 Welcome to Modern Data Bait. My name is Carissa, and I am the host for this evening. We specialize on Modern Data Bait in hosting debates on science, religion, and politics, and being a neutral platform so everyone can voice their opinions. Tonight, we have two master debaters just in time for Valentine's Day. We're really excited to have both of them on tonight. Vash, he's been on here before, many times. King on bread tube. And Endernaxi is a rising star on YouTube. So both of them are really excited to have them on. And tonight's topic is going to be socialism versus capitalism. So hot topic, hot debate. Really excited to get into this. We also have both of our speakers' links below. So definitely be sure to check them out. I am actually going to give both of them a little bit of time to introduce themselves and, I guess, explain what their link goes to and a little bit about their channels. So Vash, go ahead. You can start. Please tell us a little bit about yourself. I am Vash, also known as Vash. I'm a classical libertarian, a big fan of democracy, and the YouTuber. And you can probably find out everything you need to know about me. And a lot of other stuff, too, just by searching Vash. You'll get to all the right websites. Perfect. And Endernax, please introduce yourself and also explain to the audience a little bit about your links in the description. Yeah, you can find my YouTube and Twitter probably down below. I am Endernax. I'm just basically at the closest ideology I align with this Christian Democrat, Christian democracy in general. I'm not exact like I don't really have an ideology. I don't really show for any type of universal platform of these are what you need to do in order to have a successful society more interested in trying to promote a stable society, a stable world, and move forward. So I have some conservative viewpoints when it comes to, oh, I just realized, that's going to show up every time. So let me give it a go. But I have some heterodox opinions. I don't really agree with a whole lot of people when it comes to politics. I kind of am stuck in this sphere where I hate every politician. And I find small bits of common ground of pragmatic change with certain people. But I don't really ascribe myself to any particular group. Gotcha. Well, thank you so much. And the format of today's debate is going to be 10-minute openings. Bosch, SNC as a socialist, is going to go ahead first and then followed up by Endernax. And then we're going to have about an hour of open discussion followed up by 30 minutes of question answer. So if you have a question for either of tonight's speakers, please put it in the super chat. It also helps support the channel. And we will 100% read it at the end. So be sure to go and do that if you do have a question during the debate. And without further ado, Bosch, if you want to go ahead with your open, it is up to you. Yeah, I would love to. I'd be delighted even. So I joked earlier and said that I'm a classical libertarian. In reality, the term libertarianism, the ideology, which it implies an adherence to freedom and autonomy, was a socialist ideology. In fact, I think that socialism is the only ideology capable of meaningfully fulfilling the promise of libertarianism. When we talk about socialism, we usually get caught up in discussing a bunch of ideas, systems, people, and countries, which I think have a tangential relationship to the ideas of socialism at best. We talk about our Vuvuzelas and our Stalin's and our North Korea's. But in reality, socialism is based on two fundamental principles, which is democratic control of the means of production, something which I sincerely believe in, and decommodification, that is to say, to take a market and to remove it from market incentives. Now, both of these elements of socialism have been practiced in essentially every developed country on earth to this day to some extent. There are, for example, worker cooperatives in America and in many other countries. There are quite a few in Latin America, for some reason. There just seem to be. And the goal of these worker cooperatives is to democratize the structure of the traditional workplace. The traditional firm, the workplace we are used to, is one of tyranny. That seems like a bit of a hyperbolic statement. But in reality, that's completely true. You don't get a say in what your manager does. And your manager doesn't get a say in what their manager does. It's an autocratic system top down with utter and absolute control invested in the CEO or the board of shareholders, whichever. And all power springs downward from that point. Whereas a worker cooperative has, well, a bunch of different systems that you can adopt. People will vote on ideas. They'll vote on implementations of different systems. They'll vote on their manager. They'll decide, which means that if a manager does a really bad job, you can up and vote them out. A lot of these decisions get democratized. And in these small pocket examples of modern day socialism, very small, we see empirical demonstrable benefits. I'm a big fan of those empirical benefits. I like being able to defend the things I believe in with charts and numbers, not just with abstract theory. It's been shown that worker cooperatives tend to be more resistant to price shocks, better to work out, generally more profitable, more likely to survive the first three years of business. And well, there are a bunch of other benefits too. It's a good system. It's one that I'd like to see explored more. And then we have decommodification. Every country in the developed world has some industries that have been decommodified to some extent. Some have public options for their health care, which is, of course, at least to an extent, a removal from market services. But then you have stuff like the laying and maintenance of transportation networks. Not things that we pay for. I don't have a company that comes and personally maintains my driveway. The state holds that responsibility. There are other countries that manage to some extent their energy companies that list goes on. And while decommodification does not always impart empirical benefits, it does seem like sometimes there are ways in which decommodified industries can be objectively superior to commodified industries. An example of this is when we take a look at industries with an inelastic price curve, like health care, for example, the efficiency of a free market is oriented around the belief that the supply-demand curve will adjust to respond to the demand of any given item. If demand raises, the price raises. If demand lowers, the price lowers. But with health care, what is the maximum amount of money that you would pay to not die? People will pay anything because they want to live. People will pay anything for their insulin. And because people will pay anything for it, we're not talking about an elastic market. We're not talking about a system where market incentives function very well. Need seems to interfere with market logistics. Now, there are some things where market logistics function, it seems relatively well, like luxury markets, you know? But that conversation, which markets should and should not be commodified, that's a conversation we need to have. In short, there are empirical and demonstrable benefits to the two central tenants of socialism. They have already been tried and tested effectively. I would like to see them tried and tested further, not in some grand revolutionary effort, because I don't think that's the stage of history we're on right now, but instead an approach which is pragmatic and idealistic at once towards the way our government functions and the way in which adjustments to our economic system can help humans live happier, longer and freer. That's an important one, freer lives. Karl Marx and all of his writings were driven by the assumption that the goal of an economy should be to maximize human freedom, not happiness or equality, whatever, but freedom, the ability to decide for yourself what you want to do. And I think from true freedom often springs happiness because you have the autonomy to walk the path that benefits you the most. The last thing that I'll say is this. There's often contention. Where does this process start? Say worker cooperatives have benefits, decommodification can have benefits. Where do we, how far, how far do we go? And the answer to that in my mind is you don't know until you try. Let's take it step by step, policy after policy. We don't know how any of these things are going to go down until we're willing to dip our feet in the water, take the data and see what works. And that's the process I want to be a part of. I don't want to be too scared to advance history because I've gotten accommodated to one which clearly doesn't work. I want to be bold and innovative. I want to step forward and see which changes make the world better, okay? I yield the rest of my time. Thank you, Vosh, and your next floor is yours. Yeah, I don't really have necessarily any point of contention with market socialism as a concept or libertarian socialism insofar as promoting worker co-ops and having people engage in the market as worker owners of an enterprise without the traditional hierarchical structure of a modern day capitalist business. That I don't really have so much of an issue with. The issue that I have stems from a broader critique of socialism as not an ideology, but as a broad statement of different groups all across the planet and who end up tertiaryly being supported by people who claim to be just market socialists. There's a quote by Richard Wolff, my favorite Marxist economist. And it's that socialism is a large complex tradition of multiple different notions that are often a great odds with one another and have had long and bitter disputes. And that's great. And there's a big beam online about lefty infighting, about puritanism within the movement, about all of these different things. People going at each other, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And it always comes down for me to looking at, okay, people who will end up being radicalized into an ideology that views the current state of affairs as often similar to things like slavery or chattel slavery or other forms of oppressive dichotomies that have existed throughout all of human history. That these people tend to engage in destructive behaviors. They tend to be more likely to riot. They tend to be more likely to engage in an act of terrorism. They are less mentally stable. They live less secure lives. And the data bears this out. There was one of the largest studies on extremism ever done and radicalization into different political and religious ideologies ever done was in Europe. And they looked at multiple different factors that were involved in an individual's life and what led them to their path of them either committing terrorism or engaging in some sort of extreme political advocacy, whether that was civil disobedience or whether it was rioting, all sorts of different things within the study. And one of those things was the radical nature of their political ideology. So if they believed that their group, that the group of people that they were a part of were ultimately the most oppressed in a given society and that there was no way to achieve liberation except through the adoption of different types of values or systems, these people tended to engage in more violence and more extreme types of violence. And that's what I'm most concerned with. I didn't wake up one day and think to myself, you know, oh boy, I just can't wait to go and produce capital at Starbucks for the rest of my life and not work great jobs because all the manufacturing labor was automated away and the unions are gone and I don't have worker protections anymore. That's not the conclusion that I came to. Ultimately, it was a long process for me of reading different types of Marxist theory, reading different types of political theory, philosophical theory. I have a copy of Das Kapital and the Conquest of Bread sitting in my library right now. Now, I will admit, I've only read parts of these books. I'm not gonna sit here and say that I've memorized the entire thing. But it was a realization of what was going on in the world that led me to my current political positions. It was understanding that in a large part, it is too late to solve global climate change. The processes by which we have already gone through, we are going to reach a point and my opponent actually admits this in several vods throughout his channel's history. I have been subscribed to him since October of 2019 and he admits that it is too late to change the tide of global climate change, that there is going to be a massive refugee crisis, that there is going to be global instability. And I don't know for me personally, that adding an ideology that seems to support radical fringe elements of society and justifies perhaps acts of terrorism, at least within foreign countries, maybe not America. I don't necessarily support that even as a pragmatic thing. I would be perfectly fine if tomorrow I woke up and there was a policy in government which said that 10% of all firms in America had to be worker co-ops and worker ownership was going to be mandated in X way and we were going to give preferential business loans to these groups of people. I really wouldn't have an issue with that whatsoever. To me, it's about maintaining global financial markets and the global economic system so that the world does not go into complete disarray leading to further deaths, to further instability, to perhaps authoritarian regimes who are abusing the elements of capitalism, the worst elements of capitalism in order to gain economic prowess and advance their societies in ways that allow them to control not only their own society but to export their model of control to the rest of the developing world including countries like Venezuela, like Bolivia, like Ecuador, like parts of Africa. These are all regimes that have bought surveillance technology from the Chinese Communist Party who have actively paired with the Chinese and this is what I'm concerned about. I think there's two major threats to the global order and to humanity as a whole and that is the Chinese Communist Party and global climate change and that's why I support capitalism pragmatically. I'm in support of UBI, I'm in support of Medicare for All, I'm in support of all of these different policies that would equalize the playing field and redistribute income across the field so that people can live good lives and I mean, to a certain extent, you're completely right that freedom is something that we should strive for but how can we have freedom if the global economy is collapsed, America is weak and there's a rising China that is exporting its authoritarianism across the globe. To me, that doesn't sound like something that's going to be successful. That's all I have to say. Thank you so much, Internax. We can get into the hour of open discussion. Okay, so I wrote down those points and we've got a few to respond to here. So your issue is a broader critique of socialism and the effect that adherence to socialism has in society rather than the individual economic principles that I have advocated for, which is fine. I'm happy to take that point. You've made the point that socialist critiques of society lead people essentially towards extremism and unhappiness to put it a little simply, I don't necessarily think that's incorrect. I think that people who are politically radical are more likely to find struggle in their lives, so if we were to get into that, I think that'd be a pretty justifiable reaction to the position they find themselves in. But here's where we get to what I contend with. So you talk about active violence, the violence and harm, which is brought about by sort of a radical adherence to socialism. And my counterargument to that, particularly with regard to climate change, is that socialists were the ones fighting against that too for like decades. It's a little bit weird to say, now's not the time for socialist rabble-rousers to cause global disruption. When back as far as the 1960s, socialists were leading the charge in criticizing oil and gas companies for the information they were trying to hide and corporations who were lobbying to the government, they were the ones in the forefront of that process as they have been in countries all around the world. And we were right for the beginning. And we were called back in the 1960s, peacenicks and hippies and anti-American, anti-corporate. And we were right, they were right about just about everything. And now it's like, okay, 60 years later, you were right. Okay, fine. But now we have to work together on this. The reality though is that we're not working together on this. Even today with regards to climate change, we are doing vanishingly little to meaningfully address or respond to what we need to. And it's usually people on the left are the ones leading that fight around the world. Not exclusively leftists, there are liberals who engage in that critique as well because it's gotten severe enough that even they've been able to join in on it. But originally leftists held that torch. So I think that if anything, an adherence to socialism is a solution not necessarily to climate change because I think we might