely completely and positively certain that people can figure out property rights in the absence of a state I'll give you a tiny example. It sounds kind of silly, but it's actually very real If there's if you go to a sort of country fair Then there's booths that people can set up to sell their wares And what people do is they just go out and they put a little chalk outline about where they want their booth And and everybody just leaves that alone now. Nobody's going to call the police They will go to the courts and this it's a spontaneous recognition that good boundaries make good natures good good fences make good neighbors and you got it I mean there is a hierarchy in those when I when I grew up Looking at the berlin wall, right? where When people tried to escape from east berlin, they were gunned down Gunned down trying to force it's trying to peacefully leave a society that was intolerable to them because of its lack of freedom and and the You're gonna stop waving that shirt. Are you so when you guys defend communism? Which is well known for shooting people trying to cross barriers and then say oh, it's really bad to have boundaries to Free movement of people is madness Yeah, so again You are equating communism Which is much bigger than even just marks and angles let alone, you know, letting us out with one specific variant of communism Which, you know, never reached communism never really reached socialism got about to state capitalism and implode it So yeah, that's a bad model. We probably shouldn't do that. There's no disagreement on that um, you know the issue here like When we're talking about the free movement of peaceful people and the fact that I don't think you can make Any ethical case whatsoever to halt that and secondly I don't think you can possibly stop people from moving where they want to go and where they are welcome Without a state to do it. Now if you oppose the state You have to necessarily Support open borders and I will also say that you can absolutely have open borders with Welfare and the whole reason is I can we have open borders in the united states between states I can leave new york and go into kentucky and let's say there's wealth Can I claim the welfare in kentucky? No, because I don't live there So obviously we can have different levels for what you are allowed to take essentially from the community stores Based upon who you are how long you've been there what you do.  So you're you're against the state, but you're for the welfare state I mean, I'm okay with in the So you're not I'm giving you I'm giving you an example as to why that line of logic doesn't work We get rid of we get rid of borders and the welfare state. I'm I mean Ultimately, I'm fine. I don't want any I don't want any initiation at the use of force if it's used to keep people out That's bad if it's used to forcibly take people's property and transfer it for political power, which it almost always is That's bad, too We're on the same page.  I'm leading into an argument in two-year-old So here's the issue. Here's the issue with the nap The nap prevents no violence whatsoever. All it does is seek to when it's actually put into practice in reality It excuses violence committed by the more powerful entity So for instance with regard to the nap when there is a argument, let's take for instance. Oh, I don't know israel You have the palestinians in gaza and you have the israelis Both sides claim that the other is aggressing against them and both sides are correct So what happens they fight and the idf kicks the crap out of them and essentially forces them into an open air prison Because again, the nap can't actually it's it's basing everything on the subjective act of aggression And it just says don't be aggressive rather than the real material conditions I don't know what the hell I feel like I'm in some alternate universe here where we're not even speaking the same language Okay, how is the how are the israeli military funded? Are they funded voluntarily? Are they funded coercively? How are they staffed? Are they staffed? I mean would it matter by the state? Let me finish. Let me finish Are they funded voluntarily or are they funded coercively? So I don't see how that's relevant. What does that even mean? Hang on when you I'll explain it to you because he's okay. It does seem to have grasped the nap at all So when you have a state Actor called the idf that is funded and staffed by putting guns to people's heads Taking their money and taking years of their life by forcing them to enlist That is a violation of the non-aggression principle I mean when you're saying idf somehow justifies the non-aggression principle a state army Is funded and staffed through violence through violations of the non-aggression principle That's why you need to stop not what happens afterwards Sure, but again the same problem happens with two people two normal people who are not funded Now oftentimes in oftentimes in a fight both people will say that they've been aggressed against So you don't need the idea. There's just one obvious example I want to find something out here the idf only exists because of violations of the non-aggression principle So it's not at all an obvious. Okay, but again No, no, no the idf exists The idf exists purely because of the of capitalism and the state capitalism requires a state That's why it exists.  What do you want to find? What do you need? What do you need help with? What do you need help with? What do you need help with capitalism a mode of production based on private property and the exploitation of labor Okay, so exploitation of labor is somewhat subjective, but let's talk about private It's a scientific term. It doesn't mean it's not a moral good or bad. It's just exploitation It's known exploitation is not assigned to be done. Just adding the word science doesn't it? It is within my argument a scientific. So I'm right No, so you're saying it's private property. Okay So if you're saying that the idf only exists because of capitalism and capitalism is defined as private property But the idf only exists because private property is violated Then you have your head so far up your ass you get to see out of your eyes twice Yeah, steven you were disagreeing with adam smith and john lock Like who cares the point is this is this is a basic idea about the state and how it functions I just made an argument replying with the word basic doesn't alter my argument. You did make an argument again because you obviously Okay, well, if you say that capitalism is based upon private property But the but government armies and police only exist because of violations of private property Then you can't say that capitalism is responsible. That's not why it's that not that's not what I said I didn't say the exit. Yeah You said that you said that government Armies and police exist because of capitalism, but then you define capitalism as private property But the armies and police only exist because of violations of private property, which is the opposite of capitalism That's not what it is. It exists to protect surplus and protect property from the masses Okay, how okay, I don't know why you guys don't know this How are the police and the military funded? Are they funded voluntarily or through the matter how they're funded? Yeah, why would that matter how they're funded? What are you talking about? They're funded by the ruling class at the time whatever class that is is going to it's going to fund their existence Uh, they funded it's it's yes. No question guys.  What what we're seeing here violence if they're funded through violence They're not pot of capital. I can't believe I'm gonna say it Jeff has been waiting patiently I can't believe I'm saying it. Let's hear hear from jf. It matters because it tells you who initiated the violence Uh, Brent is trying to apply Brent is trying to apply the nap to a situation where there's bilateral violence This is not what the the nap serves the nap tells you the state in which there is no violence on either side And that's the place of society. We want to be headed for The nap doesn't tell you doesn't tell you what happens when two people are going at it against each other That's not what it's been designed for. It's how do you enforce how do you enforce the nap? Uh, jump up and how do you uh Yeah, how do you finish? You punish the violations of consent the violation punishments. How do you establish who actually owns what? How do you establish who actually owns what because as far as I can tell within the history of our planet It is one violation of property rights after another after another after another going back in an infinite regress How did you get this? He got it? I got it from my father. How did he get he got it from his father? How did he get it? He fought for it. Okay, then we'll fight you for it Wait, how did fighting me and who did you steal your comic book from? Uh, I'm sorry. You wrote a comic book, right? Yeah, who did you steal it from? um I don't understand what you're talking about. I'm talking about property like isn't physical things like So you're saying all property is stolen, but you're creating you're going you know, I'm saying property is fast Let me finish. Let me finish. Okay.  