A Geek History of Time - Episode 261 - Andor Went Woke And Or Marxist with Gabriel Gipe Part I

Episode Date: April 26, 2024

Okay, so there's there there are two possibilities going on here. One you're bringing up a term that I have never heard before. The other possibility is that this is a term I've heard before but it involves a language that uses pronunciation That's different from Latin it and so you have no idea how to say it properly an intensely 80s post-apocalyptic Schlock film and schlong film, you know, it's been over 20 years, but spoilers. Oh Okay, so so the Resident Catholic thinking about that, we're going for low earth orbit. There is no rational theory. Blame it on me after.

And you know I will. They mean it is two o'clock in the fucking morning where I am. I don't think you can get very much more homosexual panic than that. No, which I don't know if that's better. I mean, you guys are Catholics, you tell me. I'm just kind of excited that like you and producer George will have something to talk about

That basically just means that I can show up and get fed I'm going to go to the bathroom. This is a Geek History of Time. Where we connect nerdery to the real world. My name is Ed Blaylock. I'm a world history and English teacher here in Northern California. And this week I passed a professional milestone, kind of an unofficial one. Of course, this year I have permanent status at my new site. And this week was the first staff meeting I attended where I was comfortable enough in my position on campus to gripe in a kind of petty, bitchy text to my department chair about why are we all here?

This could have been an email. And he literally responded to me with, ah, you're learning grasshopper. And I was like, no, I've been teaching for 10 years. It's just I've been here long enough. I'm comfortable enough to say that to you now. But like, seriously. So yeah, and then I turned around and made a snarky remark at my next door neighbor teacher who, you know, acknowledged me as, oh, all right, you're getting to be that way now. So I am now one of the tribe. And feels good. Feels good. So that's, that's my, that's my big deal. How about you?

Who are you and what's going on? Well, I'm Damian Harmony. I am a high school U S history teacher up here in Northern California. And recently my son has gained possession of a video game called Sonic racing, which is essentially the Sonic franchise and it's cars racing, very cartoonish. I believe there's a Mario Kart thing that's an analog to this probably much later. You might have heard of it. You're being intentionally obtuse, right? Tell me. Yeah, it's an obscure kind of niche thing, but, you know,

Sonic is more for the dilettante who wants to race, and whereas Mario Kart, I think, is probably more working class oriented. But yeah, we've been playing that game instead of watching anything, which is kind of a bummer because I just got my kids watching The Next Generation, and we just finished the Traveler episode and then the everybody's hot sexy blondes with camel toe and moose knuckle episode where they had one penalty and it was death. Yeah.

Oh, wow. Wow. Yeah. So we have that on pause. You know, when you describe that season of the show that way, it really changes the framing of a lot of things. Like, wow. I do.

But yeah, so we've been racing like two hours a night every night. It's been so fun. That's cool. That's yeah. Yeah. And I'm still not quite sure what each of the little wisps do. Apparently a wisp is a thing. Do they have this Mario Kart where you can find other cars? Yes. Yeah. But they're not called Mario Kart where you can fumble with the other cars? Yes. But they're not called Wisps.

They're not called Wisps. I hear another voice. That's, oh. Oh, wait. Oh. Was I not supposed to talk until right now? No, no. This is perfect.

This is organic now. Because now I can do this. Hey, we have a guest. If you look to my left, your right, listeners, you will see next to me a guest host, or a guest. If you look to my left, your right listeners, you will see next to me a guest host or a guest star here, Mr. Gabriel Geipp. Welcome to the show, sir. Thank you. And I am the master of segues. So I try my best to make sure that we could, you know, go from like blue tortoiseshell wisp to introduction. I like it. Very seamless.

Well done. Joe, that segue right off the cliff. Well done. Um, but I, I like Ed also had a, uh, a career breakthrough, not, not quite in the same manner though. I play music. Uh, I play bass in a band and this last week, uh, for the first time. I bled all over my instrument.