be a little too late to prevent some of the worst catastrophes from taking place. But I think that socialism is a solution to the cataclysmic social outcomes that are going to result from climate change. I mean, refugee crises, hundreds of millions of people around the world being displaced from coastal communities. This is an opportunity. This is a right breeding ground for ethno-nationalism, for fascism. The only institutions meaningfully capable of resisting these influences in my mind are ones where lefties are prominent and powerful. I mean, look at what we're dealing with right now. America has been under liberal control for quite some time and we can't do anything about a QAnon fascist, ethno-nationalist wing of the party that now numbers tens of millions strong. We're clearly not doing enough to keep our society under control. We need to do more. And since lefties have been on the forefront of these issues for a long time, I don't see why they shouldn't continue to be or why they shouldn't be given the reigns, so to speak. Sure. So to your critique of American capitalism, I mean, obviously, you know, hey, look, I'm a Zoomer. This is my, it's my hell of a world that I'm going to have to live in. You boomer types, I know you're like what, turning 40 tomorrow. You're going to be out of this planet and it won't be necessary anymore for you to worry about things. But my gripe, right, is also with billionaires or the oil market or people who polluted our planet because they needed to extract certain financial incentives out of the economy. I completely understand. And I agree with that critique. I think that these people should be tax-tired, that they should have higher wealth taxes, that they should be monitored to a greater extent so that they can't do the things that they weren't doing before. My critique is inherently this, that socialists, especially anarchist socialists who would engage in the type of violent behavior necessary and admitted to by most socialists in the world, that there needs to be some sort of revolutionary action that reform is not enough. And especially within social democracies. I often hear from socialists or socialist types, Lib Sox, et cetera, that social democracy is a place where you're going to get stuck forever, that ultimately these people who live in social democracies don't care necessarily about the whims of the global south and the poor around the world. I don't think that that's true. I think that there is a nature inside of people within these regions that you're right. We'll ultimately turn to right-wing violence. We'll ultimately turn to right-wing radicalism. That's what I want to avoid. And I don't think that you counter that in my mind with the promotion of another radical ideology. Instead, you try to bring together the group of people that is straining apart. I was in, I went to university for criminal justice, which I hated most of, but I took a criminology and a lot of sociology classes. And you learn about like anomies and anomy theory, strain theory, basically a French sociologist, I forget his name, anyways, it doesn't matter. The point is that these theories basically point out that as a society stratifies and as people there's a lack of social cohesion, that more crime is committed and there's going to be all sorts of different problems. And I'm not gonna get in depth with these theories, but what I will say is that you're seeing that right now within Europe. And they barely had a million climate refugees right now or well, most of them were displaced mostly due to war. But look at the alternative for a Germany party. I mean, this is supposed to be the bastion of the West, the place where liberalism has succeeded the most. And that these things, the idea that you're going to solve the collapse and the deterioration of these societies by introducing leftist thought is kind of a joke to me. I think that you're just going to continue this strain that's already existed and that these institutions are gonna continue to collapse. And so when the time comes, they will be right for the picking for fascists and Nazi types to come in and say, listen, all of these climate refugees, they don't look like you. We've already organized around our identity. We already have plots of land basically set out for all of these different ethnicities that were decided 50 years ago, 60 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago. And we're going to protect you because you're scared right now that you're going to lose everything. I'm not of the mindset that you're going to convince these people to suddenly act like Gandhi and give up 75, 80% of their lifestyle in order to support all of these people. I am in favor of promoting certain policies right now in a liberal democracy to avert the crises that we're facing in the future. But the way you do that, I think, is through a promotion of nuclear energy, green energy, and as well as agricultural policies that can feed the global self, can feed the people who are going to be global climate refugees and can house them. That's what I'm concerned about. If we're waking up one day and the last bastion to Western civilization, the last stronghold is a bunch of people who are radicalized online to believe in socialism versus the tides of fascists in Europe as climate refugees are streaming over the border. I don't have much faith in that version of humanity. I would rather work to promote strong institutions now and to work against the actors who would subvert these interests right now and in our current systems. I don't know that advocating for a system that has never successfully existed in a stable form outside of Chaz and, I don't know, Yugoslavia temporarily under Tito. I don't know that that's the way to go forward. I understand that there are problems that capitalism has and that these financial institutions and these global financial systems have. Hell, right now you have people like Mark Cuban who defend giving more money to the CCP and to China despite the fact that they're like, hey, we're only engaging in slight genocide over here but you have these people who are capitalist who are only worried about getting more money. They want to extract more wealth from China and I'm not in favor of that policy but I see the tools in front of me and I see that we're trying to build a boat. At least some of us are. There's some people who are saying the boat is disgusting and it's a lie and it's actually a deep state's conspiracy to control us and get us down to 500 million people, whatever, okay, those people are insane. I get that but I don't think that the solution is to look at the people building the boat and go, you know what, we need to demolish the town and start building the boat from scratch with a new system because I don't like this system. Okay, I think I understand the problem with this conversation now. So the problem with defending these positions is that you're not actually talking about a specific set of policies or adhering to a specific set of political values. It's the general idea of political radicalism that you disagree with. But the problem is that political radicalism can have a bunch of different effects in society. Sometimes it makes them stronger. Political radicalism was the fuel of the anti-Vietnam war movement and it was only because we pulled out of Vietnam that our country was able to fall out of the fucking depths of the Cold War that it was descending into. The exact same thing with the civil rights movement. Political radicalism does not begin and end with the destabilization of existing political structures which is exactly why when I advocated for the things that I cared about, I didn't mention destabilization in the slightest. As a matter of fact, I don't think destabilization of our society presently would be very effective for anyone, especially with climate change, especially with the relationship that we have with China and the rest of the developing world. I don't think that destabilizing America will lead to positive outcomes for the proletariat here or anywhere else. We need to be very careful moving forward. The problem is you can't just shove radicalism to the side because there are people on the left who are not careful. We have to acknowledge a difference then between the pragmatic leftists in America who actually work to achieve something, you have Bernie Sanders, AOC, et cetera, who I think do good work, and then you have lunatics online. But there are lunatics online who adhere to everything. There are lunatics online who are fascists. There are lunatics online who are socialists. And there are a great many lunatics online who are bog standard boilerplate conservatives and liberals who have no idea what they support or who they support, but adhere to their positions because it's a sports game that they are particularly invested in. So the idea that in any way, like the left is characteristic of this or that this is exclusively like the purview of the left or that the left have given power would adhere to behavior like that. I strongly disagree with these tenants. And I think that's what you're suggesting because you pulled the no society has ever succeeded in being socialist line before. Well, I'll tell you, the problems we're having with society right now could absolutely be fixed at large part by the policies that I've advocated for. America is being destabilized by our poor healthcare system. Its de-commodification would be to our benefit. America is being destabilized by the way in which we give so much private power to the energy companies. Selective de-commodification could be to that benefit. America is being destabilized by the rampant growth of suburbia and by the lack of suitable public transportation in our major cities. If we de-commodified those systems, we could improve it. And likewise, it was the autocratic relationship between the bourgeois and the proletariat, the traditional firm, that led to a lot of the problems we're dealing with right now anyway, because society is largely controlled, not entirely, but largely controlled by a very small group of people who are unique and that their collective power is derived from the fact that they own enormous industries, they generate wealth from those industries and they are not only wealthy and powerful, but they have like a specific and selective relationship to our economy, which separates them from the average American. And these are the people who we give power. I think the people in power should be representative of the average American was exactly why I want to flatten the board, crunch the pyramid when it comes to the ways in which our economy selectively prefers people. But none of this is destabilizing. If handled appropriately, I think all of these are stabilizing. I think all of these bring society to a more effective and equal state of equilibrium. Okay, as far as your critique that there are plenty of other radicals out there who would engage in political violence, I actually completely agree, I'm against those people as well. My issue is primarily with socialism being argued for pragmatically through like worker co-ops within a capitalistic system and then saying like, well, you know, who knows, we can get there eventually, we can work towards this. But I think that there's a higher degree of radicalization occurring, at least within a lot of the lefties that I'd speak to or that I have spoken to and even within your own community. I mean, you've said in the past, that is your goal to use rhetoric to move people pragmatically towards your ideology. And you've said that ultimately you argue for market socialism because you like it and you think it's a pragmatic reform or a type of pragmatic advocacy you can engage in. But I mean, you've said also things like, and this is a direct quote, my goal as an American would be to make this country as class conscious as possible and effectively neuter its militaristic and intelligence operations so that should socialism arise in other countries, the victims of global capitalism, it would be more difficult for us to retaliate. Now, if you think that this is something like, you know, down the line and to 500 years from now when there's not a surging China and there's not sorts of tons of destabilizing effects all over the globe, I guess I really wouldn't care. I wouldn't be alive, so I wouldn't care. But I can only assume that this is your goal currently. I mean, you've also said privately, my thoughts are that even in a post-scarcity society, we're going to maintain the economic divide with the global self, because we haven't an eight, and the last part is a paraphrase because it's a long diatribe quote because we have some innate need to feel like we're doing better than some starving kid in Africa. I tend to think differently of people. It's interesting to me that socialists and left-leaning people tend to engage in less charitable activities than individuals who are conservative or liberal even. But whatever, I guess I don't care that much about this value, prescriptive value statement. I tend to believe that in a post-scarcity society, we would be concerned with alleviating the needs of the impoverished in the global self. There was one other quote that I want to read to you, and it's from you, exactly, okay? So you were having a conversation with the Marxist-Leninist from Iraq, and his name is Hakim. I think your audience knows who he is. This was recent, right? And he said that the last of my five points for supporting international socialists would be the sabotage of American military bases and the American military industrial complex. And the best example I can give of this is the Red Army faction did in West Germany to the NATO bases. The Red Army faction engaged in kidnapping, they engaged in bombing, arson, the killing of innocent civilians, even. This was during the Cold War in West Germany. But you said in response to this statement, this was from Hakim, not you. I don't disagree with any of those points. Realistically, there is no way. Well, I guess it's possible, but I feel like people would be arrested real quick, but I agree principally. If there's anything we can do to sabotage those forces, I would agree with it. It's just a matter of how to get it done. Well, in my mind, when I hear this and I think to myself, this sounds a lot like saying, I'm okay with terrorism against the military and the military industrial complex and people who are on my side ideologically that that's something acceptable for them to engage in because ultimately the United States is going to suppress some sort of socialistic uprising in, let's say, Bolivia, as an example. I know you're fond of praising evil moralism in the Bolivian government. I mean, but what we can get into that later, the point being is that a lot of these fringe socialist elements do not share your characteristics. They don't advocate for market socialism. Another group brought up that he justified, and you tacitly agree, I don't know if you know anything about them, was the new people's fronts in the Philippines. This is a Maoist organization. I know you voiced support in the past for the farmers' strikes in India in part led by Marxist Leninus and Marxist Leninus Maoists who are at least the Maoists are definitely pro-Chinese. In my mind, right, you have a resurging Nazi Germany, the modern day equivalent of Nazi Germany. And it's like sitting at home in the 1930s and 40s and saying, you know what? I don't really want to pay attention to what Nazi Germany is doing over in Europe. I would rather talk about the liberation of the proletariat and the destruction of the bourgeois class and not talk about the genocide going on over there or the expansion of their territories or their threatening of democracy or their authoritarian state practices or their genocide of the Uyghur Muslims or the 500,000 Tibetans who are now in and what essentially amounts to concentration camps that they just built. So they keep moving the border up with India. They've just annexed 10% of Nepal. This does not sound like the language supporting these groups and supporting the groups around them. Not necessarily China, I understand, but the groups that would support China tertiarily does not sound like a good policy to me. And I certainly wouldn't advocate for terrorism in order to help those groups. Okay, so a couple of points here. I hope you know that I'm not exactly a big fan of China. I hold China in about the same regard that I hold the United States of America. It's enormous and very powerful, though we're stronger than them, at least for now, capitalist country. You do know the only reason why China is a geopolitical threat is because of capitalism, right? I mean, the reason why it's been able to spread its influence, develop a global industry base and is now engaging in the Belt and Road Initiative specifically because it's willing to engage in a highly state-controlled form of semi-regulated capitalism in order to express soft power to smaller countries. If I were to support, say, for example, weakening America's ability to destroy socialist uprisings in other countries, those socialist uprisings would be anti-China too. They couldn't meaningfully be anti-Chinese socialist uprisings, they couldn't meaningfully be socialist uprisings. They weren't anti-Chinese. What else