Uh, that would be yeah, I guess intellectual property and the physical Private property stuff. Did you create that or did you steal it? Um, I created it. Okay. So there's a piece of property that was not stolen. Okay, but I'm not talking about that I'm talking about like land. I'm talking about large All the other property that's not Because property is a large term. So I'm sorry Do you know the difference between private property and personal property stefan? I'm not sure that you do Okay, so a personal a personal property is like your toothbrush and private property would be like your computer or your microphone and so on, right? No, no computer and microphone are still personal property The way you want to see the difference between personal property and private property is what can you personally hold and control And what do you need a state? To hold to control because someone else uses it on your behalf That's the difference guys. Look a fact if you factory a factory is private property If you ask how and this is I understand the curiosity I really do but we're kind of getting to science fiction land here And what I'm saying is that Think of slavery, right? So slavery was ended because it was evil and immoral Exploitive in a coercive and violent manner And of course it was a giant state program because all of the costs of slavery were Costs of enforcing a slavery were offloaded to to the general population through taxation So when someone comes along and says We got to end slavery.  You got to tell me how Cotton is going to be picked without slaves. You got to tell me how food and vegetables is all going to be picked without slaves And and and if you can't tell me that we can't end slavery because we'll all start to increase to death because we won't have any food We we end things peacefully Because they're immoral now what happens afterwards is not That relevant it can't be predicted like no one would have said no one would have said To the question of what happens after slavery. No one would have said hey, man. I know exactly how things are going to go after slavery Relatively soon We're going to have these big giant robots made of metal that are half the width of the entire field and they have these big giant turning wheels And they'll go up and down and they'll pick it automatically And and they're going to run on crushed dinosaur juice From 300 million years ago. I mean someone would look at you and say well, that's that's not an answer. That's insane But that's actually what happened. We can't we don't know what's on the other side of the non-aggression principle We don't know what's on the other side of genuine human freedom and trying to plan for it Is simply stalling progress and saying well, we can't have the future until we know exactly what it looks like But we don't know exactly what it looks like any more than we knew what the end of slavery looked like Can I can I respond to that and then I want to respond to john france was an earlier question? Just to be nice to uh, so Yeah, um Seth and I'm glad I'm impressed that you say we don't exactly know how we post state society would look Uh, this is exactly where he marks. This is exactly what marks argued against the utopian socialists, which were the leftists of his time um as for uh Jay after question about um It was but you would demanding answers Get solved.  That's you don't who is to man. Wait, wait Who is demanding answers on how things should get solved? Yeah, no, no You asked how do we distinguish a property that was properly acquired with a property that was acquired to aggression So we're explaining it to you because your notion as idealist ethical future society That has to do with like right now when like you can't establish the nap if you can't establish that Like you can't true. This is what common law was seeking to do with principles of tort It may not be perfect in its implementation But the idea that you are taking something against the will of the person having it who has in turn obtained it legally That would be what we're looking for and if you've done things like defaming in the process or frauding or defrauding That would be punished. It's as simple as this Yes, so that only works as far back as we have legal records and assuming that we have a legal system That can be utilized in a fair manner, which we do not What i'm saying is is that it calling for the nap right now Is like you've been playing a game of king of the hill and one little asshole pushes his way to the top of the hill and gets Up there and says i'm king. Guess what? No pushing.   I'm not sure It's ridiculous because it's utopian in that it doesn't unlike marxism or even anarchism really it doesn't explain how you get there It's just an idealist notion. It's like we should all just have this idea. It wouldn't If you had that idea anarchism does have theory to get there I know how to get there And just i'm just going to touch on this because I know, you know, we've all got got lives to live People can go to bomb in the brain.com. So I did a lot of work Interviewing subject matter experts psychologists and scientists on child abuse. So Why are people violent? They're violent because they were abused as children. Why do they become criminals?  Well, the state has all the military and and controls education and the media and and obviously to some degree my access to to corporations So the way that we end it is we spread peaceful parenting We raise children peacefully and rationally so they can think for themselves. So they're not traumatized So they're not historically aggressive. So they're not entitled. So they're not paranoid. So they're not drug addicts and promiscuous and Right and all of these effects of child abuse Um and and there's something called the adverse childhood experience Which everyone should really take just to sort of measure how your childhood was And if you are raised relatively peacefully, it doesn't have to be perfectly There's no such thing as perfection this side of heaven Then you will grow up to be robust Healthy, you know child abuse takes an average of 20 years off people's Life span it contributes to ischemic heart disease and cancer and promiscuity and addiction and and violence. I have a quick question here Let me just let me just finish. Okay. So if we raise children peacefully and that's sort of been my major mission for the last 16 years and and even before that in sort of my private life We raise children peacefully. They won't grow up to be Feral and aggressive towards others There will of course not be everybody raised peacefully So we also need to raise them with the confidence and avoiding bad situations or self-defense If necessary because not like the whole world suddenly become peaceful tomorrow and from that particular process The state is the state is invested in child abuse because child abuse creates predators and destabilization and and terrible diseases and and all of that and so we say oh my gosh There's all these dangerous people in society We better hang on to the state to protect us If we can apply the non-aggression principle where it has its most traction Which is an early child to particularly up to the age of sort of six or seven seems to be the important aspect of it Then we grow up seeing more benevolent people around us more helpful people around us will have more empathy more charity More help for the people who are doing less. Well more sympathy. This is the IQ argument is we don't play We don't blame step seven. I understand where you're going. I promise. Hang on I'm almost done when you promise. So with the IQ argument We don't get mad at people or blame them for things that are beyond their control And the science is pretty clear that IQ was about 80 genetic by our late teens 20 percent Is still a lot to work with which is why I do a philosophy show And so the long-term goal is not a violent revolution It's not springing up the bourgeois by their necks or anything like that All that does is create a new cycle of violence and trauma and get more millions killed It's to take the non-aggression principle bring it to life in your own life That's not utopianism raising children without aggression is not utopianism. I can tell you I've done it for 13 years It's idealism Like it's strictly in the in the philosophical sense, but hang on. So first off I've been meaning to say this for the entire debate.  