Uh, we were doing, we were having band practice, um, and we have a spot downtown and, um, I looked down, I played bass and I looked down and I realized that I, like my hand felt sticky and I kind of, our room is very dark that we practice in because we're kind of like a metal band. So of course it's dark, you know. And I realized that I had blood all over my hand and all over my base. And I was like looking at my hand,

like where is this blood coming from? Did someone come into our practice space and just like bleed on my base? Just the way that you said it sounded like, did someone come? And I thought the next thing you were gonna say is on my base. On my base. Just the way that you said it sounded like did someone come and I thought the next thing you were going to say is on my base. On my base. Before I got here. Bloody, bloody orgasms are also very metal.

They opened for you, didn't they? Yes, they did. Right. Great band. And then Moosnuckle featured for you. That's right. That's right. But it was it was not a poltergeist. It was actually, I had just, I apparently had, at some point got a paper cut and then busted it open

while I was playing bass in the most metal fashion that you could possibly do it. And then bled all over it. And I have not for anyone, I mean, these shows are not going to be on video, right? But like I have a base behind me and I have not, I have not cleaned the blood off of it because I actually just feel like it's a little bit more punk rock. See that's the blood. Yeah, that's, that's, that's wow. That is, that is John. John would have taken credit for it. Yeah. Well, who shouted, I got blisters on my fingers. Wasn't that George? I think so.

Yeah. Definitely not Ringo. No, no. He was too busy enjoying himself. He's definitely the happiest Beatle. Yeah, he really is. Yeah. So did you find out though?

Like, did you get it tested? Are you blood type E, A, D, or G? Oh, nicely done for someone who, you know, admittingly does not have like favorite bands. You knock that out of the park, right? I mean, I could have been tuning it like a mandolin, which is G'day, G-D-A-E. Oh, wow. That makes sense why it's using Irish music now. Or the Australians, right? Yeah, G'day. Irish music now. Or the Australians, right? Right. Good day. So, oh man, I'm just now realizing that I really want to know the name of the bassist

for Fishbone. And for Fish as well, because... Same guy. Oh, it is? No. Because don't know. Because he plays the thing spelled Bass in a band that references fish. And I just, there's something that tickles me about that. Mmm. Yeah. Yeah.

Anyway. Well I'm sorry for your finger, but I'm glad it didn't stop you from being here. No, I was able to recover. Yeah. Now normally when we have a guest, one of two things has happened. One, Ed is tending to his family in a healthy and loving way,

in a way that the show would otherwise pull him away from. Or two, they're here to teach us something. So Ed's here, that leads me to believe that it's part two, where you're here, that leads me to believe that it's part two where you're here, Gabe, to teach us. I am. And I also used to be a social science teacher. And I would also identify myself as a Marxist. And we can get into how I further define that, but I think for the sake of brevity, I'll just say that I am a Marxist and I am here to talk about Marxism in a very geeky

way. Oh, cool. So like Harpo or Zappo or? Yes. Right. I mean, Harpo, because, you know, he was a musician. Sure. And I, and I, I also tend to choose musicians that do not speak because as a bass as a bass player

I'm firmly in the back. No one pays attention to me And and Harpo clearly the horniest oh, yeah, did you see him in the I love Lucy episode? I mean you I mean he was always of Lucy episode. I mean, he I mean, he was always a cow. I mean, yeah, yeah. It's amazing how times have changed. Yeah, boy. Howdy. No. OK, so really musicians who are Marxist would be Richard Marx, obviously.

No. Rich Richard Marx was the first concert that I ever went to. Really? Yeah. Tell me you brought a date and you you left her by the river. I mean, I was like seven. So okay. He was, he was playing at the Del Mar fair in Southern California. And my mom, I'm pretty sure it was very horny for Richard Marx.

I know. And those tight jeans and the tucked in t-shirt, tucked in t-shirt to jeans. It can't beat it. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I don't think that my dad realized how horny my mom was for Richard Marx and decided to take the whole family To you know Right Right wig cuz she was hard before him. Yeah. I mean Richard saw my mom was down and then he's like, oh you got four kids Never mind, right? Yeah, that's fair. Not doing that. Yeah. I mean, Richard saw my mom was down and then he's like, Oh, you got four kids. Nevermind. Right. Yeah. That's fair. Not doing that. Yeah. All right. So you, you, sir, are a Marxist. It feels like a 1950s hearing. Um, and you have a lot less hostile.

