Alright, this is going to be more intense than Sargon vs. Jason. Muke and Jason disagree on so many things, on praxis, on IdPol, on the USSR. This is just going to end up embarrassing for both sides. Muke will just spit out his catchphrase about commodity production and quoting the CotGP, and then Jason will try to retort, Muke will respond to that by just repeating himself, etc.
Alright, this is going to be more intense than Sargon vs. Jason. Muke and Jason disagree on so many things, on praxis...
Muke is going to get his ass handed to him.
Not because he is necessarily wrong, but because Jason is a professional debater and Muke is a part time video maker who stumbles over his words.
Muke needs to
read Raya Dunayevskaya
Honestly the roo is going to destroy him. Been in the game way longer and Muke doesn’t know how to debate. Regardless of the positions they hold
Muke already gets advices via his CuriousCat as to what arguments to use. Somebody make this fair and message Roo good arguments against Muke
Even though Roo has some retarded opinions and is wrong on several accounts, he has read a fuckton more than muke due to his age and probably has all his sides covered shut.
oh fuck me. .This is gonna be good. Premier Roo is gonna butt fuck Muke like he did Sargon.
Reminder that this kind of autistic debate is really fucking old and has been beaten to death. pdf related
Does anyone have the picture of the emaciated bookshelf of Muke?
Jason is going to tear him into little pieces.
I hope Muke Kill himself afterward.
I honestly don't give a fuck about their opinions on the chosen topic. Muke has already proven in his non-responses to FinnishBolshevik that he has no clue about the topic and UnruHUE at best will restate FinnishBolshevik's arguments again, less poignantly.
So that part will be boring. What might be interesting is if Muke challenges Roo's turd worldism. I haven't seen Roo trying to defend the indefensible live (he has made written responses to criticisms which were laughable), especially something so close to his heart, part of his identity.
If Muke takes this shit seriously he could seriously beat Roo just by forcing how un-Marxist the restriction of revolutionary possibility to the third world is.
I don't care much about the idpol debate, either. Muke is a faggot, and Roo does cover up some personal pathologies with his brand of anti-idpol. In this sense having Roo and Sargon debate idpol would be much productive in its effects (clearing up some idiocies about cultural marxism meme).
This is boring.
When will Chairman Unruhuehuehue debate Jehu?
I can't wait to see both make asses of themselves.
Oh dis gun be gud.
There's not a more irrelevant event to left politics than this
What if the unite the left in their retardation?
Roo will only win because Muke is fucking dumb. Roo is a terrible Marxist but at least he knows how to be assertive, which is why he *appears* to win debates.
Then Otto Von Bismark's fear will be realised.
Neither one of them is a Marxist. Pass.
Why is Roo debating everyone now?
Publicity. His view count has dwindled in the past year. He barely gets 1000 views per vid all while Muke/puke gets over 8k per vid.
Ok, can anyone tell me what ideology muke subscribes too? I hadn't heard of this guy till recently, he calls himself a marxist on his about section on youtube, but I'm assuming he's on of those, "USSR was state capitalist" right? So is he a trot, leftcom, or…?
From what I can tell, he appears to be halfway between a leftcomm and a Trot. It all depends who he reads first: DeLeon or Trotsky.
Muke has better production and editing. Not only that, but Muke is pretty normal. Roo is kinda weird, his hair style is awful. Not trying to bully. Love both Roo and Muke.
Is there a 1v1 version of this?
Well, Muke actually writes a script. Jason is just sitting there reading out loud a news article. On the other hand, Jason makes two or three videos a day.
I wouldn't say that Muke's editing skills are better. Jason actually has higher production value, a fancy intro, greenscreen, professional lighting, etc.
Also, why are people so obsessed with his mohawk? It's a bit funky, but what I find way more irritating is his obesity and his suits. Sometimes he even wears an AnCap suit with yellow tie.
But think about it, Jason actually got a job for the Iranian state TV, Muke would never get on there the way he looks and talks (if you ignore his opinions which would bar him from going on there anyway).