Why are you partnering with jf? I'm here to debate communists who I'm with is less important to me right Yeah, I give you the choice a world in which jeff epstein keeps the 25 000 in his bank account Or a world in which we remove it from his bank account. Which world do you prefer? I mean money isn't real. So it doesn't actually make a difference Because which world You have to choose one A world in which he keeps the money or a world in which we remove it from his bank account Well being that you used it to spread hate Don't talk about me. I'm giving you a hypothetical Will you leave the money in its bank account or you make it disappear? What do you think is the best? I would say from an ethical standpoint you leave the money in his bank account You don't take you don't take that man's money period. Why? Why you want him to be rich? You want him to buy you want him to buy one more prostitute? No, I want everyone to turn down his money because again money isn't real No, but I didn't set him down. I'm presenting you a hypothetical and you're refusing to engage with it I think you're engaging in extremely bad faith in this debate So let's move on because that was just a ridiculous attack and you're clearly not equipped to answer Because you we both know the answer It's that you would remove the money from his bank account, which is what I mean I would remove the money from his bank account, but I wouldn't take it for myself I probably saved more women from prostitution by doing this than you will ever in your life Oh my god, no money isn't real dude Okay, well, this money isn't real idea is a great way to return to the communism topic. Yeah All right, so I did have that question, but yeah swole. I'm sorry go Yeah, Stefan So a lot of the stuff you said, you know, I agree with you would be great to do those things you are saying But the problem I see, uh, you know as a materialist is that again, you're talking idealism here you haven't changed fundamentally the The relation to society the power structures that are keeping That are reproducing all the same things you hate about the state and about its coercion and about violence And and you also said that the state wants people to be, you know, fucked up and Wants child abuse. That's that's actually backwards. The state wants, uh, You know, it educates people for a reason It wants healthy people who can go into the army be its soldiers Fight its battles and create economic profitability for it because the state is a bourgeois state And a bourgeois states need to reproduce themselves through profitability and through imperialism The government wants its citizens to be healthy Then why on earth is the government mandated food pyramid producing such unbelievable levels of child obesity and adult It wants them to be healthy enough to do the paperwork Very good question because You made a statement, let me rebut and and how is it possible that the government is funding, you know The mass drugging of children with psychotropics and how is it that the government is funding the separation of fathers from their children Through family courts and the welfare state and how is it that the government is making the army less and less ready with a variety of Mad initiatives that make it less combat ready And I mean what you're talking about that the government wants a healthy population The government's and and why is it the children are not allowed to go out and run around And and play anymore in schools that the government doesn't want you healthy That the government just wants you sick and frightened and dependent and and and aggressive and jumpy and unprotected So that you constantly running to this giant fascistic structure called the state for your your sucker This is a this is a great question. So the state Fundamentally is the central committee of the bourgeoisie. It's where it goes central the bourgeoisie gets to Organize itself in in the most long-term way. It can't because it can't do that Uh, you know as corporations and it's on its own. It's going to make uh, there's all kinds of fractions within it And because it's a bourgeois state, it's going to have uh, it's on forms of corruption, right? Because money and monopoly free power and that means all those corporations have Have interests in the state and that's why you get things like the open opioid epidemic Which also which happened to run counter, right? So if you have and and it depends on whether you elect, you know The right wing of the bourgeoisie or the left wing of the bourgeoisie, uh, there's there's There's ups and downs to both right neither are great. In fact, I agree with you Sorry, I feel like this is the closest we've come to a good faith discussion I'm sorry. I just I'm genuinely confused. I don't know what you mean by the bourgeoisie I mean, I understand some general Arguments for it, but what do you mean by the bourgeoisie is like what percentage of society are you talking about here? So the bourgeoisie is the uh, that the capitalist class the owners of the means of production the big bourgeoisie This wouldn't be one percent the one percent. It wouldn't include small business owners It would include small, uh, it would include big landowners as well So like a guy owns a convenience store would be in the bourgeoisie No, they'd be in the bourgeoisie That's petty bourgeoisie. That's yeah, okay, but that doesn't count as a subsection, right? The petty bourgeoisie is kind of a different class. It's its own thing. It's artists artisans and small business owners So you with the comic book, they actually have different interests Yeah, I was a worker before and now that I've got my own business.  I mean, I don't exploit anyone my it doesn't matter what you do You can be a bourgeois and own the means of production without exploiting people No, yeah, yeah, you ever heard of a guy card out called kind of Robert Owen production of your comic book, right? There was there was a famous socialist called Robert Owen in the 1800s Who was one of the first utopian socialists and he he was one of the guys that helped pave the way for for marxism And but yeah, you can be at any class and be and be a marxist and be a communist Yes I'm just confused, right? You can control the means of production without exploiting the workers No, you will exploit the workers. Absolutely. He would absolutely He owns the means of production. He controls the production. No, he doesn't because he's a small business owner And in fact, probably a sole proprietor actually Yeah, that would be on the sole proprietor. The only person being exploited by my comic book business is me Well, how do you produce your he's exploiting himself? How do you how do you he's exploiting himself? Yeah, I work with it with your own hands Do you roll a kind of wooden thing to print your comic book or are there workers? I contract out my my printing But I make sure to print it within the united states and do my best to avoid going overseas Where people are getting exploited, right? The united states Even if he did it wouldn't matter because what the goal like how you get to socialism and communism is not by Being a moral person or or living the truest. Yeah, it's we're not idealism. This is how you guys think This is not how the reality works though. You don't just be the most virtuous version of a socialist and therefore socialism Hang on a sec. So I mean, this is I really really appreciate this and I don't mean to sound snarky I genuinely really really appreciate this So you're saying that you can do evil within the current system in order to achieve your goal I mean Yeah, I mean, it's not I wouldn't sell it. I wouldn't call it evil. I would say it's uh, it's a No, no, you don't have to be virtuous, which means that you would be doing something That's not virtuous or the opposite of virtue, which would be evil, right? Yeah, I mean Thomas Thomas Jefferson raked his uh, his uh, you know His black slave, but he did also a lot of great things and I would call him a great man Anyway, so what are the evils that you would do this is straight up dusty esky, right? This is straight up climate punishment, right? Like you've got this really bad Woman who's who's a porn broker who's ripping off students as as the rest colonel cough things and he goes and kills her so what evils or Currently defined evils Would you guys commit because you know, you're talking about me You hate speech from jf and inciting violence to me like it's you know And and now we're at the place where you guys are like, oh, yeah, we would totally do immoralities under the current system in order to achieve our goal Is that? Hang on Neither one of us said that we we he said hypothetically Someone could do that. No, no Also, he said he said you don't have to be a good person. You could you don't you can't be virtuous to achieve your goals I said it's not about it's not about virtues It's not about virtues. So what immoralities would you guys it's your argument not mine, and I'm not trying to be snarky I'm genuine argument, but we don't define them as immoralities because look you you you said You you're gonna you're gonna exploit the workers because you're controlling the means of production through paying people to produce your comic book Right, and you say that's fine. It's okay.  Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. That's that does not track Exploiting because it's bad, but it's okay if it produces a comic book that advances communism So the ends justify the means and I'm just so no no one has made that argument stethan No, no Robert Owen like I was saying Recorded and could be played back so I don't know yeah, and you will find Robert Robert Owen was made that argument That is your characterization Robert oren was a was a factory owner in the 1800s and he He he argued for socialism. He wrote about it He was involved in socialist actions, but he owned factories and what he did was he made experiments where he See if he gave up productivity from his workers by lowering the amount of hours of work they they did and upping their pay and sure enough He found that his he got better work out of it He got more productivity out of treating his workers better now He was still exploiting them and he had to as a capitalist. That's his role in society He could have given it up, but that wouldn't have helped the cause anymore now I would like to make it's irrelevant. So it's also irrelevant to getting to socialism the workers by this means, right? Oh, he is He was still making a profit off of them So he is exploiting the workers, but it was good. It was less. He was That was less bad He was doing less bad is good. Yes, exactly. So what I'm going to invite you guys And and you know, look you care passionately about good in the world and look we all here trying to help people and We care about progress in human emancipation, not about good and bad progress and human emancipation Is progress in emancipation. Is that not good? So it's it allows the greatest freedom you can call that a good if you want It's something are you allergic to the word? Why can't you say the word good? I mean, is it good? So the the reason why is he's not doing a moralistic critique of political economy He's he's talking specifically materialist about like the actual physical relationships between people and food and industry I get all of that. But isn't that isn't it better or preferable for there to be more freedom in the world? I mean, yes, absolutely. That's why I'm a communist. Okay.  I say it's good and better. Oh, no. I don't want to say that. It's like So I think we both have Slightly different what are you talking about? I think you and I we're running out of time We do have just about a minute left and can I answer can I answer Stefan's question actually? Let me just very briefly and then if we can go just a little bit over honestly I just think 30 seconds So guys what I'm going to offer you and whether you take it or not obviously completely up to you It's it's still a relatively free society. I'm offering you a path to oppose state power that doesn't require you to compromise morality But rather inactive. So if you focus on The better treating treatment of children anti spanking anti circumcision anti abuse Then you will be doing far more than anyone else To undermine the power of the state hierarchy comes from the family The the child is the father of the man the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world hierarchy comes from family If the family is hierarchical and brutal the society will be hierarchical and brutal I'm inviting you to work with me in this area where you don't have to compromise your morality You don't have to say well Jefferson raped people and blah blah blah You don't have to you can just say I'm going to pursue the good without having to do bad or justify it or or Dodge around it. I'm going to focus on building a free society from the crib up Which is the only way it can be built. You don't have to make compromises You don't have to kind of stutter around the edges of these morality issues You don't have to have this for kalnikov.  And you can have a very clean conscience when it comes to pursuing a better world. Okay. Sorry. Thanks So the problem with that Is that the state structure itself is self replicating and it creates incentives that drive people It functions a lot like an ai if you want to think of that with regard to capitalism It's one of the reasons why we could have very easily had as successful a response to covet in the united states as vietnam had Unfortunately, we have no ability because of capitalism and the state structure and the level of incentives that we had to actually respond Meaningfully in what 600,000? Is it now 800,000 people are dead as a direct result of that Individual morality Even if you had 100% of the people in the world behaving in a very as you would consider a virtuous manner Raise it the state would still continue to replicate itself because again, this is it's like a machine It is a web of human intelligence and a web of human relationships that That has been running our society since about 6,000 years ago And the we cannot destroy it simply by wishing it away or being better people We have to actually destroy you have to actually break the machine Now how do you do that? And what are you talking about here? What are you talking about in terms of breaking this machine? Are you talking about violence? So yeah, so what you do is you uh, you collectively with workers and in a party you take over that means the production You take over the the things you do on this society. You literally take them How do you call that violence violence? No, you don't actually you don't have to use violence the Russian revolution was bloodless The violence came after in the reaction by the Tsarist regime literally looking up The German government funded Lenin with massive amounts of arms and sent them to take out Russia The German government did not Yeah, okay, cool. Cool story. They didn't did there was no blood spilt in the actual taking of the Duma um, so A revolution if with a weak capitalist government does not need to be Uh, uh violent at all the violence happens in the reaction by the ruling class It doesn't mean The Russian the violence of the soviet state was the bourgeois is the common communist The communists took power and essentially in a bloodless coup and the bourgeois attack then afterwards Well, I know about the the war that came after that but that was quite a lot of Violent taking over of things by by Lenin and there were concentration camps in the 1920s. I mean, this is not Yet, of course, they were and I think and no one's advocating this model The the point was that you can actually take power bloodlessly now I'm gonna answer this question in a good faith way because this is actually a really good question Um, and this is something that I wrestle with. Uh, I am a nature in buddhist And very much I believe in karma not in the way that most people imagine believing karma But I don't believe that you can kill yourself your way to a better world In much the same way that I would not make the the choice that risk on the cove made to kill the woman I think that's, you know brilliant book crime and punishment How do we move forward? And how do we get ourselves out of this problem that we have found ourselves in because of the actions of men long dead Um, I think that there are a number of approaches to it partially. I think it involves raising consciousness Uh, and I think it will need to be a change in consciousness away from an egotistical way of looking at the world Um, this goes back to my my buddhist principles. Um, you know The if you won't you were talking about good and evil and the way I think of good and evil is in the terms of Fundamental darkness, which is the part of our brains the aspect of consciousness That makes us think that we are just ourselves and only ourselves and that we end in our skin and nothing else um, it is this uh It is this mistake That caused us to think that we can gain at From another's, uh harm that we can gain while someone else takes, uh, some You know, while somebody else, uh takes the uh takes the blame or whatever um I think that moving forward we need a Reformation in how we relate to each other and to our environment and perhaps some of that can happen within the family But we also