Right. Could you pass the deviled eggs? You, sir, are a Marxist. Um, okay. Could you pass the deviled eggs? You sir are a Marxist. Okay, so you have geeky shit to bring us from a Marxist lens it sounds like. So hit me with it. Yeah, well, you invited me on to this episode and I'm super eager to be here and also honored to be here because I, well, one, this is the first time that I've got to be on your show and I've been a long time listener. And two, I actually got to be present for Damien's tattoo application of the Geek History of Time logo. And I was also honored to be a part of that because I have a lot of tattoos and I love watching people get that first tattoo and have that experience

of pain and discomfort. But I'm here to talk about Marxism or Marxist analysis of and or a Star Wars story. Okay, so Marxist analysis of and or a Star Wars story and or Just no come on now next 15 minutes is just the man takes You are a Marxist, okay Absolutely So alright hit us with it and or was a streaming show that came out, what, in the last year or so, correct?

On Disney Plus. On Disney Plus. Much to the dismay of many Star Wars fans when Disney acquired Star Wars, and I believe it was 2012. Sounds right. It was 14 or 15. Okay. Was it? I was on a podcast talking about what to do with my books. Oh, yeah. They'll be worth, you know, like beanie babies. They only accumulate value over time.

Somewhat someone's college education is being paid by the extended universe. So I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. You know, like beanie babies, they only accumulate value over time. Sure, sure. Or dust. Whatever. Someone's college education is being paid by the extended universe.

There you go. But, and or, essentially the show was kind of the follow-up, although it is the predecessor to Rogue One, Yeah, which which came out I believe in 2016 Yeah, I think so. Yeah after episode 7 Yes, 7 3.9 Yeah, a jack

And then yeah, yeah, I was yeah bizarre and then yeah, and and then 3.5 and Chronologically the movies are just completely fucked There's no all actually able to hang with it though like it's the most yeah on linear release of shit And we're all like yeah cool I know where this is and I love how it doesn't really progress like yes seven eight nine came out But they're just constantly going back and being like, but what if we tell the story of like this tree

that happened to get cut down in Endor? Right. Like, why don't we make a story about that? Which, which Endor and Rogue One, I think when, especially when Rogue One came out, that was kind of the initial response that a lot of fans had was like, why does this story need to happen? Yeah.

Like we're not necessarily going to be hearing about the Bothans that we've been led to believe many of their lives were lost in order to get the plans for Death Star 2. We're going to find out about the people who got the plans for Death Star 1. Who gives a shit? I can hit a womp rat in my T-16, so that's all I really need to know. But I think to a lot of people's surprise, Rogue One was a huge hit. And it was a gigantic kind of like a for a lot of Star Wars fans was kind of like Star Wars can feel serious and feel like a political thriller. So when Tony

Gilroy and Diego Luna, so Tony Gilroy is kind of the brains behind the Andor show. And Diego Luna, who plays Cassie in Andor, decided to do this show. I think a lot of people also kind of had that, does this need to happen? Do we need the backstory? Because Andor wasn't necessarily the primary character in Rogue One, right? He was a main character,

but he was not the primary protagonist. Yeah. Damien, you look like you wanna argue. No, no, I was just gonna say, he was clearly the supporting character. Like it's, you know, he's our psycho-pomp to get us, cause we're behind Jen Erso, because she's the one about whom this is

But he's our psycho pump that guides her and and carries us through the familiar territory of The base on Yavin 4 and carries us through the familiar Outfits and stuff like that that the rebels wear. So yeah, I Agree, he's definitely the deuteragonist Yes to get to get all English teacher-y on it. You know, yeah. And so, kind of, while this show was in production, I think that there was those questions of why the story needed to be told and kind of the approach that was going to be taken and whether it would be a worthwhile story to have developed the Star Wars universe.