Jason raped Sargon, he gone tear that Muke boipussy up
You need to be a "woke" Holla Forums tier leftist to like Roo. Most leftists are not into Stalin and Mao like we are. Muke is more palatable for normalfags.
True, but when pressured arround these issues, like the attempts of socialism in the past, Muke often comes over rather squirmy, and has his opponent condescendingly telling him "nice idea, but you're naive and will grow out of it". This happened a couple of times now.
By defending the USSR you got institutional evidence on your side. It existed, so it worked. It did some good things, so it was desirable. Liberals don't give a fuck whether or not something meets a very technical, theoretical definition of socialism. Nobody cares about commodity production. Liberals just gonna look at it, see it has been tried, and want evidence as to why this should be tried again. I don't think Muke quite understands how debates work.
As i recall he was i briefly in the IMT because they happened to have a student group at his uni, but they're orthodox trots and don't buy into the 'state capitalism' meme as well as being pretty stringent regarding theory and needing to read so naturally Muke left a few months later.
His own views are whatever happens to be the current trend on the community he's on, he was originally all for coops and the 'worker ownership of the MoP' when that was the Holla Forums soundbite and marksuccs were popular for like two months, then he moved to leftcom soundbites when leftcom rhetoric dominated Holla Forums, then he left Holla Forums for being 'problematic' and brocialist because he wanted to ingratiate himself with 'left twitter' and now he just peddles some unholy amalgamation of quotes from the two books he's read and a bunch of Holla Forums trends while trying to suck up to the bigger vaguely leftish or lib youtube/twitter ecelebs like contrapoints or hbomberguy
"raped" is a bit strong, Sargon gave Roo multiple potentially lethal openings that Roo failed to exploit, he comes off as having read a lot but not really having digested what he's read, he'll still probably beat Muke but he doesn't have a good enough grasp of Economic theory and history to properly verbally gape him. Lots of broad knowledge but not enough depth to really kill
That's an accurate summery. I remember Muke adopted every new hot meme talking point on Holla Forums as long as he affiliated himself with us. The only thing he didn't adopt was the "Google Bookchin" bullshit. Also don't forget he publicly criticized the IMT when he was still a member which is violating the principle of democratic centralism (defend the party line in public, voice criticism internally). Kind of a dick move.
Then smearing of us as being NazBols was also nonsensical, and this is when I truly recognized what a disingenuous cunt Muke actually was. I was quite disappointed. If he waited one of two months, he'd get an actual reason to denounce Holla Forums, because that is when the BO drama happened. But his reason was made up. There was never a surge in unironic NazBols, it was just memes. Also, isn't it funny that this is coming from someone who has a two hour stream with fucking Evalion on his second channel? Also I think it's fucking poor if you social views are changed by watching a fucking YouTube lolcow like Contra or hbomberguy. I mean, if Muke had read Caliban and the Witch or something and then changed his stance on IdPol, I'd had genuine respect for that, but that's just opportunistic bullshit. Fuck this guy.
Well, yeah, but it's sometimes hard to find the perfect argument everytime in a live debate. Where Jason truly destroyed Sargon was about the question whether or not wars are caused by material reasons or ideological reasons. Where Jason was rather shaky was the issue of poverty in the Third World. Rather odd, considering that this is supposed to be the strong suit of a Third Worldist. He's got books from fucking Anwar Shaikh on his website, applying the law of value to Third World exploitation. Has he read those?
He probably has, he raises talking points that sound like the kind of detail that you only really get in in depth books like those but never goes into good detail, he's probably read them but either didn't have the background to properly understand them or more likely didn't take the time to really thoroughly think through and digest them
I agree with you that it can be difficult to get an argument right in the middle of a debate but some of the openings Sargon gave were ridiculous and any amateur debater and certainly someone who bills themselves as being a hardcore ML would spot and exploit them right away, even if they didn't manage to drive the point home perfectly they would still be able to seriously damage Sargon's credibility very easily, probably the best example is when Sargon completely fucked up inflation, if you're having a debate about economic systems you should have an extremely good grasp of basic economics, Roo could have made him look like a complete idiot by concisely explaining what inflation is and then pressuring Sargon on how he didn't know what it is, possibly also linking back to the start of the Debate when Sargon claimed to have read Kapital, how can somebody get all the way through Capital without knowing what inflation is?