need To simultaneously take action within material reality to destroy and dismantle these Sections of power that will eventually mean a world revolution where we do away with military and police And nations and borders and everything now will that happen bloodlessly? I hope so my I feel you know in the history of our species such things have not happened bloodlessly But you know what things change they always do and I think that that has to be the way forward So I don't think we can go with a pure idealist approach and I don't think we can go with a pure Machiavellian approach I think we need to do both at once And I'm very excited to see what happens in the future as we do work to throw off the shackles of the state and capitalism But we have to identify the real problem and attack it at the root We cannot get sidetracked by blaming ethnicities or or you know other people, you know who Are ultimately exactly like us. They just look a little different maybe talk differently. We we we cannot get there and famously Antisemitism is the socialism of fools essentially and james so james are we in our concluding statements? Yes, or Okay, so just in conclusion. I'll say here we have two communists who don't they have a project for a society They think that a stateless society will converge toward what they want through Persuasion it just won't have that this world Society has already I'd like I'm just concluding here society has already converged naturally Toward the state of capitalism because precisely people have the means without the state to defend property They can defend it with threat. They can defend it with the potential for violence in the same way you defend your toothbrush First it's because not much people want your toothbrush. They don't want to share it with you Second, it's because if your toothbrush is somehow valuable to you You have a potential to defend it violently This is the natural basis for property and even in a stateless society Someone like Jeff Bezos would certainly have the means to protect his lands With private security forces without the intervention of the state would brand would brand simply start calling The property of Jeff Bezos in such a world personal property because he has the means to defend it No, I'd call it a state and I destroy it In the end in the end all I'll say is ignore these guys They think the world will converge one way either they're right and you won't do anything about it or they're most likely wrong and communism will Straight away from existence and will remain an idea in their head You got it.  I'll just make the you know, the the most obvious point that you know The things that Stefan and John François are arguing for you know, the markets and private property Literally require the very thing they're against which is again the state. You can't oh, well, that's okay. I'm still there. Keep talking. I'm still here Yeah, you can't enforce The nap or private property rights or or any of this stuff without armed bodies of men, which is what a state is So I'll just leave it at that You got it. Everybody feel good about going to the q&a Do I get a closing statement? You got it. Go ahead. Okay. I'll keep it brief. So You can't Bludge in your way to utopia. I think we can all accept that's been on the horrible lessons I mean really of of everything from the Greeks Greeks to the Romans to the Ottomans to the bloody wars of the 20th century to to Nietzsche's Nietzschean will to power out of Nazi Germany and you simply cannot initiate the use of violence to create A utopia if you want to create a better world You begin by enacting the non-aggression principle in your own life in your own society That means peacefully parenting your children and also keeping people out of your life who resolutely Resolutely support the use of violence Violence the initiation of violence always achieve achieves the opposite of its stated goal If you want a woman to love you and you kidnap her she's going to end up hating you if you're hitler And you want to protect Germany and then you initiate national socialism Then you end up with Germany being destroyed from end to end and culturally destroyed in the end of time If you want to create a classless egalitarian society through communist takeover of the duma in russia Then you end up with a far greater disparity of political power in your system Then you ever had of economic power and if the only way you can solve inequality Economic disparities disparities and income disparities and capital accumulation If the only way you can solve that and the only way that has been proposed by the left to solve that Is to create a massive powerful state that redistributes everything then you're taking away or you're trying to solve the problem of economic Inequality with massive political inequality now economic inequality. Yeah, I think it's something to be closed I think we want to teach kids how to be entrepreneurs. I think we want to teach them how to compete with the ruling classes We need to reduce or eliminate the power of the state So it's more even playing field But if you're going to try and solve economic inequality with massive political disparities In other words, the state controls the means of production and everybody else just get in line and go to the gulag You've fucked up royally. You cannot solve economic inequality with massive political inequality We have to get rid of this notion that we can bludgeon our way to a better world And there are those of course out there in the world doing massive evils And and they tempt us into wishing to return evil to them They've got the club. So we grab the club But as you know, right and I for and I simply it's the whole world blind We start with the family we start with that but we can control and we can grow a beautiful world After the out of the peaceful raising of children. That's what science tells us and there's no other way Okay, I'll I'll keep mine Short and pithy Yeah, very short and pithy So first of all, I would recommend that anyone who's looking for a model for a better society For that we can all live in really needs to look into there are two documentaries you need to watch the take by Naomi Klein and about the Argentinian recovered factories movement, which was done bloodlessly and Living utopia, which is free online It is about the anarchists during the Spanish civil war and I would highly recommend you look into the history of the zapatistas in shepas of the cnt fi in spain and especially Of most recently The ypg pk the pkk ypg in rojava based on the philosophy of mori bookchin These new societies are not perfect. They have problems But as we move forward as a species, I genuinely believe that They will that this model has a lot to offer I will also say that in order to take back the property From the moneyed classes from the capitalists, you don't need a huge bloody revolution You simply have to eliminate the state as an ability to to control it Once you get rid of the military and the police and private security and any other force of armed men Suddenly the property Goes and defaults to exactly where it has always been traditionally in the 246,000 years of human history, which is possession and use and common overwhelmingly common Thank you You gotta thank you very much and folks want to let you know We have so many questions that we will not be able to get to any new questions So please don't submit any more questions We do want to get our guests out of here at a decent hour and also gentlemen if you can do a favor and Try to if you Absolutely have to give a response to what somebody had said while answering their question If you could do that as seldom as possible just because everybody is really excited to get to hear your guys's responses To their question. They're really excited to hear that and so that way we'll be able to move fast But I do want to remind you folks our guests are linked in the description So you can hear plenty more in case you don't get to hear your question asked Mr. Cabs Just one tiny suggestion I would prefer it because we've had a lot of back and forth Let's audience focus and just focus on answering the questions in the audience rather than chance at each other I like it. I'm down to do that everybody. Okay with that. Let's do it. All right, so I wanted to attack brands, but okay Thank you for not aggression Coming in from mr. Krabs Not quite related to communism, but if you guys are willing to humor it they say to both sides Is it okay to be white and if you can't say yes, then is it okay to be black? It's okay every ethnicity and we should learn to understand each other understand our differences live in peace and harmony It is absolutely. Okay to be every ethnicity Yeah, it's okay to be white is something that is superficially true but advanced by primarily by fascists and white nationalists who use it as a As a bad faith argument The fact is is that race is used by the state to control all of us the whole reason like The whole reason the ethnicities are the way that we see them is specifically because it was convenient to the victorians So that they could justify murdering and subjugating people all around the world So in a sense, it is always okay to be yourself but also like Take a look around and see how you are being manipulated and one of the major reasons that you and one of the major ways Everyone is manipulated is through race But race is not merely a point of manipulation by the state It will take hours if we can't speak Race is a concept that has value for the individual for who their daughters will date for who They will interact with for who they identify with and so it has private legitimate uses and it is not mere manipulation by the state It only has that because the state We'll give you a chance Uh, I love being white because it gives me privileges that other people don't have it's pretty cool I will say though that I am half irish and half ukrainian Uh and a hundred years ago.  