would they be rejecting? That's the capitalist power in their region. There are Maoists who operate around the world. Not all of them are pro-China. I don't know if you know this, but Dengism is not exactly Maoism rebranded. I mean, there's been a pretty concerted effort on the part of the Chinese government to undo a lot of the influences that Mao had on there. First of all, I don't like Mao, just to be perfectly clear, but there are a lot of influences against Mao that have worked within China, up to and including something of a soft second cultural revolution, which has led to them essentially undoing the first one, where they drop all of the ostensibly egalitarian principles that Mao advocated for, again, not a big fan, and have begun venerating old cultural artifacts of ancient China, rather than doing what Mao wanted to do, which was stop venerating the past, stop venerating tradition, let us move forward together. Modern Dengist China is taking the alternate route, more conservative, more capitalist, less socialist. As with regards to terrorism, I'm not specifically familiar with any of the acts committed or caused by these groups, but when we're talking about terrorism in these contexts, I don't think it's terrorism for like a domestic front of fighters within a country to resist an invading force. The context here gets really blurry, but there are people who described like the Viet Cong as a terrorist group, functionally, because they had like semi-state affiliation and because of the tactics that they used. Unfortunately, the term terrorist is very often used as a geopolitical buzzword that we hammer. We designate groups we don't like as terrorist groups to drop domestic support for their action. That's not to say that all forms of what we consider to be terrorism are equal. I would say that virtually anytime an act considered terrorist is committed, it's almost certainly a bad thing, but sometimes these terms are undeniably used in bad faith. So I would be careful with the politicization of this language. It seems to me like you're very concerned with political violence and you're very concerned with the types of people that I associate with. I do agree that there are plenty of socialists who would lead our country down bad paths. I don't agree very much with their prescriptions or their methods, but I can't really answer to that fairly because there are also many liberals for whom I feel the same way. And I could make that argument against you, that a social Democrat by way of being a kind of liberal may have some things they like and there may be some things they do that I agree with, but there are plenty of people who make social Democrat anti-socialist arguments and those anti-socialist arguments end up pleading people towards neoliberalism or towards conservatism. At the end of the day, I can only really answer for the arguments that I hold and the extent to which I hold them. And I think I do find in that regard. The last thing that I want to say with regard to political violence is that I don't care about political violence. Political violence is everywhere. It is saturated in our air and our ground and our water. The political violence that we tend to talk about are usually individual acts of violence committed statistically, but they pale in comparison to the violence committed by the state. Nothing that any leftist has done in America altogether through all of American history even comes close to the political violence of slavery or the police state or of the opiate crisis caused by reckless pharmaceutical companies or by the death and harm caused by Wall Street malfeasance. Political violence is again another politically charged term that we designate others with. We assign it to people whose engagements we don't like when in reality, usually it's used to describe people fighting against much larger and much more devastating forms of institutional violence. Yeah, absolutely. And I mean, this is, I mean, in part, the reason that I say that China is the largest threat to global democracy and to humanity as a whole. They're going, they're outsourcing right now. I don't know if you're aware of this. Their surveillance technology, they've developed this over the course of time in order to keep tabs on their population. You're entirely right that modern day China and Dengism is more akin to fascism than it is any type of communism. I would actually 100% agree with that. The problem is that China is often the one supporting the groups that you're tertiaryly supporting. So a good example is the Bolivian government, the movement, the mass, right? I forget the movement for socialism or whatever it is, right? Eva Morales's government. And back in 2016, I believe they got in trouble because they started talks with the Chinese government to sell them a not a controlling stake of a 49% share in one of their largest lithium mines, which China needs for its updated technology systems. And because of this, a lot of the unions and co-ops who produce about 30% of the country's global exports as far as rare earth minerals goes, they had a huge strike. There was over a hundred thousand members who were striking and then the government stamped in and it started clamping down on them. The union ended up assassinating a government official and the Morales, actually, this was in 2016, I believe, arrested one of the union leaders. I'm not sure exactly what was the outcome with that case, but they stamped down on a lot of the liberties that were given to the co-ops and oppressed the co-ops and the unions for this energy sector in their economy. I have a link for that as well if you'd like that. But after this, right? After this, the talks began, I think it only came about recently with the reinstatement of the mass government was the actual sale of the, not controlling, but again, 49% stake in the lithium reserves in that country. I'm sorry, the lithium mines in that country, the largest mining group. Anyways, the point being is that it was the socialists in these countries that ended up selling the rare earth minerals to China. And not only did they do this, but they also began talks about instituting a Chinese based security firm, sorry, surveillance network into their country and paid, I believe, a Chinese firm of $200 million. Although the Chinese government does not make full disclosures of its debt trap diplomacy, Bolivia has made several deals with the Chinese Communist Party and it seems as though they're ramping up their authoritarian measures, their state controlled apparatuses to deal with the population and to monitor them. This is the same type of technology that was sold to the Venezuelans. It's sold to authoritarian countries around the globe in Africa and I, fundamentally, I think I agree with you that the bigger impediment to our freedom and our liberty and humanity as a whole is state power, that the state violence that can be enacted on us from an authoritarian government or authoritarian control over our economy or our way of life, that these things are, we have to really worry about them. I just don't see how international socialism, that these groups that end up being very authoritarian just by the very nature of the environment that they exist within, ultimately they justify all sorts of authoritarianism based on the concept that the hierarchy is unjust and that the capitalists have rigged it from the start. Now, here's what I've got to say. I don't think that a socialist uprising is going to result in any type of good change within Europe or within any other part of the world so long as there is a financial interest and a global power that is invading countries right now that is engaging in genocide that will support them simply to be anti-Western, simply to be anti-American. I don't know why you would compare the Chinese government to the American government. Maybe there are some similarities, I could agree, but there is actual Han supremacy practices going on at the state level in China. There are forced marriages occurring with Han Chinese men and unwilling minority women. People are told, even if they're not Han Chinese, that they are Han. There are people who, there are a multitude of stories of people who have left the China and come to America or come to Europe or come to a freer part of the world and they've done DNA testing. For their entire life they thought they were Han because the media and the government were telling them that they were Han Chinese because that is their goal. That is the dangest goal ultimately is to promote a type of nationalism and ethnic based nationalism to keep the country together past the storm that is coming. And okay, so I can recognize that there's a rising China that they're militarizing, like we've never seen any country before. Nazi Germany militarized in how few years? The Chinese economy is just so much larger than anything we can even comprehend of the German economy being back during the days of the Weimar Republic. This is going to result in a massive spread of authoritarianism. The more you destabilize these countries on the periphery, the more you destabilize the Philippine government by promoting this group that is Maoist and supports the Chinese government regardless of if they're dangas. It's very interesting. A lot of these groups that you say, oh well Maoists have plenty of disagreement with dangas. Well, I don't know if you're aware of the Chinese Communist Party has a large contingent of Maoists who are actively negotiating with the dangas and in coordination with these terrorist groups across the globe to promote Chinese power. This is what's happening and this is what I'm worried about. I think that you end up destabilizing systems when you promote a type of socialism that would neuter the American military and neutered the American intelligence agencies just because you don't want them interfering in let's say Bolivia in a country that is leaning on China. I don't know what your solution is and I don't think that the armies that would rise up would necessarily be anti-China after they were supported by China. Thank you. Okay, so there are quite a few points here. So a few points here. First of all, there are a lot of preconceptions that I have to address here. Okay, not all of the Maoist groups that operate in foreign countries are supportive of China. In fact, quite a few of them aren't. I was just linked in chat a paper and analysis by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in parentheses Maoist which describes China as a modern social imperialist power, an integral part of the capitalist imperialist system. So the idea that all groups around the world that call themselves Maoists are inherently in line with China is just not the case. I'm sure some of them are, but that's not by any means an inherent point. Second of all, with regards to domestic policy, I do believe that China is generally quite a bit worse than America in a great many ways. When it comes to foreign policy, I think that America and China both have significantly negative impacts on the world through choice, through their own decisions because it enhances their own power and because it is beneficial to certain groups of people within both of their countries. So when you say X is bad because they ally with China, what's the alternative, allying with America? I don't know if that's necessarily something that I agree with. I mean, this is just a real politic thing. Bolivia knows that they're not going to be able to get any security or safety under the wing of American hegemony because Bolivia is currently run by socialists and America is fervently anti-socialist. China is anti-American more than anything. So they're willing to support Bolivia because in doing so, they cheat America out of a strategic potential ally and a set of resources. But that's just real politic playing. If we want to prevent that from being a problem, we should make America less anti-socialist. Maybe then countries like Bolivia wouldn't be willing to sell themselves out to China in response. You keep going back to this destabilizing force rhetoric, but there are certainly groups in foreign countries that engage in this behavior. But when it comes to the developed world, I just don't think anything that I'm prescribing would come to meet that definition. As a matter of fact, like I said earlier, the reason why China is able to do X and X because of capitalism, the reason why China is able to do everything they're doing right now is in large part because our relationship with the global South has created a power vacuum. We never developed the global South. We kept them from developing because it's cheaper for our industries to make sure that they have millions and millions of unwashed, desperately poor masses to fill up sweatshops. But that leaves an economic vacuum. They could develop further than that. It's totally possible. We have the time, resources, money, intelligence. We have everything, or they have everything, I should say. All they don't have is the market incentive because we're here. We're the ones paying them. If China comes along to say Africa and says, hey, this sucks, maybe we can improve things a little bit. Maybe you come work for us and we'll give you a better deal. That's our fault. American neoliberal policies abroad have directly led to the conditions which has allowed the comparatively poorer China to exploit and take advantage of these countries. Capitalists dug this hole. If socialists had been in chart, or at least if they'd been more prominent, if America had dealt with the global south more fairly, China wouldn't have been able to get away with any of this. And now we have to reap the consequences of what we sow. I just, I do not see how the propagation of left-leaning interests in America, because now that's where I live, could possibly worsen the situation any. And a final point as well, I don't think, I do think the Chinese government is very bad, but I don't think the way we need to engage with them is militaristic. With the spread of nuclear weapons and the fact that we're economically codependent on each other, both of which was not the case with Nazi Germany. I don't think that China is going to turn into some gigantic World War III monstrosity that's going to gobble up the Southeast Asia and make a new Pan-Asian global prosperity sphere, like with what Japan was trying to do back in the 40s. I think they're probably going to continue doing what they're doing right now, which is to wield soft economic power to control as much of the global market as possible, eventually do so to the extent that they can wrangle America out of first world superpower status, and then they get to raid on top. But I don't think that's something they're going to do like militaristically. I think the military that we have right now, the money we spend on it, is kind of a red herring for paranoid delusional boomers who think that one of these days like Russia or China or whatever is going to start dropping tanks in our shore. I think if we put that money towards infrastructural and economic development that would actually aid us, not only in making our citizens' lives better, but it would probably also aid us in fighting off Chinese hegemony. Sure. I don't necessarily think that there's anything wrong with advocating for more industrial policy and making sure that Americans' lives are better. I don't know that I necessarily agree with your characterization of the Chinese government is not willing to do these things. In fact, they released five-year plans that luckily are translated in English for us by the Chinese Communist Party. God bless their souls. The Global Times is also a nice mousepiece for the Chinese Communist Party in case you're wondering. But they tend to meet these goals. When they say to, hey, we want to have X by X date. Hey, we want to be the global power by 2050. I listen, especially as year after year after year they meet each of their five-year goals and they meet their growth metrics, they meet their military expenditure metrics, they meet their invasion. I don't know if you're aware of this, but they just annexed 10% of Nepal and nobody's paying attention because the- Wait, can I ask one thing really? Yeah. What would you do about that? You're a president. What do you do about that? You send troops to their border? No, no, no, absolutely not. So I would work through international, current diplomatic ties to foment a strong international trade deal with regional players. So Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam. I would encourage investment into Laos, Myanmar, India, basically every country in the periphery as a kind of incentive, a carrot on a stick, if you will, to say, hey, you're all going to unite against the Chinese government. Sorry, I'll wait. But basically- My apologies. No, you're fine. A carrot on a stick, basically, to say, hey, we're going to invest in your country, we're going to give you infrastructure improvements, we're going to give you good trade deals, and in exchange, you're going to pose the Chinese Communist Party and maybe house some American military bases. And I would do the same just so you know. I would basically implement a more humanitarian-based, one Belt One Road initiative that wasn't based on debt trap diplomacy that was based solely on developing the