Now I think that most fans now agree that Andor is the best Star Wars product that has been put out in the last, live action product that has been put out in the last live action product that has been put out in the last 10 years. And what I want to be able to do by being being here at Geek History of Time is plot apply a Marxist analysis to the show. Okay. And you all did a show, I think it was in 2022, when you did the, They Live episodes, which Damien, you argued was a Marxist polemic. And I think the contrast to what I wanna be able to do on this episode is not that Andor was meant to be a reflection of Marxist theory,

but applying Marxist theory to Andor as a cultural product, right? Like there's- Yeah, it's set out to be one, but it's easy to pull that from it. Yes, absolutely. Right. So I think that, you know,

I'm gonna kind of try to set a foundation so that we're all on the same page and understand some of the things that I'm going to be applying in this analysis so that listeners can follow along without having to pause the episode and go read 9,000 books. It's only 9,000. It's only 9,000. Only. Only. Yeah. Okay. Go read theory. Yeah. Okay. Go right there. I'm not here. the emotional labor and mental labor of educating you is not my job now. I'm scared

So I I'm gonna lay out some first Foundational parts of just what Marxism is and then kind of get a little bit more into the minutiae Obviously, I know that your listeners being a bunch of folks that are very well educated because they've been listening to the show for a very long time and you have spent a considerable amount of your blood sweat and tears making sure that they are fully, you know, that they've been able to articulate all the things that I'm about to talk about. But that is so kind of you to say. Thank you.

You're welcome. I mean, the labor was there, whether it was effective or not is questionable. I mean, as teachers, you know that there's a very fine line between, yeah. I did all this work. And what did they do? Not a lick. Showed up? Bellison?

Yeah. Well. Not a lick. Showed up, fell asleep? Yeah. Oh, well. So Marxism's foundation, and I want to also pay credence to the fact that Damien did a lot of work in those They Live episodes, kind of talking about dialectic materialism and kind of laying out that foundation and its application to that fantastic movie.

But the primary primary for our listeners That's episodes 150 and 151 by the way Rewind it go back check them out And we're back Pause go listen to them and there's 9,000 more books that I got to tell you about The the primary books that I got to tell you about. The primary kind of like central lens that Marxism uses to analyze anything is the lens of class conflict. And within Marxism, class conflict is kind of the juxtaposition to previous theories use of the individual as a propeller through history.

Right? That history does not change or progress because of individuals and their ideas and how they shape the world around them. History and societies change and progress because of conflict that arises between whatever the dominant warring class factions that exist in any given time in history. So in our current epoch, that would be the capitalist class, like the owning class and the proletariat, which is the working class. And, you know, Marx uses the term the bourgeoisie pull that from French history. And there are all sorts of like subclasses that also exist. I know that

Damien you brought up like the lumpenproletariat. And I think that that's a really, really important one for this analysis of Andor, because the lumpenproletariat, according to Marx, and then really further developed by a lot of other theoreticians like Lenin and I would even say Huey P. Newton from the Black Panther Party, is the class that kind of exists outside of the working class in a clandestine way. They're not workers in the traditional sense. They could be, I think the classic example, especially from Huey P. Newton are pimps. A pimp is a lumpenproletariat. They're not working class in the sense that they sell their labor, but they are not the owning class. labor, right? But they are not the owning class. They work outside of the structure of the dynamic that exists between those who own the means of production and then those

who only own their labor to sell it, right? So a lot of the people who kind of exist outside of the law and are able to procure their own existence financially by committing crime, maybe selling drugs, maybe they're not workers because they're injured and they kind of do some side hustle that doesn't really fit within the classic dynamics of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Those are the lumpen proletariat. Now, if I may, you mentioned pimps and you distinguish

between people who sell their labor, which pimps do not do, they are a middle man for the labor and the consumer, whereas the sex worker would be the person who's selling their labor. Yes, yes, the sex worker would be the proletariat. Exactly, okay, that's what I wanted to clarify. And so now, would you classify? Because I have a very dim view of pimpery. It is one of the very few words that I do not allow in my classroom, because I've always, again, a very dim view of them.

They are parasitic. Would you classify the lumpin proletariat as normally parasitic? Or you classify the lumpin proletariat as normally parasitic or is this just a type of parasite who is the who also qualifies as lumpin? Who is a handy example for the lumpin proletariat? No, I mean, because I would also classify like drug dealers to be the lumpin proletariat, right? And I could definitely...

Yeah, they're not as... Okay. But drug dealers could absolutely be seen as parasitic, right? Like they feed off of a certain amount of, you know, quote unquote, the like the sin economy, right? That they're selling drugs, they're doing something outside of the law, they're feeding off of the misery of society, and that's how they're able to procure their existence. Now, you brought up in a previous episode the fact that they are not a revolutionary class. However, Huey P. Newton did suggest that they do have revolutionary potential.