Another point is that Sargon brought up a number of points that could have let Roo shift the focus onto subjects he's relatively strong on, the best example being the Capital bit but there are others, when they got to the bit about third world exploitation Roo didn't take the opportunity to really push Sargon onto very shaky ground, which he could have easily done as he's proven in the past that he knows enough specific examples of 1st world neo-colonialism to hammer someone trying to explain that away
Jason was better when he was making vids in a Castro uniform in his mother's basement.
Nations do go to war for ego though. How do you explain the fact that AIPAC controls American Middle East policy entirely? It's not about money, it's about securing Israeli control over the entire region.
Israeli control of the region is not about money?
dude like beside saudi arabia israel is probably the richest country in that hellhole. if you think it's for money you're deluded.
Dubai? Qatar? Kuwait?
Most of Israel outside of Tel Aviv looks like shit. Even the settlements are lower income and only look "nice" due to being highly subsidized compared to the rest of the country (and not all settlements are nice either).
I think there was a slight uptick in unironic nazbols, but we were also being raided at the time. Muke should have known better though
Muke needs to ask Jason how he justifies the whole Primary-Secondary Contradiction stuff from an ontological point of view. Does Jason hold that capitalism (labeled as secondary) emanates out of imperialism? Does Jason agree with the post colonials that capitalism is a product of imperialism (or colonialism) rather than the traditional Marxist view which says the opposite?
Oh, yes, Chaya, Luke is going interrogate him on such a matter.
Review your mind, Jew: This is such a ludicrous proposal for you to offer that I believe you to only have made it so as to brag.
lmao, great post
That is a basic question of Marxian philosophy. The language isn't affected in any way, are you retarded by any chance?
Do you know who Luke is, or even Jason for that matter?
Well he is very nonthreatening, limp wristed as he is. But hardly a good billboard for vigorous and virile socialism.
the traditional Marxist view which says the opposite
What are you talking about specifically? There is a chapter in Capital Vol. 1 where Marx states that capitalism does have it's origin in colonial exploitation. The difference was that profits were gold and silver profits (mostly to buy mercenaries), and not capital accumulation, but it definitely planted the seed.
Regarding mondern times, capitalism and imperialism are not synoymous, but monopoly capitalism and imperialism more or less are. Anyway, your idea is wasted on Muke, because Muke hasn't read Lenin's book about imperialism and believes that imperialism is a ☭TANKIE☭ conspiracy.
Do you know who Luke, or even Jason for that matter is?
Calm down Satan.
If Muke tries to join De Leon gang I won't let him in.
Get back to editing.
I would like to tell this to Jason in a Youtube comment bu t I fear he would block me.
Get rid of that ridiculous haircut.
Get rid of those ridiculous Edgy clothes.
I know I'm asking for too much with this one but try losing some weight dude.
Man looks like a neckbeard Flanders.
Honestly people like you are way worse than Muke or Jason.
People who subscribe to whatever meme ideology is hot on the internet and change it like it's a fucking hat are worse than a plague.
I'm so fucking tired of twitter leftist such as yourself who treat their ideology as an identity
DeLeonism is the new meme ideology? Did I miss something?
Start off shitposting and now I'll always be a shitposter. I've been a De Leonist for like a year, if I'm just in it for the memes then at least give my props for being really fucking dedicated.
D-Did someone make sims of Muke and Roo…
That bookshelf is a national embarrassment.
What else should go into it?
Kinda goes under "Muke spews Marxist terms whenever he doesn't have an answer" but I think there should be a separate one for muke going "but commodity production though".
One for Muke quoting the same libcom article he quoted twice in his exchange with FinnBol.
One for Jason telling Muke to kill himself again.
Btw Jason is not a Maoist.
That Tweet is already pretty hilarious, I remember there was one CuriousCat answer were he could "understand Lenin for not getting Marx" because he "wasn't there to explain it to him".