global south. There's a lot of people who actually support policy like this. I don't necessarily have an issue with investing in the third world and investing in these poorer countries. As long as we're not saying to the American people, like, listen, you're going to have to give up 80% of your lifestyle right now, because I unironically believe that if you do that, if you take away a certain amount from the American people or even the European people, you're going to see a rise in fascist violence as you've already seen in degradations of middle-class townships across the United States. This is a hotbed for white nationalist activity is these rural towns that are dying and have no industry and they have no support. And I feel like saying to them, okay, we're going to slash your standard of living even more, which would be necessary, necessary for the amount of investment that would equalize the playing field anyways. But yeah, I'm perfectly fine with investing in these countries and playing them off of China. I think that that's what should be done. I'm ashamed of, and I said before, I basically hate every political operative because I feel like they're not really addressing the problems at hand. The China hawks on the right, the Tom Cotton's of the world are basically just saying, well, China is literally Nazi Germany, so we need to give more money to the military and buy more nukes. No, that's not the answer. That's not the answer at all. I think that there's a variety of ways you could tackle this problem. I wanted to talk about your advocacy as well, because you talk a lot about market socialism and advocating for it, but I think that there's something else going on here, and I don't know what it is. I mean, I have a lot of different quotes, and I've watched you for a while, so it's not like this is coming out of nowhere. I've enjoyed your content. It's not like I'm some rando who just stumbled on Bosch all of a sudden and is trying to get you. But there's some quotes here. What a lot of people need to recognize, this is in regards to the riots that were going on in Portland. I believe this was right around the time. I don't know, it might have been Seattle, might have been Portland, but there was a young man who brought a bomb to one of these riots to a federal court building. What a lot of people need to recognize here is that when it comes to these protests, the Portland protests, the actual material outcomes of anything the protesters are doing are comparably irrelevant, but the whole nation's eyes are on Portland and on Seattle. This makes this primarily an optics game. It is about looking as good as you can. So when we get people like you in reference to Garrison Davis, with recordings of overuse of tear gas or protesters being brutalized by cops, getting angry, they're asked to respect your legal rights, this is good for us. So I think that there's an optics level argument that you make generally of like, you want your side to look good so you can radicalize more people over to your end. I'm a socialist, smart enough to realize the road to socialism right now is not larking on Twitter about how we're gonna get our guns together and go to a six blocks of Seattle. I'm smart enough to recognize that we can radicalize people by exposing them to socialist ideas. I don't wanna overplay our hand. I worry a little bit about Chaz. Chaz might be overplaying our hand a little bit. Is it a moral to do with Chaz? No, no, the people are probably pretty cool. This was, I'm gonna be charitable and say that you made this, you'd statement before there were three shootings in Chaz, predominantly from gang violence. They had nothing to do with it. That would be correct. Okay, okay, fair enough, fair enough. I don't know that this is the way. I think that you end up radicalizing actually more people to fascism this way. Unironically, you have these fringe elements on online who use these as like, look, the radical left is rising up. Look, they're taking over city blocks. Look, three people died and a bunch of people got raped in this autonomous zone that the leftists made. And I mean, you could maybe make the same argument that maybe a Charlottesville had a similar radicalization to the left. Perhaps I would say that Charlottesville is also a complete disaster for our country and further destabilized our nation, especially because we had an orange cheeto blump in office who said, well, both sides, guys, like, hold on. Okay, like this guy is a complete lunatic. But there's one other thing and that's this. You characterize Nazis as using this type of caricature of femininity and like the innocent front men. So like in the Capitol riots, you talked a bit about how there was like these old ladies and children who were being used as these scapegoats as like, look, like these are the people in the front. If the cops do anything, it's gonna look really bad on them. And we're, look, we're innocent grannies who are in the Capitol building. Like, look at these pictures. What you made a similar comment that this would be a good thing to happen at Black Lives Matter events in Portland and Seattle when you said that the naked lady played it very smart and video that showed a naked lady being brutalized by a bunch of armed men would play extremely well on media. And it's a weaponization of what Nazis do with the innocent feminine caricature. So I think that there isn't, while you do argue for pragmatic change and you would say, hey, listen, you should have vote for Biden because I think that this is going to lead to material conditions improving. There is still an element within your advocacy that results or at least you wanted to result in the radicalization of these people. And I'm assuming that people less smart than you would come to the conclusion or less morally consistent than you perhaps would come to the conclusion that yes it is justified for me to bomb a military outpost or to bomb a military industrial complex building or a weapons manufacturer because this is something I'm doing to help the international global poor in the global South. And that's what I'm concerned with. I don't want to see more terrorism in the United States a more destabilization of the United States because we have massive problems that we need to deal with. And if we don't have a function in government, I mean, what I would propose is a whole host of different policy solutions. But I don't ever advocate for an ideology that would lead people down the road to political violence. And while you can say that political violence, maybe necessary or maybe a good thing in certain cases in regards to fighting back at least being an anti part of the anti-war movement during Vietnam. I don't know if that's the case anymore. I think that things have changed radically. So I think that things are a bit different in the United States. The situation is not so clear. We have a declining America. I think anybody could recognize that. Otherwise, Trump wouldn't have won in 2016. He's not so much the problem of America. He's this symptom. He's what happens when things start going the way that they're going right now. Yeah, okay. So to close off the China discussion that I think we agree, the reason why I don't really care about the propagation of higher and higher military budgets is because I don't think the military is our best war deterrent right now. It's nukes first and foremost. And we have those, you know, we pay for their upkeep. And then we have trade deals, trade deals and military bases, of which we have far too many, but selective trade deals and military bases have placed appropriately can do far, far more to deter war than any actual large standing military ever could. If anything, like the existence of our large standing military just feels like an ongoing posture. A thing we keep because we think we should keep it because there are people, a great many of them, some of whom are elected officials who seem to believe that having an unnecessarily large military is beneficial for its own sake. And I think that's silly. Hundreds of billions of dollars can go to something more useful, something more stabilizing. With regards to the optics game, I mean, optics is how you manage anything and everything with regards to political, not just radicalization, but just moving people in any direction, even liberals. I thought that Charlottesville was great for us. It was the beginning of the decline of the alt-right online because they made themselves look like what they were, which was a bunch of larping buffoons. And likewise, the attack on the Capitol on the sixth has polarized American discourse, plummeted Donald Trump's approval rating. And right now, Biden apparently has the highest approval rating of any presidents had or maintained for the past four years. I hope I'm not misremembering that stat. He has an anomalously high approval rating. It seems like generally speaking, when you have these big fuckups from the far right, these big optics disasters, they're good for us. They don't accomplish much on their own. And I felt the same way about Chaz. I said that pretty much from the beginning. Now I do think the people there are generally good people. Gang violence, murder, rapes aside. I think that, because there were thousands of people there in and out over the course of Chaz's existence. And I imagine a great many of them were just over earnest college student socialists. And you know what, God bless them. That said, I'm not a big fan of the practice because I don't think the outcome of Chaz could have ever been anything other than a police breakup or a quiet and pathetic dissolution, which of course kind of ended up being what happened. But with regard to the optics game, I think there are ways to responsibly play that game without leading people down like preposterous roads. If anybody who watches me right now has been given the impression that like, the way to help the international proletariat is by like suicide bombing an ICE facility, then I feel like they probably haven't been listening to me very much. I feel like I generally lead people in an appropriate and respectable direction when it comes to effective political engagement. As a matter of fact, terrorist attacks tend not to be a good way of achieving any kind of broader political aim unless you're willing to, unless you have some kind of like state backing because individual, what do you call it? Stochastic acts of terrorism are usually just end up being a media circus to condemn the political ideology behind, which is why, you know, every once in a while, we have some Nazi terrorists, you know, we have the guy who drew into the crowd at Charlottesville, we have the Christ Church shooting, you know, we have stuff like this, and it gets people real mad at conservatives for a while and it radicalizes and makes liberals fearful of the far right, which they should be. There are things to be afraid of there. And I think that's fantastic. But generally those optics games don't lead people to like pro-China positions. And I have to admit, I'm a little curious why you're so concerned about the left engaging in political violence when it's an empirical fact that the right has by a exponential degree, like greater, you know, like not just 10 times more, probably in the ballpark of like 50 or 100 times more on the part of the far right. I'm getting a no sign from there, so you'll probably have stats to- I'll just say that the CSIS report, right? If you break down things and your audience will say like, well, this is bullshit. Okay, well, if you break down, they started including right wing violence, right? They started including religious violence as well. And there used to be different breakdowns. The CSIS study is the one that's primarily cited a lot. If you look at left wing violence, it's still going up proportionally to where it was. You have, you know, obviously we can name events. They become media spectacles, things like the congressional baseball shooting. To your critique of me saying like, oh, don't you think the right wing is bad? Yes, absolutely 100%. I personally, you know, I think that Nick Fuentes is doing an absolutely evil thing by radicalizing all sorts of young people to a disgusting ideology that again only leads to violence. And, you know, the minute he's willing to debate me on modern day debates, I 100% welcome it. I would welcome ripping into his vicious tendencies. I don't like Nick Fuentes. I don't like the America first movement. I don't like the fascist elements of it. I don't like the people, you know, genuinely think that the best way to organize is around racial lines. I think this is disgusting. We need to be uniting as humanity. But I'm looking at the chart right now. And yeah, it looks like though it's been more by right wingers since 2016, it looks like the proportion varies anywhere from two to one in the favor of right wing to like 10 to one, but it varies tremendously by year. And it depends on how you measure it. And this is kind of the issue. Like religious extremists, yes, they do need to be dealt with, but they're in my opinion, I don't think religious extremists are like bombing an abortion clinic is as dangerous to society as a Nazi, you know, radicalizing people to go and bomb a black church in Alabama. Like that's worse to me as much as, you know, that we shouldn't be bombing abortion clinics either. These two things are separate, right? And I think that you're right. The threat of Nazis and ethno-nationalist violence is absolutely a huge threat to the United States. And as far as addressing that, I think that you have to fix a lot of these backwater townships and basically solve the root causes of radicalization, which in my mind, a lot of the times is poverty and a loss of community, social discohesion, strain. And also that's Emile Durkheim. I remember the name, Emile Durkheim. Yeah, no, no, he's a cool dude. I just think, if we boil it all down, I feel like if the critique is, I don't agree with online socialism because I'm worried that the way in which they express their ideas might radicalize people to dangerous or to counterproductive ends. If that's a broader critique of socialism, I feel like that's more a critique of online socialist culture than anything. And there are some people online who I would agree kind of toe that line a little bit. But I want to be really clear. I'm not using any essentialist terminology here. When we talk about like political violence, I don't disagree with political violence for its own sake. I think it's woven into the fabric of how a structured society operates. I just think that if there is political violence, it must be good if it has good outcomes and bad if it doesn't. And overwhelmingly it is the case that political violence has terrible outcomes. Unless you wanna get into some convoluted utilitarian logic how Charlottesville did more good than bad because it led the more people become a leftist or something. But then you're getting into, then you're getting well, well beyond the scope of the actual incident. Broadly, what I want online leftists to do, what I want leftists to do is to, for God's sake, in addition to whatever mutual aid you're pushing for, which is good and you should, please pay a little bit of attention to electoral politics, my God. If the far left had anything even remotely comparable to the same interest in propagating their political will through our government that the far right does, I think this, I think it'd be game over for you, Bozos. I think we'd have it. I think we'd have it down. I care a lot about these processes because at the end of the day, it feels like sometimes we don't have many other avenues for achieving effective political change now. And all the people who run around online, larping about how we're gonna have a revolution tomorrow, like, okay, come on, whatever. The only groups in this country who are actually forming radical militias are the far right. We haven't done any work in that regard and they're not gonna succeed with it either. So yeah, yeah. But I don't think these are critiques of socialism. I think this is a problem with a post 9-11 online left that doesn't know how to handle itself because it has become completely disillusioned by electoral politics and it doesn't have the same elders, the same community leaders, the same figures that it needs to pull them towards an effective advocacy for their political positions that the right does. All the big heroes of the right, not the alt-right, but the broader right. These people have been around for ages. They have a great deal of institutional legitimacy. They're all dinosaur white guys and they've been doing what they do for a long time. We had Bernie Sanders. And Bernie Sanders is an old, old man and he's going to die soon. And frankly, there are still a lot of the online left who can't even work up the muster to get behind somebody as pragmatic as AOC. So these are cultural issues, I think, not socialism issues, you know? I don't really have anything at all against reforming to socialism. I think that if you want to organize group people around this idea of a more equitable distribution of wealth, like that's perfectly acceptable to me. My primary concern is that again, it is the times that we live in, right? I'm a Zoomer, so I was born into this best of a world. You know, I'm