And I think that that is also important for this analysis of Andor. Because there are a lot of characters, especially within this kind of new version of our understanding of Star Wars, that they are criminals, right? The criminal class. But they do essentially become political revolutionaries. Well, I guess I would like us to slice the onion a little thinner here then, if that's possible. You spoke of the sin economy and people who are criminals. The distinction that I want to try to clarify is,

again, drug dealing isn't necessarily immoral. You are connecting people with the thing that they they want now It certainly can lead to all kinds of things that I would clearly say yes, those are immoral and very bad for us, but That's almost entirely system dependent. Absolutely. Yeah, because the system isn't Portugal You know because it criminalizes What would otherwise be I would like to buy some blueberries please. Because it criminalizes that and it doesn't support people who suddenly or who develop an addiction to the blueberries or you know need to keep getting that hit over and over etc.

Because the system creates that as a criminal class, I would like to know if the criminality is the defining feature or is it the amorality of pimpage? Oh, no, it's the criminality. OK, so. Right, so this is why particularly Hugh P. Newton suggested that they had revolutionary potential for that exact reason, that the system itself dictates the confinement of what is moral and immoral and often pushes

people into the outskirts of what is legal in order to survive. And that they cannot be judged as a less revolutionary class just because of that particular aspect of their position to the means of production and how they control the accumulation of their subsistence. Okay. So the criminality doesn't make them any less acceptable to anything. Right. Would you cut boundaries across things that have a moral degradation quality to them? Again, I come back, I guess I'm triggered a little bit by the idea of a pimp being anything useful to society. You know?

Right. Yeah. And because like the pimp itself, like that as an example is incredibly exploitative of another person, but there's yeah Would would you not also? Be able to apply the exploitative aspect to a drug dealer selling to an addict Who is living on the streets? Not as well again. I think that comes down to what the society values and sets as illegal.

I do think somebody putting me in touch with my next fix when I'm suffering from addiction could very well be akin to a therapist. Yeah, go ahead. Like my own read on the distinction between the two is like, as somebody who is selling illicit substances, there is an amorality at play in like, well, you know, however you got the money, I don't care whatever your condition is, however desperate you are, I don't care. I have a thing you want the thing I'm going to give you the thing. And I'm not going to worry about the context beyond that. There is a level of a morality involved there. Whereas when we think of someone who is, you know, frequently traffic and people, someone who who is, you know, frequently trafficking people, someone

who is frequently, you know, engaging in, you know, slavery practices, you know, like, like pimps do, there is there is direct exploitation. Right. And, and there's's there's a level of Kind of almost sadism They are whereas built into that kind of relationship whereas with the drug dealer society has Created the context in which that becomes exploitative

whereas pimpery Perse is exploitative Society has created the circumstance under which sex work is illegal. Whereas being a pimp is a second, like a second order result of the system. Like pimps are quote unquote necessary because of the circumstances under which sex workers on the street Operate again. I would say they have they have disrupted the market to be honest They have well yourself as the go-between and and therefore are exploiting that whereas. Yeah, I'm not I'm not trying to you know Yeah, I'm here to defend pimps.

But I, you know what I mean? It's, it's not the criminality that, that bothers me about, about certain things. And that's why I'm wondering is I understand it was a criminality that, that was a defining feature that allowed it to be an example, but is there a way to slice it finer? And perhaps Huey would have done so if the Chicago PD hadn't been so Chicago PD about things. Oh, I mean, I think that if you dive into To Die for the People, which is Huey P. Noon's book, where he really kind of develops this understanding of the lumpenproletariat, he does

absolutely touch on the fact that there is not a blanket application of saying all lumpenproletarian, he does absolutely touch on the fact that there is not a blanket application of saying all lumpenproletarian have revolutionary potential. It's with the understanding that they have to be able to progress their own consciousness as a revolutionary class to progress past mis misogyny to progress past exploitation Like that they're not revolutionary in and of itself that they just have potential to become Revolutionary and it's not Shouldn't you shouldn't like rule them out exactly? Okay? Okay? Yeah, by the way, I mixed up my cities. I meant Oakland PD I mixed up my cities. I meant Oakland PD.