And yeah, the way it was formulated it wasn't irony or something
an unruhe victory meme, in case he wins
When is the debate scheduled?
My point is, Jason won't be able to justify the theoretical foundation of his theory if pressed on it. Could he, for instance, explain Mao's method and how it differs from Marxist orthodoxy apart from the primary-secondary stuff? Does he think Mao was making a metaphysical point, or just a pragmatic one? Why do Mao's "contradictions" never sublate, but merely move on to new contradictions?
I agree capitalism is the product of colonial exploitation.
Muke should ask Jason these questions:
1. Are you [Roo] still a communist, given your support for third world nationalism and even going so far to say (in the debate with Sargon) "you wouldn't even need communism, you'd just need [third world nationalist governments] to cut off the first world from its supply of cheap labour and resources". This sounds highly supportive of capitalism.
2. On the same note, what do you [Roo] make of Zizek's claim of nationalism and ethnocentricism being the last cards capitalism has to play against worldwide proletarian solidarity? Now that capitalism has become universal, shouldn't socialism also become universal? How is the first vs. third world distinction negating the dominant ideology?
3. How does a so-called third worldist justify the USSR's actions in Central Asia and the Caucuses against Muslims? Were those wars not forms of ethnic chauvinism? (This is important given as to how Roo gets paid by the Ayatollah of Iran to appear on Iranian state TV.)
4. Why is it okay for the Iranian government to suppress communists?
5. Do you support Hezbollah when they are clearly anti-communist, and "Islamic socialism" is merely a turd position against capitalism and Marxism?
6. Were your early videos ghostwritten by RAIM?
Those are really good questions, user
What an embarrassing idiot.
Muke is human waste. He literally sabotaged his own comrades in the Sargon debate with the "not real socialism" bullshit, giving free ammunition to the opposition to use against them. Why the fuck would you bring up your sectarian disputes when you are debating right-wingers alongside other leftists?
How? Capitalist third world regimes would never be able to deny the 1st world cheap labor and resources. Only socialist regimes could accomplish that.
Because he's special and wants you to know that, user. There are obvious priorities for every communist:
me > communism
Which vid is this?
That's the thing about trots, leftcoms, and other pseudo-socialists. On some level, whether conscious or unconscious, they know full well that their bullshit is antithetical to real socialism and ultimately serves to help liberalism. Yet in spite of this, they continue with their asinine beliefs, because that same part of them is willing to go along with destroying socialism rather than admit their own cognitive dissonance, thus why Muke and his ilk seem to have so many "accidental" gaffs. This is why gulags, reeducation camps, and other such places are necessary.
Roo thinks third world nationalism or third world turd positionism is enough to stop capitalist exploitation. That's what he said to Sargon anyway.
I honestly don't think you can gulag or reeducate the Muke out of the Muke. The kid is a complete wreck, it's mostly psychological. Like the typical socially awkward millennial he is, he's started his youtube channel out of a narcissistic hope to make online "friends". Now that he did he threw away leftypol which only served him as a tool for to filtering out his "gang".
Calling Hezbollah "anti-communist" is a bit of a stretch. IIRC they've never committed any violence against leftists in Lebanon.
I grew up Muslim BTW. Any orthodox Muslim will be anti-communist.
someone finish this shit, only 3 to go
Admittedly, most of them are just going to get the wall. Reeducating them is a waste of time.
Muke is the kind of guy who'd immediately denounce a Bolshevik/Jacobin kind of revolutionary government.
Hence my analysis on the subconscious compulsions of pseudo-Marxists. As soon as real socialism appeared, he would immediately turn against it, it's in their nature to do so. Egoism at its finest.
Do it yourself.
Most psuedo-Marxists like Muke and George Orwell are from upper-class backgrounds. They support Marxism on paper, but are opposed to actually existing socialism due to their material interests.
Depends on how you define "real socialism". I, for one, would not support a crypto-fascist government or theocracy masquerading as "socialist".
"Rojava is imperialist"
"I'm not reading shit from lib com"
"S-shut the fuck up"
"One accuses the other of not reading X"
thanks, these were great
Damn, nig, Muke is rich? IMA start sucking his cock like his followers.