going to have to deal with the effects of global climate change. I'm going to have to deal with the rising China. And it's my, and my kids are going to be left the world that ultimately is up to me and my generation and your generation too, gosh, I won't be so mean. You're not 40 years old, I understand. But it's to me, a matter of promoting policy and real politic over these fringe radical ideologies that really lead nowhere. They just lead to like online infighting and people complaining all the time and feeling really down and depressed and like the world is out to get them. And I get that, I get that completely. Listen, 10 million Americans without a job, I don't have a job right now. My material conditions aren't being met. My girlfriend's the breadwinner. I'm looking, you know, like I'm looking for a job. The job market's awful. I have to basically, you know, at some point I'm gonna have to go grovel to McDonald's and work there despite having a four year college degree and student loan debt and qualifications I've worked at several different places across the job market. But look, the world is a dark place. There's a lot of bad things going on and it's very easy. It's very easy. And I see the appeal because it appeals to me even to say, you know what, the world is screwed. I need to join my extreme side and say, this is the truth, this is the ultimate ideology and advocate through that, through whatever means necessary. And I just, I came to a conclusion in my life through political discovery over the course of many years where I was like, this is not the way. This is not the way forward. This is the way to destruction. This is how society collapses. This is how you have a domineer in China ruling over the global order and telling people what they can and can't do with individual controls on people's lives, social credit scores. I mean, just like the crazy conspiracy shit, the 1984 stuff's actually happening in China. It's not happening in America as much as people would like to conspiratorially put on America. It's not the case. You talked earlier about these socialist countries that were aligning with China and I wanted to talk to you about it because there's like these fringe groups and these elements that are getting funded by China that I think tertiarily, at least, you have voiced some support for Eva Morales' government in Bolivia as one of them. It is, to a certain extent, real politics. I agree. But why wouldn't you critique a socialist government that's engaging in the same type of surveillance state, a technology or use to monitor its own civilians, to put down co-ops and worker cooperatives in the way that the Morales government has? Like, are you just not aware of what the Morales government has done in the past? And also, I find it very weird that somebody who's focused on promoting democracy and freedom also was like very excited to see Eva Morales, like the entire situation unfold and call it a coup and say that fascist has seized powers and that CIA was BTFO to use flowery language. I don't know. I don't think that the CIA was orchestrating some coup in Bolivia to give Elon Musk the lithium because what ended up happening was Elon Musk saw the writing on the wall and like a dick because all of these cat-rich pricks are at the end of the day, they have no actual interest in protecting America or Americans or the world or humanity are only concerned with their profit margin. Just went and invested in China and made deals with the Chinese Communist Party to get the lithium from Bolivia. He doesn't need the US government to step in because they've already said, you know what, you can go just deal with the Chinese and get your lithium that way. So that's what he decided to end up doing rather than any type of like, I know that he tweeted out like, we can coup whoever we want like a dumbass, but that's just, you know, listen, that's the unadultered swagger of stupid billionaires, right? No doubt. So I can only agree with your presupposition here. If I were to believe that the effect leftist have in America is destabilizing, but I couldn't agree less. If anything, Bernie Sanders gave the Democratic Party a political platform that gave them a vision for the future far better than what they were advocating for before. In 2015, 2016, when Hillary Clinton was the presumed front runner and little known Chad Bernie Sanders stepped in, the policy positions, the attitude, the means that Hillary Clinton was bringing to the table were ones which directly lead to the advent of people like Donald Trump, which is why he won. Hillary Clinton's vision for the future was not convincing to the American people, but Bernie Sanders, well, he didn't win, but his platform has influenced the DNC heavily. And I would argue that the overall effect that socialists have had on America thus far have been stabilizing. It was socialists who were accused of being uproarous destabilizers back in the early 20th century when they fought for unions or workers' rights too. But then it turned out that you actually need unions and workers' rights to prevent societies from decaying the way they are right now. It was socialists who fought for abolition back during the slave days. And we know how that panned out. And they were also called destabilizing rabble-rousers and saying with the civil rights movement, it seems like the process you call destabilizing is actually just the growing pains of us moving to a better iteration of what we currently are. I mean, if you're so worried about China, it's not socialists who are mainly doing deals with China. It's capitalist America. The idea that it's like little socialist governments that are bolstering the Chinese regime is not the case. The vast, vast majority of their trade is with capitalist countries because they're capitalist. We have no issue with them. We're ideologically, economically, we're in tandem in that respect. I think the reason why Bolivia, and again, like you work with China or you work with America, I think the reason why Bolivia side with China in this issue is simply because they want protection because having an economic investment from a massive country like China decreases the likelihood that America is going to interfere in the future, which the CIA doesn't do everything bad abroad, but like, let's be real. America doesn't exactly have a positive history with foreign policy in Latin America. We, you know, there's definitely something to that. With regards to like the CIA directly involving themselves in Bolivia and Lithium and what have you, I think, I mean, leftists to an extent including myself will curse the CIA anytime they stub their toe. So there's definitely a bit of variance there as to how seriously any individual claim that should be taken. I'm always going to be in support of countries like Bolivia, like, you know, socialist leaning developing countries attempting to distinguish and autonomize themselves from American influence because we are numero uno at finding ways to fuck these countries over. Nobody does it better than us. We are prime. And even if we didn't do it in any individual instance, we always could have and we always have an interest in doing so. So I can't necessarily blame them for wanting to operate under the wing of a larger country that probably won't do that sort of thing. And as for the thing where I like democracy but Eva Morales, I think that Eva Morales was incredibly irresponsible with how he handled his little mini constitutional crisis but he was so undeniably good for the country. He was so much better than the alternative that I couldn't find it in my heart to be too upset with him. I think what he should have done is what's happening right now, which is he should have stepped down and had like, you know, his successor step up. And that way you avoid, I imagine, and from what I've read, it seems like it seems like that might have been on the table for a time but Morales was concerned about loyalty or efficacy and decided to just go through with it himself. Now that logic right there, I'm going to stay in power even though it's kind of a triple loophole legally, that's the logic of an authoritarian. And I acknowledge that, but in a utilitarian sense, if you have to meander between gymming up the constitutional works to further the presidential term of a person good for the country or allow like an autocrat in nature take power otherwise, I think things get a lot more complicated. I think it was a mistake though. I'm glad that he's, what he's doing right now with another member of the party taking the front lead. I think that's very preferable and extremely excited to see where Bolivia goes in the future. Yeah, I mean, I'm just some small nobody so there's no way you could know this but I'm basically known. People hate me. I mean, the fascists hate me, the communists hate me. Everybody kind of just hates me in the political sphere because I'll go on these political panels on Twitch or on YouTube or whatever and I'll punch right and I'll punch left. I punch basically everybody on the panel. They all piss me off for different reasons. The right especially for enabling China, in my mind, it was Reagan conservatism, the moral majority, which ultimately gave us the politics necessary for rising China to even exist in the first place. It was the one who gave them the economic resources without tying any type of social liberalization to that economic benefit that the Chinese government was receiving. Even after the Tiananmen Square massacre, even after this incident, there was negotiations the day after in private by the government to normalize trade relations with China because of course all of the capitalists within America wanted to extract more wealth from China. And I completely, I'm on board with the critique. Christian democracy isn't inherently capitalistic. The only reason that I defend capitalism is a pragmatic solution to solving the problems of today. I don't think that having more ideologues is the way forward. I think that maybe recentering capitalism at least in America around human worth and human value, at least towards, we can measure different things than just GDP. That can be one metric that we use. We can look at life expectancy, which has gone down. We can look at suicides. We can look at radicalization rates, whatever it is to determine the types of policies we want to implement in our society. And I have no problem with reforms to do so. I have no problem with Bernie Sanders. In fact, Bernie Sanders is the only reason I ever got involved in politics. I was a jaded teenager who just thought the world was doomed and that ultimately my life was, you know, I was very nihilistic and like I didn't have much hope for the future. And it was Bernie Sanders who came in and was like, knock, knock, knock, hey little 17 year old, have some hope. Hey, you're gonna get up here and we're gonna change the world and make it a better place. And it was him who spurred my interest in politics and eventually, you know, me working in politics and me looking into political policy. Wait, how old are you now? I'm 23. I'm 27, you called me a boomer. I thought you were a teenager. But millennials have this type of like disconnect for mass technology use that separates them culturally. Okay, I just, I half relate. I call myself a boomer zoomer. Okay, I'm like basically the oldest you can get while still being a zoomer. But like I was raised by the internet and the millennials, they were like half raised by the internet. Okay, I have some pretty vivid memories of me being 10 on new grounds. But yeah, okay, zoomer, go for it. One more level for me personally. So yeah, I think the last thing that I'll mention in my mind, you know, I've said this before, I think that China is the modern day equivalent of Nazi Germany, that what they're engaging in in Xinjiang is ethnic genocide that they're promoting. Basically what the equivalent of white supremacy for the region, Han supremacy for their people that they're a totalitarian dictatorship hell bent on world domination. They have made as much in their five year plans. They say, hey, this is what we want to do. This is how we're going to do it. We're going to gain control of these industries. We're going to advance in these industries and thereby take up more global market share and influence these countries over to our way. And they're doing it with disproportionately and sadly, not just socialist governments but they're doing it with authoritarian dictatorships. They're doing it with places like Greece which has suffered from massive amounts of destabilization but Portugal is a good example of a country that's ruled by a socialist coalition. It's the socialist party, the communist party and the green party who have a coalition government in Portugal and they're the ones blocking the EU like condemnations of what's going on in China and their human rights abuses and their oppression of minority populations within their society. This is the problem for me as I look around and I'm like, these people, like, well, yes, they might advocate for systems that would seemingly give more equity to people, more wealth distribution and make people's lives better. They're also working with the world's modern day equivalent of Nazi Germany. I don't know that you would say that, well, you know, listen, if there was a libertarian socialist government somewhere in the world and it worked, collaborated with Nazi Germany that that government like, well, you know, listen, what was their other option, America? America would have flushed it, like that's, that seems like a cop out. Like, well, that's just real politics. Like, no, it's not a good thing to work with these people. If you don't mind if I could just jump in really fast, Vosch, if you want to respond to that and then Endernax, if you want to respond to Vosch since Vosch went first, Endernax, you can end and we can go into Q and A. Is that good with both of you? Yeah, I mean, I don't have much more to add. So honestly, if after he responds to that, we could just go into Q and A. Okay, sounds good. Unless there's something crazy, then I'll dump it. Probably nothing too crazy. Yeah, so then, okay, my concluding statement then. So I don't think that political engagement should be defined or the worth-wildness of political engagement should be defined entirely by how effectively you're opposing China. I think that the country is a bad country. I think it should be opposed. I think it's an autocratic capitalist imperialist nation. But I think there were other elements of moral worth to political engagement. But if you wanna fight China, then I say we do this. We need to advocate for strong social democracy within this country because that is a stabilizing force. It will prevent far-right radicalization. And this is something that traditionally, the left has been at the forefront of. I think that as America is made to be slightly less destructive around the world, then leftists will be less inclined towards a sort of general anti-American allegiance towards China. They have to be given something to believe in. We need to push for active leftist policies within this country because it seems like every time we do, it somehow leads to bettering the world. I mean, when it comes to slavery or workers' rights or anti-war, it always seems like even if the way we do it isn't always the best way and even if the individual adherents of our ideology aren't always the best, it seems like most of the big fight socialists get into in America, tend to be ones where in retrospect, we end up agreeing with us. MLK, socialism, civil rights, et cetera, et cetera. But I think the big goal here really should be a formation of an international humanitarian trade bloc that makes an effort to strangle out nations from the global market if they're not willing to adopt certain humanitarian policies. And I think that requires cooperation between our country and others. And I think that's going to require cooperation between our country and the global south, which we have traditionally ignored or exploited. I think we need to rope them into the fold. I think they need to develop their own distinct and autonomous political power because otherwise we essentially leave like two thirds of the world's population open to being swept up by China who in their practicality, absolutely is willing to work with them, is willing to give them better deals. I think that we have cost ourselves. Our relentless pursuit of neoliberal global policy has led to a real politic which is not in our favor. I think that, and I think that's a long-term goal. And eventually, ideally, we can crunch China into adhering to these policies as well. Now, this isn't to speak of responding to China with regards to the treatment of the Uyghur Muslims. Any sort of broad international trade response, that's not gonna happen fast enough. With the Uyghur Muslims, that's a more immediate and more severe situation. And to be honest, I don't know what we can do about that. We obviously can't engage in a ground war for like 40 reasons. That's not an acceptable option. And I don't think we have the economic leverage to force them out of that behavior unless we were willing to accept severe domestic sacrifices. I don't know. We can't PR shame them out of it because the extent to which the Chinese