So you were thinking Fred Hampton. I think I was because he well, damn it. I just we should start making a drinking game as far as who breaks it, who breaks K. Fabe first, because I try to keep these episodes timeless. But the reason I'm thinking Fred Hampton is because his murder anniversary just passed. Yeah. And so I broke K. Fabe this time, so drinks are on me. December 6th for all time eternal though.

I mean, it could be December 3rd and December 6th just passed because time moves that quickly. Exactly. Okay, so. And I'm drinking for you in this case. I appreciate that. Okay, so lump and proletariat has revolutionary potential. Correct. Some other foundational aspects outside of the class conflict

part, because that's where that conversation started, was how we understand the mode of production in any given time in history and how that mode of production is controlled and how the wealth is accumulated and who procures it and who administers it. But for the sake of this analysis of Andor, I'm not going to get super deep into that because I don't think that it has a tremendous amount of application, but what I do want to focus on is the defining of the base and the superstructure part of Marxism, which is that- Houston base and superstructure, I was like, right, we're going to get to the building

of the Death Star. Right, of course. You actually mean- No. So when you build the base of the Death Star, you've got to put it up and superstructure comes second. Well, the base in Marxist analysis is the understanding of all economic production, and superstructure is everything else, which for the sake of this analysis is the cultural

aspects of society. What perpetuates the economic base is its reinforcement through culture, through education, through religion, through popular music. All of those things make up the superstructure that then reinforces the economic base, which then in turn reinforces the superstructure by, you know, so it becomes a synergistic relationship. Cyclical, kind of self-perpetuating. You got to hammer that home.

Hammer that home. Yeah. Got it. Well done, both of you. See? I'm sharing. There you go. Yeah. See, I'm sharing. Funds are a community event. There you go.

Yeah. We have appropriated your puns for the good of the people. Yes. Yes. And the appropriation of value is a big part of the economic base and how that gets reinforced through the cultural surroundings of everything else to create the status quo, I think is a good way to kind of sum that up. Like how does-

The thing that everybody assumes is normal. Is normal, yeah, exactly. Yeah. And I think that the next, kind of like next layer of Marxism that is an important feature of this analysis is separating Marx uh, what Marx and, and Engels and then Lenin and a lot of other theoreticians kind of defined

as scientific socialism versus utopian socialism. Um, and Marx kind of developed the term scientific socialism as a critique, primarily of Pierre Joseph Proudhon. There's going to be a lot of French people in this. And Proudhon is- I think I'm not pronouncing it. Proudhon. Now my understanding is a lot of the earliest socialists were French thinkers, right? Right. And is this, if I'm remembering correctly,

is this kind of an outgrowth of everything that happened in the French Revolution? Yes. Okay. Definitely, yeah. I mean, the French Revolution in particular, I think, I mean, you could argue that it was the first, because I mean, you could argue that it was the first. Because, I mean, obviously, the American revolution proceeded it, but like the first

real like bourgeois revolution, because it happened in the core of monarchical Europe, right, whereas the United States, it wasn't it was marginal. Yeah, right. And it was also. The mercantile class in the United States being like the foundation of that versus the bourgeoisie that existed in Europe. It's vastly different. Yeah, different, very different kind of circumstances. Right. Yeah. So I think that a lot of early socialist thought kind of came out of this like utopian understanding of society that, you know, egalitarianism, fraternity, all those kind of slogans that came out of the French Revolution. And Proudhon, Proudhon, Proudhon, I'm not French.

Proudhon, probably. Right. Was definitely seen as kind of like this utopian thinker, right? That class society essentially could eventually dissolve and become egalitarian by its own accord, right? Whereas Marx, which he called dialectical materialism, scientific socialism because it had a very specific methodology of how it would come into being. Not necessarily like what it would become and not necessarily the required steps that you need to take to get there, but that it was a method of class conflict that would

eventually erupt into two contending classes that could not reconcile their differences. Whereas Proudhon did not see socialism as necessarily the conflict between two particular classes. It was just an irreconcilable conflict that existed within society as a whole. So using that as an understanding between kind of like two factions that exist within Andor, between like the utopianists and the more like methodical materialists is how I would like to approach the conversation going forward. Making sure that we understand that like materialism, that we are placed within specific conditions and those conditions dictate our actions and the methods and the tools that we use in order to create change that we want to see rather than the utopian idea

where I can shape society by the ideas that I have, I can shape society because I will it to happen, I see things that I want to fix and I will fix them because I have the idea of how they should be, right? That we create history, but we don't necessarily get the ingredients that are the best ingredients to create with. OK. Yeah.