Not to defend muke, but you could make the argument that Marxist and anarchist theorists such as Engels or Kropotkin also came from upper-class backgrounds. I don't think them coming from upper or lower classes makes stuff that they propose redundant.
People like Engels and Kropotkin were traitors to their class who weren't afraid of the destruction of their own class. In contrast, people like Muke deep down are terrified of what an actual revolution would look like, hence their constant attacks on actually existing socialism.
Source on Muke being rich?
Actually existing socialism such as what? If we're talking of his disavowment of The Free territory, Catalonia, Sankara's Burkina Faso, Maurice Bishop then yeah he's a dumb arse.
Predictions for the first 20 minutes.
Oh, here's one that may come up: Hungarian revolution.
This may come into talks of the debate of "the USSR became imperialist". Also they have to establish as to wether the USSR was socialist to a under stalin/ lenin or if it was socialist throughout its entire existence.
Shit, wrong flag
How the fuck was the Ukranian territory socialism, my fucking god? It was an egalitarian peasant commune with close to zero urban base. Same with Catalonia: openly bourgeois government, chaotic mixed economics (money, labor vouchers, barter) and property relations (voluntary collectivization, capitalist co-ops, proper communist factories).
You have to be under 20 layers of ideology to think these even remotely compare to planned economies.
I'm sorry, I misread your post.
Who the fuck are you quoting? To compare them to the soviet model you'd have to use the same measurements: political model, economy, property relations.
Anything else is feels over reals.
I mean, every anarchist whom I've spoken to about the UFT and Catalonia always use hyperbole to describe both, saying things like "the Spanish anarchists completely abolished the division of labor" or "had Anarchist Catalonia been able to survive they would have made revolutions in science".
I also love how they repeatedly assert that factoid about the co-op factories producing more than before in Catalonia while simultaneously arguing in another thread "against work." I just love how they use productivism and anarchist stakhanovism when it fits their agenda and attack the USSR on these very grounds.
That's why ansynns always come off as walking contradictions. On one hand, they attack DiaMat for being "too logical" (because you know, "anarchism is based on our emotional needs") but then parrot Chomsky's claim about anarchism being super-logical and whatnot.
Or, they attack Marxists for having personality cults, yet form their own around Chomsky, Graeber, Michael Albert, etc.
The lack of self-awareness is incredible.
Yeah that tends to happen when Bolsheviks kick you out of the cities, and your revolution consists of peasantry.
They had the same thing in the Paris Commune, which was also socialist.
What's your point, muke?
Are you the same person who keeps claiming Pol Pot was secretly an anarchist?
No. And besides, pol pot was a CIA plant.
and had other communists, such as Heng, fighting against him during that time.
When Makhno was released from jail (thanks, Bolsheviks, btw) he himself decided to agitate among and organize the peasantry. Nobody forced him, you tard.
Whenever he stepped into a city hilarity ensued, like when he robbed the bank and gave out free moneys to everyone, causing inflation, hurting, ultimately, the waged workers.
In fact Makhno hated urban anarchists with passion, IMO justifiably. They were too individualistic and elitist for his taste. Too much words and not enough action. (The same welcome he received btw from his comrades in exile, like the faggot Malatesta, who was among the first to cry about Makhno's authoritarianism).
Nah, however outlandish (and funny) that poster is he at least can argue comprehensively. This faggot anarchist is basically rage-posting all the time, protecting his saint Makhno, about whom he knows very little.
Peter Arshinov indicates the underlying theory behind the Makhnovists as regards the relations between city and country:
"The Makhnovshchina . . . understands that the victory and consolidation of the revolution . . . cannot be realised without a close alliance between the working classes of the cities and those of the countryside. The peasants understand that without urban workers and powerful industrial enterprises they will be deprived of most of the benefits which the social revolution makes possible. Furthermore, they consider the urban workers to be their brothers, members of the same family of workers.