government controls internal media is, you know, it's difficult. But I don't know if that's a capitalism versus socialism issue. That should just be a pro-human versus anti-human issue. I don't have a solution to that. I doubt anyone out there has a great solution to that either. So in summary, I think that a responsible promotion of socialist ideals will be effective not only in stabilizing our country, but in promoting a political environment which would help us unify against Chinese aggression and expansionism. And it would also have the side effect of making America better too, which is also good because I'm also not a big fan of us or the things that we do, you know? I mean, the Uyghur Muslim situation is pretty terrible and that's recent going on. And, you know, Mao's China killed how many people? But if you look back on all the stuff that America has done as well, both the over deaths of our wars and the implicit deaths caused by poverty that we benefit from perpetuating, I think that we deserve quite a bit of criticism ourselves. To what extent I don't know, both should be fought against. It's my opinion. Can I ask a question? Do you really believe that 30% of the Republican Party support slavery in the modern day? Because that's a quote, that's a quote. If it was like modern day, like you just rope up all black people or whatever, no. But I think that if it was like, hey, we have these asylum refugees here, you know, they don't want to be deported back to their home country, so okay, here you go, here's a new slave charter and you sold it the right way. I think, yeah, 30, maybe even more than 30%. I do believe that, yeah. All right, well. I think if you sold it to them, well. I think that that's the language itself, right? Like there's something obvious. There's something implicit in the nature of somebody being like willing to support slavery or being a person like saying that these are their values or implying that these would be their values in a certain situation. That's like, in my mind, actually most of the problem with left-leaning ideals. I really, I want Medicare for all. I want a system where, you know, Mima is not going to die because you can't afford her cancer treatment payment, right? I want a situation where, you know, people are supported by a welfare state that cares about them. In fact, in my opinion, I think that a stronger welfare state is probably the way forward for enabling entrepreneurship and giving people the autonomy and the ability, really, to just come up with whatever creative shift they want to. I mean, the reason business fails because I'm sorry, the reason that there isn't, we aren't the leader in entrepreneurship in the world is because people are too nervous to start their businesses because they think they're gonna go bankrupt or they're gonna be out on the streets, they're gonna be poor. I agree with all of these things. So I don't think that there's anything wrong with advocating for left-leaning ideals because, well, I advocate for them. It's mostly the radical elements that I witnessed when I'm told like, hey, Endernax, you're a fascist scumbag because you support accepting Hong Kong refugees and what China is doing is actually just de-imperialization of Hong Kong and democracy as a Western cause. I'm just like, I want to please bash my head in. What are you talking about? Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, of course. But if you've seen me online, you know I spend like a lot of time arguing with the rest of the online left. These tankies, I think they're a very loud minority. I think they ruin online discourse, but there's not really like a tanky wing in the Democratic Party, you know? Whereas Bernie Sanders was able to steal the hearts of tens of millions. I think the internet just does a bad... Well, actually, I don't know if I would agree with that because I actually think that the online right is fairly representative of the IRL right because the IRL right as far as we know through polling actually does seem to be fairly fucking crazy, but the online left, if you pull them, it's like, ah, yes, the glory of dengism, you know, may it wash over our shores and then you go and look at the real left and literally nobody believes that. So I don't know, you know? One anecdote to end on, by the way, my immediate family are all Republicans, they're all conservatives, all very good people, of course. In 2016, they all said if Bernie Sanders was the nominee that they would have crossed over for the first time. They were one issue voters on abortion and they were willing to ignore that issue in the 2016 election to vote for Bernie Sanders over Donald Trump because they thought he was a horrible person. Now I will say they have officially... It's something about Facebook and the internet and social media. My mom is like an anti-vaxxer and she's fucking crazy. I don't know what happened, but like there is definitely some very coercive elements of the internet that need to be wrangled in and quickly. Yeah, I unironically wonder if democracy can survive the existence of the internet. I don't know. It might be too much information. It might just be like the bombardment of Constance. I mean, it drives me insane. Like I can't imagine what somebody who is in is as crazy, like as plugged in. I don't know, I don't know. On that note, I am going to bombard both of you with some questions. It may. First one, we're going to have to go through these kind of quickly. Some of them are questions and I'll just read them. The first one is from Jezzer. I think I'm pronouncing that correctly. And they say Hale Satan. An interesting start to our question. Second one is from Cygifredo, Sarabia. And Vosch, can you describe how you would build socialism from a blank slate, i.e. Can you avoid critiquing another system or benefiting what's already in place? No, I don't think so. I think that all political and social and economic developments take place within the context of that. I'm a materialist and a believer in historical materialism. I don't believe it's really possible to construct anything absent the precedents which led to it. Which is the case with art and culture and everything. There's always like an earlier derivative. If you go back to Rome or Greece or the Macedonians or however far back you're capable of going, there's always something that you build upon. I couldn't even fathom having to construct a political system absent any like groundwork, you know? That's unfathomable to me. I wouldn't even know how you do that. Gotcha. All right, next one is from Orin Welles. He says socialism is a scheme. Vosch is still recovering from his debate from destiny. Next. Socialism is a scheme? Yep. Oh, I mean, well, yeah, sure. I mean, I'm scheme, it's, well, that is true. I still have a headache from that debate. And yeah, you know, I'm scheming to make socialism, yeah, for sure. Next one is also from Cejafredo, Arabia. I hope I'm pronouncing your name correctly. At Vosch, without enterprise slash competition, how do you progress? There are plenty of historical markers for innovation, which have taken place outside of market economies. In fact, a lot of the base level innovation we get in modern day development comes from public funding, from scientists and entrepreneurs who just, not entrepreneurs, sorry, inventors and engineers who just enjoy making new things. And usually the job of the private market is to take those products or those technologies and to find ways to adapt them for common use. But that's a doable process. But even then, with market socialism, there's still commodification. But the system that I was advocating for here, I think that there are systems where that process, using a profit incentive to encourage people to produce good products for market, I think that works well in some respects. And I would be interested in testing the limits there. How far can we push that before it stops being functional, you know? I gotcha. Next one is from DekuDeku. They say, how does Endernax feel about Alden's criticism of capitalism? Well, you see Alden's number is a very important number. And yeah, I know it's a main subject. Next one is from Ben Steed at Endernax. How can you argue capitalism offers the most stable society when it failed so dramatically in 2008 and required mass bailouts to survive? See, I never made the claim explicitly that capitalism was the ultimate system that makes the most stable societies. That's not the case. I'm just simply working within a realm that where the tools around me have already been built up over the course of hundreds of years. I have to work with what I'm given and the things that I'm concerned about seem like a removal of that system would result in a, not just destabilized America. And I keep saying destabilized mostly because I'm nervous, but the world around us would begin to fall apart as you tried to strip away these economic systems that are basically supporting a lot of the world. Even if they are exploitative or there's something wrong about them, they still hold the world together. And the minute you start removing the tentacles that the United States has all over the planet is the minute that you get a resurgent China being like, hey, hey, guess what? We'll offer the same thing a little bit better. And if you default on the loan and you can't pay it back, why don't we get a military base and like all of these natural resources that you have. Also the Chinese are gonna like come in here and like mine it out themselves. So that's, yeah. Gotcha. Next one is from Aflamayo. They said, would you say open standards and or software freedom are examples of de-commodification? Yeah, to an extent, absolutely. Not in the traditional sense because just because you have like open software doesn't mean that you can't profit off developing something, but it's a very selective type of de-commodification with regards to intellectual property that I think actually furthers innovation, which is something worth considering. There are actually ways in which innovation is stifled by the quote unquote free market we have today. And their necks presciently pointed one out when he talked about how very often people aren't willing to start a new business because they know that failure could mean bankruptcy, which is insane. Like if you want a system that maximizes the amount of innovation, like having people gamble their retirement on a new product or on a business is ludicrous. So that's probably something we should work on as well. There are a lot of benefits that we could probably work on. That was something I thought, I was rewatching a lot of debates. That's where I got all these quotes from you, Bosch. I was rewatching a lot of them and I'd seen them before. It's not like it was my first viewing, but with Adam Friend, Adam Friend, is that his name? It was on this channel, it was on modern day debates. But he missed an easy dunk or like not even a dunk, but like a very easy segue to like, well, yeah, that's why I support UBI because you were critiquing him on UBI at the time. Because I want the entrepreneurial, like a motivational culture to exist in America and Sweden does pretty much the same thing. They just do it in a different way. Anyways, but he didn't do that. But yeah, that's essentially why I think a lot of these reforms would be great. We'd have more economic growth. We'd have probably more productive growth because the things that people are creating aren't confined to like whatever the markets incentivizing, which oftentimes is like, well, how do you make the system so efficient that Karen can get her dildo from the Amazon drone in like two hours? All right. Next one is also from Cy Afredo, Seradia. They say at Bosch, why would government give money if a city's state? I'm sorry, could you repeat that? Yeah, it says why would government give money? I guess they're saying if the government is a city state. Why would it give them to a city state or? I guess give money to the people if they're a city state. I'm not 100% sure exactly. Well, I'm not really sure. City states are a completely outmoded type of government or the only reason we ever had city states was because we didn't have the trade and communication infrastructure necessary to get people to communicate and share resources between cities. And we can only build cities near water sources. Nowadays, we can build cities pretty much wherever, maybe not the Mojave. Well, no, we do have cities in the, yeah, we can build cities wherever the hell we want. So yeah, and we can of course communicate around the world. I'm not entirely sure what the question is necessarily but the answer is there's probably a way. I guess that's my answer. I think what they're saying is that since you're like libertarian slash anarchist, how would a federal government give people money? Oh, oh, well, I mean, unless we're talking, so until we become like communists, if we ever become communists, then the federal government can provide people money in a lot of ways. I mean, obviously, I mean, it wouldn't really differ much from the systems that we have today. You have ideas like UBI's, which I think could be very selectively helpful. You have direct cash out payments. You have tax deductions. You have reduction and lower end tax rates. My concern isn't so much the government giving people money as it is the state setting up all of the little incentive structures well enough that everyone can live like a fair, equitable and free lifestyle, regardless of how much money they're actually making, which is why I support the decommodification of industries like healthcare transportation. I don't think you should need to have money to benefit from those systems. So this is actually something that I'm kind of interested in because you identify as a libertarian socialist and the government obviously has like a utilitarian justification as far as implementing certain types of policy. And when I look at something like climate change and I think of, okay, there's gonna be like billions of people on the planet who are scared for their lives due to the effects of global climate change. Some are going to be reasonable fears. Others are not going to be reasonable. And the unreasonable fear is like, you know, the Islamic invader is coming in to steal your wife and you're gonna become like a cuckold and whatever crazy shit they're saying on poll. I don't care about that. But the point is that I feel like that fear will be used as a justification for the governments of these people and not only their governments, but if their governments are unwilling that they will rise up and inevitably become fascists, not just in Europe, not just in Europe. I think that there's going to be religious fascists and fascist governments and ethno-nationalist governments all over Africa and the Middle East and there's gonna be warring tribes and all of these horrible, horrible situations. So how do you get a government that can deal with all of these problems that isn't ruthlessly authoritarian in nature? It's gonna need a massive military. It's gonna need a huge police state. Like what, I mean, if these can be justified, how could they ever be taken away? I feel like China is the one that's gonna end up doing it, to be honest. Well, regardless of what China ends up doing, I don't think you need any of those things to prevent the spread of fascism. Fascism is a social disease, but it tends to stem from sort of preconditions which arise in capitalism. If we look at America right now, the reason, like you can trace pretty much all of the fascism that we're seeing rise up in America right now to a collection of news programs paid by billionaire demagogues online and radio shock jocks who have squatted on the media waves for decades, propagating flagrant misinformation usually because it makes their bosses money. This is usually the climate change stuff plays into it too because very often these people are in bed with the oil or gas companies. It seems like the profit incentive and the unwillingness to sort of cordon or control the extent to which the bourgeois control society have led to a lot of the social conditions that we're now experiencing in the form of fascism. I say if you organize society well, if you give people what they want and you make sure society isn't run by a bunch of lunatic plutocrats who socially and politically and economically benefit from lying to people, then there's probably not much you got to worry about or at least less you have to worry about. But when all that fails, you'll still have police in jails for the loony fascists who shoot up synagogues or whatever. All right, gotcha. Next question is from Aflamio. He says, your thoughts on agorism and counter-economics. Agrarianism and counter-economics isn't like return to monkey. It says agorism, it might mean agrarianism, but. The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for mankind, is that? Wait, agorism is a social philosophy that advocates- Wait, wait, wait, Bosch. Well, I have you, I'm sorry. But you, young you, looks like a young Ted Kaczynski and the resemblance is uncanny, okay? I'm just saying. I was a, I was a failed clone, okay? I got pulled away and since then I've tried to, you know, I'm trying to reunite with the means. Now, so it says here, agorism is a social philosophy that advocates creating