Sorry. That's just Fals dica to me.  So I would prefer that life continue than to Live in a paradise where life does not continue You got it Want to warn folks if you haven't to submit a so-called question, but it's really just insulting one of the speakers I'm not going to read it coding. Jesus says Brent when you reward people for having needs you encourage the having of needs instead of the creation of value Oh my god, I mentioned they said capitalism rewards serving others Okay, no, it doesn't it only sometimes rewards serving others. Um, so first off This is really weird to hear from capitalists that like Needs are infinite needs are infinite, but not the same need is not infinite We know this because of marginal utility So like the the paradox of water versus diamonds you all as you get one more Or even better slices of pizza the first slice you have great second slice wonderful third slice Getting a little full six slice. Oh my god. Why am I doing this to myself? So it's not about that society will be this is infinite belly that constantly wants everything all the time It's that needs and desires can be guided in socially beneficial directions And that would be what a sane economic system would do The problem of marginal utility is that it's focused on people on single individuals But that at the biological level someone who has needs will eventually have many more copies of themselves in the world Through babies and they will have more needs. So marginal utility doesn't apply to groups of people that can multiply Exponential No, it still would apply because there's same individual It would apply to the individuals not to the group. Okay This one coming in from joshua larson says swole is let's see Oh Not exactly what i'm looking forward this one coming in from Well, at least it's a compliment a long story short says jeff and stefan Megapower of philosophy like when holkogan teamed up with macho man randy savage very nice very kind Ergoth says communists are not against capitalism They just want to climb the ladder through social shaming and moral signaling rather than meritocracy Manipulate your value by accusing the competition of being morally bankrupt Just confused So I was you know, I would never have dreamt in my life of looking up Uh swole or or brenton's history and and finding out. Oh my gosh Someone said something bad about them or someone made up something bad about them Or they did something that was unacceptable or out of the bounds of polite society You know, I never would have imagined doing that now you guys of course did that with me you did that with jf It's kind of impossible.  Oh, someone said something bad Oh, there seems to be something negative that I can interpret. I mean, it's not simply that is a public service announced I didn't even know that you're gonna hold on brenton. I do want to give you a chance to respond It's okay So and the reason that I would do that I wrote this whole book called out of the argument You can get it at out of the argument.com is that You can't verify these things I've rebutted all of this nonsense that said about me six million different ways from sunday And I rebutted it even here and you accused me of things that weren't true So the reason I wouldn't do that is I like to Think on my feet. I like to really Work with the information that's coming to me and deal with people with as much respect as I can give to them in the moment Rather than trying to pick something from the past, which seems kind of intellectually lazy Finding people who said mean things or bad things and I just as a whole I think that we can't really and it started off in a really bad way because of that because you know, it's annoying And it's it's lazy and and boring and and you know, just the rent, right? It's just trashy, right? It's it's it's um, it's like listening to two boxers trash talk each other or two restless trash talk each other I think that we really this might be a suggestion for the next time Just just come in and deal with the person's facts reasons evidence and argument rather than just immediately starting with the ad-homs and the Trashing it's just it's you know, we got to try and find a way to elevate debate in society and and this this didn't Be blabbering. No, can can I never never believe that anti-semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies They know that their remarks are frivolous and open to challenge, but they are amusing themselves for it Is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly since he believes in words the anti-semites have the right to play They even like to play with discourse for by giving Let's move on to the next question Start I think it's fair to want to debate communism and so unless it has to do with Communism swole, I I do want to move to the next question because yeah, no No, no, no, I want to add I want to answer the audience question. Can you reread it for me? You got it. They had said Urgoth says communists are not against capitalism They just want to climb the ladder through social shaming and moral signaling rather than meritocracy Manipulate your value by accusing the competition of being morally bankrupt Okay, so yeah, I just wanted to say that that's funny because capitalism by definition Prevents meritocracy because it you end up with classes that that make that impossible and which creates incentives and influences that makes it And corruption that make it so meritocracy true meritocracy isn't possible There's always a degree of meritocracy if you want meritocracy and I do you want communism So get on board. Uh, the other point is uh, we're not I don't think capitalism is evil I think capitalism is absolutely progressive a progressive force over feudalism I'm so glad we're in capitalism now, and I'm so glad I live in liberal democracy in canada But I want to complete the you know the ideals of the bourgeois revolution liberty Fraternity inequality This one coming in from mr. Krabs says never forget the 7 to 11 million christian ukrainians murdered by communists in the ussr Right very very important. Uh, there are it's the holodomor is one of the very under reported on under discussed Genocides in in history, and I think it's absolutely tragic And I think it shows the control that leftists and communists have over the educational system that you you don't hear Much about it at all and and then when we did come come up here I think it was brenton just said oh, there was some bad apples in the mix and that's that's why it happened in style No, no, I said the famines specifically now holodomor involved aspects of famines um, and there is some Historical disagreement over whether that was an intentional genocide or an accident I think it was a monstrous one way or the other, uh, but that you you can't lay that purely at the feet of lycean go Just uh, the famines themselves were lysenko's fault I am ukrainian and um, I'm willing to admit it wasn't an intentional genocide what he was doing was, uh, not giving a fuck by About the you know, ukrainians, but also the uh, I think kazakhstan had more deaths than than uh, ukraine And also, uh, so russia had lots of deaths almost all countries in that part of the world had millions and millions of people die But more kazakhs die and yet and yet the the right in ukraine drummed up this this narrative of uh, intentional genocide That's fake news.  