Yeah, and from the way you're saying that, I can kind of, already in my head, I'm already kind of imagining which characters are going to be falling, and which categories. So I'm excited for this. And what happens to each. Yeah. Yeah. Because that's...

Yeah. Well, we haven't yet seen, because season two has not come out. Not all of them. Oh, I mean, we do know what happens to some of them. That's a good picture. I was going to say, That's my favorite metaphor. But we don't know the details of The rest of the the rest of the path from this point to to

I'm still trying to figure out how how Saul Guerrero lost one of his legs You know cuz like he's got both of them in season one. And an important feature of Andor is that it happens only five years before the Battle of Yavin, right? This is year five BBY. A lot takes place in that five years. Well, yeah, because you take Andor from I don't give a shit to like, I've been doing this since I was six and, you know.

Yeah, core supporter fanatic, you know, yeah. By any means necessary. As Lennon said, you know, there are decades when nothing happens and then there are weeks where decades happen, so I think I might have butchered that quote. But it works. It works.

Even if you butchered it,. But it works. It works. Even if you butchered it, it makes a good stake. You gave phrased it. That's true. And like, so, you know, people might not agree, but I am often quoted as being the Lenin of our time. So definitely not. I'm just kidding. I'm going to make a whole lot of Marxists mad. Of course you will.

Yeah. Oh man, yeah. So the funny thing here is that I don't know the names of most of the characters, but I'll be like, oh yeah, yeah, that guy. So I can't wait till we get to this guy and then that other guy and then that one gal and then also Mon Mothma. And then Mon Mothma, the only other woman in Star Wars. But not anymore. Not anymore.

That's right. That's true. Yeah. And I think that they passed the Brechtel test, right? Because there are a whole lot of women in Andor that talk to each other, not about Andor. Not about Cassian. Yeah. And they have names. You have to have a name character too. Yes. That's true. Okay. So some other foundational things and we'll dive into my incredibly long character list, which I have pulled up on IMDB as well. So another important distinction between or what makes Marxism distinct in

this analysis is the use of overdetermination. Overdetermination, I think, was kind of like first fully explored as a Marxist theory by Althazer, another French Marxist, that kind of essentially, to put it in the simplest terms possible, overdetermination is the idea that everything has an effect on everything else. right? That there is not one essential ingredient that is the cause of anything, right? It's the opposite of essentialism. There may be catalysts, but there are not singular causes. Correct. Historians have structuralism that kind of gets to that in a lot of ways.

And I think this is interesting because I think a lot of Marxists kind of fall into this dogmatic class essentialism, right? That everything becomes a class issue, which has become problematic for a lot of Marxists to ignore cultural phenomena outside of class, like racism, sexism, homophobia, right? All of these other forms of oppression that exists outside of class oppression. And I think that overdetermination is kind of the correction of that, right? It's understanding that although it might seem like the Russian revolution happened because of one particular event, right? There were all of these preceding events

and co coinciding events that were happening at the same exact time that led to any, any given moment in history, right? They're at play. And I think that that is what makes Andor so fascinating as a show, right? Because we, as Star Wars fans, when you first watch A New Hope, you get the exploration of the Empire's relationship through three primary characters, right? And obviously that's what the movie is meant to do. It set up the story about Luke and Anakin and Han.

God, did I just sound like Lando Calrissian? A little bit, yeah. A little bit like Lando. Yeah, sorry. Lando Chew. Lando. Shubaca. Leah. Leah, right. Yes. Yeah.