a society in which all relations between people are voluntary exchanges by means of counter-economics and counter-economics is an economic theory and revolutionary method consisting of direct action carried out through the black market or the gray market. This sounds like a lot. It seems like a miserable way to organize society, I'm okay. This seems like a lot and I'd be willing to look at it more in the future, but I admit to an utter ignorance as to the specifics of counter-economics. Sounds good. Next one is from Brenton Lingle. He says, read the Jakarta method, learn about the school of the American's capitalism that has inspired more mass killings and radical authoritarianism than socialism ever could. Okay, I mean, I didn't, I don't think I ever brought up like Mao's China or like the amount of people who died in the USSR. I specifically didn't bring them up because I think that comparing death totals is really silly. I'm more interested in like, what's happening in the world right now and what has happened and what can we expect to see happen? I understand that as an example, the Chinese Communist Party does not represent the ideals of Vashism or anarcho-Bidenism. That you know of. True, true. I mean, it could be very subversive. Next one is from Saifredis Arabia. At Vash in socialism, how is government not a business? Well, a business isn't necessarily the issue. The issue is private property. If you define a business just as a collection of people who work within an industry or they operate under some sort of collective banner, then the business itself isn't necessarily the issue. The business has an implication of operating in a private market. But a business, a government is not. A government is any sort of, any sort of broad social hierarchy that is used to designate some degree of control or autonomy over the way society functions. And a state is that plus some extra. So I don't think that necessarily makes the government a business. Like with regards to the decommodification of industry and with regards to the democratization of industry, I don't think that either of those things necessarily preclude the existence of a state. Now, of course, in a communist society, you don't have a state, but that communism is just high form socialism. So you've got some, you've got some time to go, you know? I thought communism was when the government did everything. You know, if you ask a Dengist, they'll tell you that, okay? That's the, that is the one way in which Dengists and the CIA agree completely, okay? The CIA says, communism is when government do thing and the Dengist, yes, based CIA, they agree on that one. They'll get that one. Next one is also from Brenton Lingle. He says abolitionists were political radicals during American slavery liberals or political radicals under feudalism. E is advancing a golden mean fallacy. Endernax is advancing a golden mean fallacy. Golden mean fallacy. I don't know what the fallacy is, but I'll address this by saying this. If you think that your plight and your organizational effort or whatever, your justification for what you're engaging in or the acts of violence are equivalent to those who exist to 200 years ago who were fighting for much more basic human rights, I think you have a delusion of grandeur, my friend. And the idea that though, I agree that those ideas were left leaning and radical. They're not nearly as analogous as you think they are. Like to compare these two things are different. By the way, wait, hold on, this side of nowhere, but on Twitter a while ago, didn't you imply that I was an authoritarian because I said fascism in America should disappear? I don't, I mean, you'd have to show me the tweet. I think in regards, I made a critique, I made a critique of you. This was even before I started streaming was there's like this, I don't particularly like the rising in the hill, but I don't think Sager and Jetty is a fascist. And I don't think that could, at least his idea of what conservative populism is, is fascism. I think that that's actually a pretty legitimate form of real politic. And so I was, I actually tried to debate you into debating me. And we had a little tip for tat in your chat room at one point. Anyways, it's just, maybe it was in regard to that. I think that's the only time I've ever added you. Okay, I was just, sorry, I wasn't trying to dodge. I vaguely half remembered that. I was legitimately asking. I definitely, Sager definitely trips my. I mean, you could argue that fascism is a legitimate expression of real politic. It's as much an existing political philosophy as anything else, albeit an internally contradictory one, but you know. Next one is from Corey S. He said, my MS meds cost $6,208 a month in USA. Same companies sells the same drug in Europe for one 10th of the price and still profits. Without the ACA, the taxpayer pays most of my costs. Socialism isn't the problem, but for profit companies writing the regulations are. I imagine Ender would agree with that, right? I mean that, I think even, so this, so wait, I want to say something. Maybe this comes off as like enlightened centrist. I'm a big fan in tactical unity. I think that a lot of liberals and even capitalists, well, liberals are capitalists by definition. Sorry, the kinds of people who will describe themselves as capitalists. I think that you can agree with them on a lot in issues like this. And you should learn how to make arguments against things like that in ways that liberals will agree with, you know? Cause I think like that, most reasonable people will look at that and they'll agree that there's something wrong. So you should look for avenues to find ways to get people on your side with stuff like that. Unless there's some insane ideologue who worships the free market for no coherent reason other than freedom or something. Yeah, unless you're one of those types. However many of them there are. Hopefully not that many. I think that they're over exaggerated, you know? I genuinely believe that the financial interests have promoted think tanks and certain thoughts in the American public. Like if you think about it, right? You become a lawyer, you know you want to get involved in politics. So you join the Freedom Foundation or Turning Point USA. And that's what you get indoctrinated into because it's your really only option or like clear option of having rich people give you free money and say, here we want you to be politicians now. Yeah, from cash cannons. That was a crazy one. Yeah. I have a video on that actually. The one just like their strippers. Physical conservatism is a joke, yeah. It's a joke. Next one is from Google user. They say to both, there's been a huge recent surge in the violence against Asian elderly in the Bay Area by, I think it means black perpetrators, some blame Trump for COVID, some blame black Asian race relations. What is the answer? How do you fix it? It's obviously Korean roofs. No, I'm just kidding. I don't know. I mean, you addressed the core causes of crime in the first place. If there hate crimes, I mean, you prosecute them to the full extent of the law and you increase surveillance of the area to make sure that these businesses and these people aren't targeted anymore. But if they're not, Sounds dangest, my friend. Yeah, totally dangest. Anyways, the point being is that you address the core causes of the crime. So whatever that be, if they're majority hate crimes, which I mean, I don't know about you, but at night, what was it? What was it? 1,900% for like, what was, is that actually real? I know the percentage increase in these crimes. It's a huge reason. I know actually a place I used to work at just got vandalized. I think it was yesterday. It's crazy. I mean, the only logical explanation considering we haven't seen a massive crime wave to other people is that it's hate crime oriented. Yeah, I don't, it could be hate crime oriented. It could be because of discrimination following COVID-19. It could also be that there's a gang in the area that there's some sort of tension or some specific organization, not necessarily an org, but like a loose confederation of individuals that for some reason have been influenced to some extent to do something that isn't hate oriented, but could be for some other reason. I genuinely don't know, but whatever it is, it's bad. So they shouldn't. And we should probably do something about that. Old elderly people or elderly Asian people. So it can't be like a gang conflict then probably. It'd be weird if it was hate crimes, but only targeting like elderly. I genuinely don't know, whatever it is, it's bad. I think the theory behind it is that elderly people are less likely to report the crimes. That's kind of sad. Yeah. It's really sad actually, yeah. Next question is from Alex Gross. They say, I just wanted to point out how utterly regrettable it is that Vosch didn't call upon more arguments from family guy in political theory. I look, that's my super Saiyan move, okay? You gotta bust those ones out of the best. I'm personally, I only use Marvel, but that's just me. It's a study of the Tim Pool. No, actually I am a, the Shmoobin, actually technique, Thanos glove. Okay, very good. Next one is from K. Lewis. No Chinese ever called me in cell. Next one is from- Wait, what? Don't go, thank you for the donation. Hey, I appreciate them not using the original terminology of the quote they're borrowing that from. What was it? No Charlie ever called me N-word from, was it, was that Muhammad Ali? Who did that? Who said that? Oh, that's where it's from. Okay, thank you. Yeah, oh, but hey, by the way, they got a whole term, maybe not Chinese people, but they got that whole Hikikomori thing in Japan. Okay, trust me, you're not, they'll find a way to be mean at you too, all right? USA. Next one is from Jordan Rose. Vosh, how do you debate bigots so well? You always have the best responses. You're my favorite debater by far. I don't know if that's a dig at you end or next, but. No, no, no, it's just who people who, just who people like. No, I'm really not that good. Every time I do a debate, I think, oh, I could have done X better. It's not, but I have a good attitude about it. If you do something like this a lot and you're constructive and you don't get super down in yourself whenever you like perform poorly, you can usually get pretty good at reasonable self-critique and self-improvement. That's how you get better at everything. The worst thing that people can do to themselves is when they interpret self-criticism as self-hatred. So whenever they do something that looks like a mess up, they get really mad at themselves. Those types of counterproductive behavior, it actually prevents you from growing because you're not capable of healthily dealing with or responding to criticism you're levying. So just do things a lot and don't beat yourself up too much if you do them poorly one time. Sounds good. Next one is also from Brenton Lingle. He says, you cannot solve the root causes of radicalization in a capitalist economy. You cannot act against profit without an economic crash. That's why Vietnam has 35 COVID deaths and we have 484,000 plus. Reforms cannot happen. Well, there is a strong counterpoint to that and it's that, well, I don't necessarily know. There are a lot of counter examples to all of this. Sweden has a higher standard of living than America does but they have a far right problem too. And while Soviet Russia didn't have especially high standards of living, Soviet Russia did at least aesthetically adhere to the principles of communism but after the Soviet Union fell it almost immediately devolved into a pseudo-fascist autocracy. So I think that radicalization can happen in a lot of ways. There are many, many ways societies can fall apart. And I think it's important to not be too essentialist when we think of it in one way because it leads to us not seeing radicalization coming from the other direction, you know? That makes sense. Any thoughts on that? Do you agree with that? Sure. I just, I think the idea that reform is not possible is basically flies in the face of, well, most of human history. Even in societies where there wasn't, even in societies where there was violent action that was done in order to bring about social change, even in those ones, there was the reformist efforts that worked and did good things. So kind of a silly statement, I don't know. Well, you can reform out of, Marx actually did believe you could reform out of capitalism. It's funny, there were actually writings from him. He thought that America and some other countries with robust democracies, and this was before black people and women could even vote, he thought that these countries could conceivably be reformed into capitalism, which was interesting. I don't even necessarily know if I agree with that, but, you know, there's a lot of variants out there. Next one is from Banana-Nana-Rang-Tron. Question for Vosh. How would the USA go about democratizing the workplace? And how would that affect huge companies such as Amazon, Apple, et cetera? Like I said, reformed into capitalism when I meant reformed into socialism, that was my bad. There are a lot of ways you can democratize, I'm just gonna spit them out with that explanation. So you wanna work on a state-by-state basis to try and establish a precedent of co-ops functioning by having states have preferential treatment from banks lending loans to businesses that intend to start a co-op. You can have cities have like designated areas or designated quotas for co-op development, and all of this would serve to prove a kind of experiment where you could use to justify the implementation of these systems in a larger level. The larger a corporation gets, the more complicated the cooperative gets. Autocracy is simple, democracy is hard. For very, very, very large corporations like Apple, you have to look away from the standard flop cooperative model and you have to start looking towards less ideal cooperatives that can maybe be improved upon, like Mondragon. The goal with corporations like this, if made into a cooperative model, would be to not have everyone be on one flat playing field, but rather have separate and autonomous tiers, cells, units of democracy that work together to form a cohesive whole. So say you have one branch that has like 1,000 people working for it, and from that 1,000 people, you have like three blocks of different districts and they all vote on their managers, then the three managers together vote on one leader for that group, and then the leader from that district, along with the ones from other districts, can be either the leader, like a regional leader and so on and so forth. There are many ways that this can be implemented. I would be interested in seeing it started bit by bit. With a company as large as Amazon, you can't snap your fingers and change the structure. That can't happen. You would destroy every, you can't do that, but you can start small, find ways to legitimize these systems on a ground level, and then investigate how they can be applied to a larger level. I think that would be very good. Sounds good. Next one is from Sphinter of Doom. They say civil rights movement slash ending slavery is not a leftist policy. It's simply a policy of liberty. It is not synonymous with socialism slash social democracy. Sure. I don't think anybody made that claim, though. I would say that generally speaking, and this is gonna sound crazy, right? But like it's all relative to the period of history you're in, right? I mean, the quote-of-quote leftists of what, 1500s Europe were the Protestants or the people engaging in the Protestant Reformation. It's just the changes based on the historical context. And I think it's kind of, nobody here was like, oh, well actually the people who freed the slaves, those were actually anarcho-communists who believed in the dissolution of gender. Like that's not what anybody said. It's more that lefties tend to be around when these things happen. There were many, many socialists involved in the abolition movement, but it's true that's not an inherently socialist movement. A lot of religious people, too. A lot of religious... Oh yeah, well to be fair, 1850s America, you're gonna get a lot of religious people any direction you walk. And civil rights movement, too. I mean, there's a reason why Martin Luther King Jr. was a socialist. It wasn't a coincidence. And the civil rights protesters were described as communists and Bolsheviks by their critics. And to an extent, I mean MLK was a socialist, so there was some legitimacy there, but I think generally freedom trends towards freedom. And if you're a socialist, I think it makes you more likely to be in support of racial liberation. That's not always true, though. There have been plenty of socialist leaders who have pretty bad human rights records, so it's not always good. Next one is from the Anti-Milarchy Action. They say ban all malarkey. Next one is from Ruse 321. They say at Vosh, given your position on reform and incrementalism, to affect positive change, do you think the Mensheviks had the right idea in the early USSR would love to get under Nax's thought as well? The Mensheviks were the faction that were ultimately purged by the Bolsheviks because they were working with the liberal parties. Is that, am I getting a history right there? I'm