I would say if people want to look into ukrainian history I would look into the black army, uh under nester makno They were phenomenal and while the reds and the whites fought over to conquer the country They battled to free it and actually our nester makno was the reason why Largely the reason why the reds won the war ultimately and then was chased out of the country and um, a lot of his, uh, lieutenants were murdered Sorry, i didn't mean to interrupt you Yeah, no, it's it's it's a beautiful part of history and uh, also coincidentally nester makno will appear in issue two This one coming in from snake was right says brent. What about the chinese communist famines that necessitated Reprivatization of farms lysenko Yes, lysenko the chinese believed the the the the propaganda that were put out by the ussr That's why they ate up their food stores for years like in just a couple of months That's why they did the thing where they killed all the sparrows. They thought they were going to have this giant Explosion of food and they were looking to look into the future and to protect it But they'd been lied to there's not trouble you that you have a system where one person makes a mistake And 20 or 30 or 40 million people. I mean, yes, but that's not my system that definitely does I don't think we should do the ussr's political structure This one coming in from Mr. Krabs says brent if you go from new york to kentucky and use the emergency room without insurance How is that not welfare? I mean, so first off The anybody can use the emergency room without insurance anywhere and medical bills are largely A giant scam anyway So no that that wouldn't be welfare like if I use the emergency room in new york without insurance Be exactly the same. So that doesn't make any sense I mean the idea is do we help people who are dying if they can't afford it? Yes, obviously we do Because a life a single human life is worth more than all the money in the world because again money isn't real It's it's just a measure of wealth. That's what inches What from welfare? Well go for it says communism works in a society or tribe of about 100 people laugh out loud I mean, that's ridiculous because we've seen it function like on the national and regional level We've got this cnt fi uh in uh spain who stopped the fascist war machine Dead in its tracks and collectivized the entire city of barcelona and the surrounding argon front for for for like three years We also have, you know, the pkk ypg, which were the single best fighters against isis In in kurdistan and syria And we also have the zappatistas who've been doing their thing in shepis, you know, since the 90s So and all of these societies are far bigger than 100 people. You're just ignorant Imagine if conservatives actually read history Contrary in 420 says for both sides starting with jf and stefan Thoughts on on the increasing economic and political power of pharmaceutical corporations Well, it's a problem And it's especially a problem in which we have states that are interacting with corporation The state comes in and scoos the free market If it was just corporations setting things at the price that they want and benefiting from it That wouldn't be a big problem But when you get their agents from the corporations acting into the state and giving a veneer of legitimacy To vaccines to certain medications and they essentially are agents of the corporation But they claim to be agents for public good. That is a very bad mix to have Yeah, and i'm not a fan. I like in a sort of free society the way that You would make money as a healthcare provider as if people got Stayed healthy, you know in there was a great system in china in the middle ages Where you paid your doctor every month until you got sick and then you stopped paying him until you got better So he had an incentive to keep you healthy And and people should be paid for your health They should not be paid for your sickness socialist medicine makes money off people being sick It does not make money off people being healthy a free market and a voluntary system Would of course you would want everyone to make money when you're healthy and lose money when you're sick But that doesn't work into the existing all of the incentives are completely backwards And when the incentives are backwards, there'll be a few people still doing the right thing But for the most part people just kind of give in and go with the flow and it's really terrible the average doctor In in canada listens to patients for 18 seconds before prescribing something 18 seconds And if you have complicated medical issues people may not want to see you We've got waiting lists two years to two and a half years I once needed to see a specialist and I was told I have to wait for 16 months in which case Hey, I'm better or I'm dead. So we do have a pretty bad system a free system This kind of systems that evolve spontaneously in a free society are systems where they only make money When you're healthy and then are obligated to treat you through contracts when you're Unwell, I think that would be a wonderful way to move forward right now It's it's entirely backwards. And you know, I had very briefly. I had a guy Just talking about this was my daughter today Madden America a fantastic book Robert Whitaker and he's pointing out he said look when we got antibiotics the number of infections went down You know when we had vaccines The number of those illnesses went down now We have these psychotropics and the incidence of mental illness is going through the roof It seems we're entirely backwards and we've become this Pharmaceutical dependent hobbled society where people won't eat well and exercise They just stuff themselves full of drugs that their grandchildren are going to have to pay for with their liberties And it's just absolutely wretched. I think we're I'm sure we're all on the same page that we don't like the existing system I just hope that we can get to a peaceful one down the road what Stefan just said about Canadian doctors is is a lie the 18 seconds refers to The time before a doctor interrupts a patient, which is still bad But that's all because of capitalist incentives not communists. We don't live in a communist society But the socialist system by the government is capitalist. It's literally not socialist. It's literally capitalism However in cuba means of production in cuba We they have lots of doctors and in fact they get much better care much better time with their with their patients and even the same thing can be said actually for uh, uh, The venezuela at least uh back in the late 2000s before They were there all gotta be there yeah, um, I'll say that big pharma is horrifying and incentives for profit to be tied to health care is one of the worst things that you can possibly do because everybody gets sick So you essentially have a captive audience and it will only you have a captive Consumer base and it will only get worse As society continues That said and i'm gonna put put this out.  It just killed My wife's cousin. I watched to my friend Both of her parents died Of kovat within a week at the very beginning of this thing.  She's not much I'm not i'm not very old and she's not much older than me and her parents were healthy. So i'm certainly i mean i'm Get vaccinated angry. I'm incredibly angry at communist china for facilitating the spread of this disease into the world By not informing people as they were bound to do by by the most solemn treaties in the world by Informing people of a potential pandemic by disappearing doctors who criticize by downplaying human to human transmission They facilitated the spread of this by closing down internal travel while still encouraging people to travel overseas They spread this damn thing across the world and that's just another body count for communism You mean literally capitalism capitalist china? Yeah, we do Strikes again saying commies who decided who decides who owns what in any stateless society I mean, what can you hold and control? Just by yourself That's what you own and when you stop holding and controlling and using it Then somebody else can come by and take it. That's how anarchists have always defined property rights It is based upon possession and use you've heard possession is nine tenths of the law Where we start to get techie is when you try to Own and control something you neither use nor possess and instead use state violence to enforce that ownership relationship So, yeah, this this this is a pretty silly question. Um, like yeah, personal property is yours. It's it's factories It's uh, it's big government institutions or or or the the socialist versions of those It's small farms that you get to uh Small farms you get to run yourself big farms are are nationalized Or for the production of everybody, but uh, yeah, it's it's not complicated wait nationalized. What do you mean? Nationalize the state's less society expropriate