"There can be no doubt that, at the moment of the victory of the social revolution, the peasants will give their entire support to the workers. This will be voluntary and truly revolutionary support given directly to the urban proletariat. In the present-day situation [under the Bolsheviks], the bread taken by force from the peasants nourishes mainly the enormous governmental machine. The peasants see and understand perfectly that this expensive bureaucratic machine is not in any way needed by them or by the workers, and that in relation to the workers it plays the same role as that of a prison administration toward the inmates. This is why the peasants do not have the slightest desire to give their bread voluntarily to the State. This is why they are so hostile in their relations with the contemporary tax collectors – the commissars and the various supply organs of the State.
"But the peasants always try to enter into direct relations with the urban workers. The question was raised more than once at peasant congresses, and the peasants always resolved it in a revolutionary and positive manner." [Op. Cit., p. 258]
He did, he was completely open about the fact. I didn't say he hated workers, or city dwellers you utter rage-posting retard.
I never said that. I have zero problems with people who rob banks. I have zillion problems with revolutionaries who can't into (here it comes) basic economics.
So yeah, another text dump on what Makhno&friends say about Makhno&friends. I guess we should study the Stalin period by looking at what he and his pals said about it. I guess I should study what this "nazional sozialism" is about by studying Mein Kampf.
yfw you realize you are a complete brainlet anarchist who never read a proper history book in his whole life
Again, the article from Arshinov disproves this. The only anarchists he hated were an-invidiualists. You can read that in "revolutionary unity", which was written by Makhno
Burden of proof relies on you to disprove this. But all you've done is poison the well and fail to provide a counter argument. Stay utterly BTFO
If you're implying I view Stalin as "Le ebil iron fisted dictator, then you're wrong.
Please read and watch the following you utter brainlet
"Mein kampf disproves your jewish lies, goy."
"I won this debate."
Haven't seen the debate with Sargon, but surely he didn't state that scenario to be some optimal ideal, just it to be enough to achieve some thing, whatever that thing here is. So it's lesser-evilism, and you can doubt whether it's sensible, but it's not the same as rooting for capitalism.
The "the last cards capitalism has to play"? If you describe capitalism as something like an organism, it surely is a very simple one (it just is huge and strong), so talking about it like an intelligent cunning actor like many leftcoms do looks very confused. Of course, these folks reject explanations of what's wrong in the world that rely on a tight cabal micro-managing everything (and I think they are right to do that), but then they turn around and talk about this Mr Capitalism not just doing all sorts of things, controlling, and even anticipating events, like here with the metaphor of playing cards. I think this is very wrong-headed.
Suppose you are the victim of discrimination based on your ethnic identity and that's a common thing in the city you live in, it makes sense to come together with other people having the same experience to figure out what to do about that, and then to point at such a group of victims and call them racist for, you know, being of the same ethnic group (duh), is a really shitty thing that some "rational centrists" would do. Surely you are above that, right? But something similar can happen on a global scale. There are different conceptions of capitalism. Capitalism as worldwide free trade without any tariffs is a model ideal that doesn't exist, so do you look at countries that suffer from outright trade blockades, that are the victims of US racist world-police politics and wiggle your finger at them how silly they are and that nations are spooks and so on?
There is some shared experience in being working class, but there are surely some limits when you compare the richest and poorest countries. Heck, even within one country there are tensions. A firm promises some jobs, and the jobs are about building drones for NATO. Some people say that's good because muh region needs muh jobs, and others are not cool with that. Do you shrug that off, saying a job is a job, and what you concretely do doesn't matter because we are all the same working class after all?
You may not think so, but this basically amounts to the naked-in-the-woods "argument": If you are hard-left, why do you buy things, work for money, etc. It's also a double-standard, isn't it. Or would you ever talk about people who have done some work for the BBC as if they were responsible for anything bad that the Britain has ever done? Of course not, it wouldn't even occur to you to blame one guy at the BBC for some terrible BBC show a different guy made that he has never interacted with. It wouldn't occur to you to "debunk" John Cleese for claiming to be pro proportional elections, while he has also taken money to appear on TV shows in England, which… doesn't have proportional elections DUN-DUN-DUUUUUUN. It would strike you as a completely asinine thing to say, right? So…