not sure. I believe you're correct. I'm really, really quickly read, because I remember reading up on these people and just reminding myself who they were. The second Congress, the RSDLP, the Minor Issues Party. Wow, I know more than both the socialists on the panel. No offense. I got a bad memory. Yeah, one of the, I think the fate of the Soviet Union was pretty much set in stone, the moment that Lenin invited the anarchists, like a black flag group, to a war meeting towards the end of the civil war, and like he didn't show up, and then they were all shot. I feel like that kind of set the stage for how the USSR would turn out. Lenin's writing and Lenin's actual behavior sure did vary quite a bit. I think that any proper socialist movement should be made out of a pluralistic union of a bunch of different groups. So purging your allies is something I'm pretty much always going to be against, you know? Makes sense. Sphinctor of Doom says having welfare subsidized entrepreneurship is just gambling with someone else's retirement. I mean, I hope this goes without saying, but no more money would be allotted towards investing in ingenuity than would be needed for retirement funds. You wouldn't cut into the retirement fund for people to fund those processes. Here's a welfare state that supports your existence, even past your working age. Well, that's taking for, excuse me, Endernax, you want to promote entrepreneurship? That's taking, you're literally taking everything, shut up, what is this argument? Now, people like the government's budgets razor thin and like one more person files the grant, the government's like, fuck, we're out of money, what do we do? We're taking it out of Tim's fucking IRA fund. In Sweden, it's not even like, it's not even like we're going to give you money to start your capital venture. It's like, if you're unemployed, right? And you can't find work or you're working towards making your own business or whatever, you just get enough to live on. That's it, you're not going to be homeless, you're going to have a house, you're going to have healthcare, you're going to be able to buy food. And that's like it. It's not like they're like, here's $500,000, Tim. Good luck, we wish you luck in your venture. That's not what happens. Please, please, Endermax, don't try to start another business. We're running out of retirement funds. People don't even, they can't even afford food anymore. Please, the whole GDP just towards you, trying to make the E-phone. Just invested it all into GME. Next one is from Kaysen Kamikaze. They say, Endermax, I agree with your take on preventing harm from the climate crisis, but I also agree with Vosh and his optimism that we can reduce ecological harm. Can we work toward both goals currently? Sure, I mean, I have no problem doing so. I think that we should have for a public works program, a public service program, where people out of high school, you could choose what you want to do. You can go into the conservation core, the environmental core or whatever it is. And you can plant trees or build sustainable architecture, whatever it is. I don't, yeah, I'm absolutely in favor of these things. I'm just at the mindset that I don't think that wind and solar are the way to get to a sustainable society reasonably within my lifetime anyways. And I think that they have their own problems within their own supply lines, but that's conversation for another day. I'm sorry, it was Trotsky who killed all of them, not Lenin, that was my bad. The anarchist black army was fighting with the red army because the red army had purged some of their camps and executed some of their officials. And then leaders from the black army got brought to a joint planning conference. They were all sitting at a table and then a fucking assassin just showed up and beamed all of them in the back of the head. And that was about the end of that. Jesus, sorry, I just wanted to correct because anytime I say anything even remotely wrong about USSR history, I get 20 angry emails. So I just had to be. Next one is from Dinobot two, Endernax, you're a left of center economically and socially conservative since the vast majority of politicians in the US aren't both of these. Which do you put more importance on economic or social? Generally I tend to be swayed by pragmatic arguments for economic gain because I could do something like magic roux, switch roux, moral argument for UBI because it's gonna reduce the amount of abortions that take place and like a spread of free contraceptives to people so that they are like getting knocked up less ultimately or sold in less abortions. I don't really yet. I mean, that's the way it's time to go. People who don't, I supported Andrew Yang. I worked on his campaign. I've worked for Democrats in the past. I don't consider myself a Democrat. I consider myself an independent. If a Republican came along with socially conservative values and legitimate left leaning economic views, sign me up, I'll go and campaign for them for free. Dasha, we only have a couple more questions left. I apologize, this is taking a little longer. Spincter of Doom says anything seems worth it, I'm sorry, anything seems worth it spending someone else's money. Non-voluntary exchanges are inherently distorted in cost-benefit analysis. Okay, hold on. Okay, so that's fundamentally an argument against taxes as well. So from a utilitarian perspective, we have to recognize that some degree of taxation in any type of society is necessary because there's no other way of levying the framework that ensures for other voluntary systems to exist. Private business would not exist without the state protecting property rights. All the shit that you like, all the shit you jerk off to while crying yourself to sleep at night exists exclusively because there is a state body capable of protecting it. Now, the real question is with the acceptance of this incredibly obvious fact that anybody over the age of six should be able to understand intuitively, how can we best organize society to minimize the coercion involved? So some societies attempt to do this with very low tax rates. Some societies attempt to do this with very high tax rates by using those tax rates in order to implement social reforms that actually decrease the amount of money individuals have to spend. There's a lot of incredibly nuanced discussion with a lot of outcomes that can take place from that but none of them are going to be solved by troglodyte 60 IQ dipshits like you who unironically believe that an Ancap America would be the solution to your lack of freedom and that you wouldn't be some sort of peon slave miner living on a fucking corporate town dying at 52 from black lung birthing all your children and immediately selling them into slavery to pay back the debts that you got from going to the fucking vending machine outside of your apartment. You could just, but wait, but boss, you could just choose to join a union and then you could collectively bargain for your labor. So obviously that wouldn't happen. I mean, if I oppose the corporate interest, right? As listen, if they build a giant wall around my private property and embark on me from the rest of society and I starved to death, they didn't violate the principle of non-aggression. They just bought the private property around my place. The solution is sovereign citizenry, you know, just build a fence around your territory and march around it in circles and you'll be good. Whoever builds the highest wall and has the best air defense wins. The Pope just automatically wins. Animated effigy, can we all admit that all first world governments operate hybrid systems and that this argument is about an old paradigm? Take what works from each system. Sure, I mean, I think that's fundamentally where I come from. I'm like, yeah, I'm open to like whatever ideas I think are good for people in general. But my issue is with ideology or like a dogmatic adherence to an ideology. That's really where I'm coming from. It's not like I'm not a radical. I mean, people, you know, Republicans, they look at me and they go, you're just a communist. And then like Democrats look at me and they're like, you're like a fascist or whatever. I'm just like- That's coming up by the way, there's a question. Yeah, I just wanna say, we have mixed economies in the sense that most developed countries have some types of decommodified industries, which is true. We don't have mixed economies when it comes to ownership. And I personally don't really care about a state owning an industry unless that state is appropriately democratic. Democracy is the thing that I care about most. So when we talk about picking what we like from these systems most, I agree about that, but we have to recognize that there are some broader systems that we don't really implement widely because there are people in power who don't want us to. And they're the people in power. So that's what we get, you know? Roger, that makes sense. Next question is from Balthazar228. What does each think about how the existential threat of catastrophic climate apocalypse will affect the material needs of the people and the cataclysmically slow rate of change in Congress, especially with the bipartisan compromise? I mean, the idea in my mind that you're even going to pass something as like the Green New Deal is like out the window. So for me, it's about like minimizing harm. I look to agricultural policy, like I piss off a lot of people because I'm like, no, we actually need to increase food output to the tune of being able to support like a billion starving mouths. I mean, you're right, it's going to be something that's going to fundamentally change the entire world in a way that we've never seen before. We're fucked unless we abandon isolationism. These aren't problems that we can fix. That's the trend though. It is, yeah, and that's the problem. Internationalism is the only chance we have. If we all embrace isolationism, there are going to be two types of countries. There are going to be the ones lucky enough to be far away from climate refugees where their solution to the problem will be gunning down people at the border and then there are going to be countries near the periphery, near Southeast Asia, near Central America, possibly including America that end up getting swarmed with climate refugees past the point where we can meaningfully defend our borders. We're not going to take them in as we should and it's going to lead to massive martial conflict. There is no good out unless we're willing to work together collectively and that's going to involve a lot of suffering for a lot of people but it's a hell of a lot better than it will be if we all close ourselves off into tiny isolated little governments and don't think about the big picture. Yeah, I mean, it's why we need to like encourage for their economic integration with Canada and Mexico and the war on drugs, start supporting them economically because I can tell you right now if there's a flood of refugees coming up from the South to America and America's response is we're just going to build a wall and ignore it. We're in for a rude awakening as those starving people start flooding over the border and committing acts of violence to get food and the material needs, like their material needs met still. Dude, how fucking based would it be? America is like in terms of land mass about the size of China with about a fifth of the population, fourth and a half of the population. How based would it be if in preparation for climate refugees, we just start building out like towns in the Midwest, these massive spaces of land where we don't farm and we don't even have people, we just start building out. It's like refugees are coming. Fuck yeah, we're ready for you, okay? Get ready, we're incorporating. America's population is going to skyrocket, baby. Then we become a stronger economic power as long as we're well prepared to handle these people. We become more culturally diverse, which I personally like. Win-win. I'm of the mindset to listen, these people, these ethno-nationalists. You already have ethno-states, go home. Nobody wants you here, you already have them. Go, shoo, shoo, go to Ireland, go to Hungary, go to Sweden, I don't care, leave. We have Wyoming, what do you want? Next one is from Paul. He says, question for Vosch. How would the USA go about democratizing the workplace? And how will that affect large companies? You know what, we already did that. I feel like I nailed that one. That was from PayPal, I think you found a way to do it on YouTube as well. Ariel Fernandez says, Vosch, why was Franco Spain, one of the countries that ignored the Cuban embargo and just kept training with Cuba after the Cuban Revolution? I don't know, I haven't looked into why Franco was Spain did that necessarily. The simplest explanation would probably be that Franco was Spain wasn't aligned with the United States, right, I think? Which means that if they weren't, they were probably comfortable with it because they didn't think it was. Wait, it was aligned? Is that true, Chad? They were pretty neutral on a lot of things. We sent them oil. Maybe they felt like for some reason, Franco was Spain didn't represent an international threat to them. One of the interesting things, we kind of talked about this with the internet, one of the interesting things about the relationship between these less powerful countries is that very often their interactions don't make sense if you just look at the ideologies of what each country adheres to and instead which countries are supported by which other countries. Most geopolitical engagement, just trade war, everything comes down to who is with America and who is against America. That's pretty much the strongest determinant for most international behavior, which is terrifying but that's the world we live in. We essentially united the entire world through economic incentive and basically, hey, we're gonna take a trade deficit in exchange, we're gonna put our military bases here, you're gonna oppose the USSR and we also propped up China as a, like we made our own monster, honestly, is the truth of the matter. But yeah, these geopolitical engagements are often very complicated and don't match up whatsoever in ideology. Yeah, fuck Franco, by the way, FYI. We only have two little ones left. One is from DCD and this is the one I was referencing. Endernax, why are you a nozzball? Stop hiding it. Yeah, I'm just gonna expose this nerd. That's a bait comment that's paid for by the person who makes my thumbnails. Wait, can I ask a real question, by the way? Do you actually mind being jokingly called a nozzball because it's misrepresentative or, okay, I don't know if it's a meme in your community or? No, because then there's literally people who come and like accuse me of being an actual Nazi and like, to me, like, I had already decided a long time ago that Nazis were probably, you know, as evil as you can get on the ideology sphere, I'm very much opposed to their ideas and ideals. I don't like them as people generally. So like, it really got to me at first, like almost quit streaming when I first started to my 10 person audience because every two seconds, there was a lefty in chat calling me a Nazi because I was a Nazi. Is it just because you're a young white guy with a clean shave and face and a suit? I think so, yes. Okay, all right, well, you know what? I will not perpetuate this anymore, okay? I thought it was like a community joke. I didn't realize it was some weird description, unearned description, okay, gotcha. It's because I said once that if billionaires avoided a wealth tax through like, like offshoring their money overseas that the CIA should like give them handlers to make sure that they avoid tax. I said this on a debate panel once and then shut up for the rest of the segment because I didn't want to like join the lefties and clobbering all the right-wingers on the panel. Well, that's the problem with every political panel, right? Especially on Twitch, there are only so many conservatives but most of the big ones are left-leaning. Last comment is Saifredo Sarabia. He say, thank you, Kuroza, great moderation in listening. You guys made moderation really, really easy for me. So I appreciate that from both of you and I also appreciate your time coming on here. I know it was a little longer than intended as well as all of the audience taking your time to come here and to listen to this debate. Be sure to check out both Ender and Vosh's links in the description if you want to hear more of their content, which I assure you, you do. So definitely make sure to check them out and we have a lot more debates coming up. We have Ariel Scarcella in the future so be sure to subscribe and we will be getting those debates out to you. And without further ado, I know it's actually Vosh's birthday tomorrow so happy birthday. But we want to be able to wrap this up so everyone can get to bed. Keep on sorting the reasonable from the unreasonable. Have a wonderful rest of your night. Thank you, seriously. I appreciate that. And I want to say, as always, Chris, I love you very much. I hope you're doing well. I hope you're having a phenomenal day and I hope that the kids doing good. They are, they're doing great. Okay, tell Hunter I'm doing well. Ender, next I had a phenomenal time talking to you. Seriously.