nationalize something in a state of society. Sorry. I I I misspoke Okay, no, no, I'm not trying to get you. I just expropriated Yeah, he made me say expropriated and run democratically by the workers got it this one coming in from taylor h says brent Will you please directly address jf's argument about infinite needs? I did so let's keep going This one coming in from appreciate your question poofy says brent, please explain quote money isn't real Given that you say that is personal property tradable or is it also not real? I mean personal property is in the physical things that you have your computer your food That's real. That's wealth if you want to think of it like that Money is not wealth money is a measure of wealth. It has the same kind of reality as language It's like inches, uh, you know, so it is a System that we use To try to manage how we distribute goods It has some good qualities towards it But it also has a lot of really really bad qualities And I would like to see as we move into the future where we Go with and this, you know, ironically jf kind of mentioned this when he said you can't use The will of the mob or mobs intelligence Look up swarm technology We have actually seen this technology has been around since the 1930s. It's getting even more and it's a way of Integrating individual inputs in such a way that the swarm becomes smarter than the sum of its parts And it's actually outperformed both experts and markets And was able to successfully predict the winner of the kandaki derby Multiple years running if i'm not mistaken and not not just the winner, but like the trifecta So it's outperformed both central planning and markets and I really think If we can make it work politically swarm technology is the way of the future on how we can Distribute goods and services within the society The entirety of human society is a swarm and it's a swarm that makes babies And you have to be careful. There's a different type of evolutionary relationships that applies to groups that make babies Then swarms that are coordinated through some sort of technological internet communication Okay, so it's like with bees with like a swarm of bees and bees make babies The swarm is more intelligent than any individual bee No individual bee can even conceive a proper hive placement, but together they actually wind up finding the hives This is a way to see that you mentioned bees because bees are actually The the relationship between all of the bees of a colony between each other are the same as between the cells in our body So a bee colony is actually one individual biologically because it has only one queen that will carry their genes I mean, I don't see where you're going from that The point is we can capture like we can wear like a suit of bear fur to be warm We can capture this power the bees have to swarm technology Rum runner says I know a guy who became rich because he bought a bunch of bitcoin in 2013 And he sold it last year. What exactly did he or who exactly did he exploit to become rich? Well, one he exploited the planet because bitcoin is terrible for the environment and he exploited future generations because he contributed to global warming As far as like actual bitcoin mining He got lucky He found a loophole in the system for a while Speculated and made some made some money But again, money isn't wealth and what if I were that guy what I would do is I would take that money immediately And exchange it for something real actual property Actual productive things that he needs within his life. Don't hang on to it because again, it's it's nothing On the plus side, Brenton's comic has zero carbon footprint. So that's totally I mean, it's got as low a carbon footprint as I can really There's no ethical consumption No, bitcoin is uniquely bad for the environment like it takes up more energy than Hey, you want to go bitcoin with me, man? I've been doing this since 2010. That's two bitcoin.  I'll keep this brief. So bitcoin is the most fantastic thing for the environment because fiat currency Promotes the absolute raping and pillaging of mother nature through massive debt. Okay. That's what aboutism You're just doing what aboutism And I make my argument, thank you So what we want to do is we want to limit human consumption and not Turn it into a cancer or a tumor where we just grab and consume Everything at will so bitcoin will massively limit access human consumption in a way that fiat currency can never do Bitcoin also will end war because wars are funded through fiat currency Bitcoin will end injustice enslavement because it will match the limited nature Of our material resources. So bitcoin, as you know, is limited to 21 million Nature is limited. We can do a lot with it, but it still eventually is a finite situation. So moving But people just make other crypto moving moving from a fiat currency system where you can create value out of thin air And thus allow people to go Allowing allowing governments to print money and and like Debt is simply deferred consumption You simply when you go when you borrow a thousand dollars and you buy a computer You're just deferring not buying a computer down the road or not buying something else when you pay that money back Bitcoin does not allow for the intergenerational pillaging of the unborn Surely the worst exploitation in the history of the world And so bitcoin by pushing back against the state and its capacity to buy allegiance by printing money Is going to be the biggest thing to limit our consumption to limit an end war except an extremity of defense It is the greatest thing for anti-statism is the greatest thing to actually protect mother earth and I came out of the environmental industry I spent in 15 years as an environmental Entrepreneur so I know to some degree wherever I speak This is the most incredible technology to protect us from the pillaging of resources and our liberties Through the infinite creation of imaginary money. There's a question for you brenton. There's a question. We have wars in the first place This current way just till we don't go too too deep on this one. Yeah, this question is for you brenton They say how do you justify taking the surplus value of the labor of your contractors? I don't take the surplus value of the labor of my contractors Again, like a surplus value labor situation is when you have an employee who's paid hourly for your wages Like that's what happens because like for instance, I worked as a manager in the past And at my job people were paid minimum wage And I had orders to fire anyone who wasn't generating at least 40 dollars an hour per hour They worked now that is taking surplus value because that individual is generating Significantly more than what they than what they are paid back now We can find a more equitable way of doing that because there is you know People in management do things that's a thing. I'm not going to say that all management is bad I'm not even going to say necessarily that all ownership or all investment is bad But what I what I am saying is is that what we need to have is we need to have employment contracts Um Where they are negotiated from an even playing field where each party when they negotiate Stands to gain and lose roughly the same amount and when I'm dealing with a contractor. That's what's happening I I don't have uh a coercive Controlling share over the people who choose to work with me and I choose to work with so it the Uh specific like labor theory of value exploitation doesn't actually apply to my business model You got it and the legend rift says communism can't work. Look at how the political bureau Failed the russian economy central planning has a Knowledge problem because of our individual liberty.  You're just wrong like they had their problems But russia went from a limping pre industrial power to uh superpower able to go toe to toe with the united states After smashing the nazi war machine in a matter of decades now the human cost to that Was horrifying and I would not recommend that anyone do that for any reason But what I am saying is is that they are very very good at coordinating and especially functioning In like more primitive societies that have uh primitive. I don't mean it like that that have uh been um Historically exploited by western capitalist interests and you just have to look at like What said communism was not applicable to more primitive societies Mark said that and the ussr tried to still do the max is wrong about that Um, I would say he was kind of right on that in that they haven't been able to reach communism yet I think you need to move through those uh veritable stages of history, but also i'm an anarchist so I'm kind my idea of socialism and communism is more rooted in peasant traditions anywa