Three, three, three, yeah. But anyways, right. So that, that, that, and or as a, as a, as a show kind of tackles that the rebellion is so much more than like these, these, these characters that have, that have kind of formulated the rebellion, right? That there are all these other things that are going on. Um, which to me is, is a very great, uh, example of over determination. Um, and what is fast, so Althazair kind of like formulated this and then it was,

it was kind of pushed further by, um, Richard Wolf, who was like a contemporary Marxist economist and his, uh, he coauthors a lot of book with, uh, Steven Resnick, actually, I think just passed away not to maybe, maybe a couple of years ago. Um, but the, their exploration of overdetermination is essentially that although we aren't making a claim that there is an essential cause to anything, we can always use the Marxist lens to analyze everything. That it is not essentialist to use a lens. Sure. What we are doing is using that as an entry point to analyze everything as a whole, right? As a way to break something open to kind of look at the parts and then leave the room later on to take a look at everybody.

Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Um, and I think that the, you know, if we're kind of using this as our, our way to explore this show, um, there are what's fantastic about Andor is that like there, there are these three section storylines, right? Like each, each story is, is kind of put into three, three episodes and each one kind of explores the, uh, you know, the primary conflict from different perspectives or from different angles and then provides insight into all of these

These kind of like moving parts, right? And it's easy to kind of apply the the over determination lens right that all of these things happening simultaneously make us have a complete understanding of the conflict that has Arisen and what also then will lead into, you know, the primary Star Wars show. Mm-hmm. Okay. So that's kind of my foundation of Marxism. Sure.

And then I'm going to launch a little bit further, you know, 50-so plus years and kind of give a background of Leninism into why the analysis of Andor is, why it's necessary for analysis of Andor. Okay. So, you know, Vladimir Lenin, Russian revolutionary, leader of the Bolshevik party, his contribution to Marxism is obviously incredibly impactful and profound. But the parts that I think are important for this analysis of Andor is his development of the party in Marxism and the application of Marxism into the real world. And Marx always argued that like a political movement for the working class was needed and essential for its revolutionary

potential. But how Marx discussed the party, because at the time, most of the parties in Marxist time were mass parties, right? They were mass mobilizations of working people, of all sorts of theoretical tendencies, all sorts of backgrounds. If they were mass mobilizations of working people, right? Of all sorts of theoretical tendencies, all sorts of backgrounds. If they were working class, they could be part of these kind of political entities. Now, when you say party, I'm not thinking as continental because my understanding of history is not continental based. But I'm thinking England and I'm thinking America. They had entrenched parties, political parties at that time,

that tended to lead the people by the nose instead of respond to the needs of the people. When you say the party, are you talking along the lines of political parties like that or is there another use of this word that we're exploring here? In the Marxist sense, I'm still talking about political parties in that context, but Marxist understanding of how the role that the political party should play within the movement is really important rather than leading by the nose, Or tailing the masses and kind of following whatever it is that they... And this

is the important distinction about Lenin, is that he rejected the idea that the party should tail the masses and kind of embraced the idea that the party should be made up of the most advanced revolutionary theoreticians, right? In a vanguard party, right? They should be working class intellectuals, to a certain degree, who have fully mastered Marxism and then are able to guide the working class towards their revolutionary moment, right? Or capture the revolutionary moment

and lead the working class to victory Because they're all all these contending issues that brings me to another question then Um the parties that I just mentioned the wigs the Jacksonian Democrats the wigs the the the liberals the the Democratic Republicans, right Yeah The Democratic Republicans. Right. Yeah. All of them were looking to, and yeah, because we're still a mile away from the Labour Party, but all of them were looking to

not seize the power of the state so much as be the one at the helm. When he talks party with what you're discussing, it sounds like the purpose of the party is revolution, not to work within the system. Correct. Okay. I want to make sure I was clear on that. And that is an important distinction

because Lenin argued for the involvement of the working class parties in bourgeois elections, right? In the elections of the time, but not to win, right? To shine a light on the inefficiencies of these elections, right? To shine a light on the fact that regardless of which party wins, that the ruling class stays in power. Right. Okay. And that the electoral promise of the working class party is not to win in these elections, right? Is to create a mobilization center that is able to seize state power.

And that's different than third parties that sprung up in America because they were issue based parties, not. And so shine a light on this issue, green back party, shine a light on this issue, free soilers, you know, that kind of thing. Shine a light on the issue, not necessarily, and not to win because there's two behemoths already slugging it out, but now you're going to attract one of those behemoths to your issue and then throw your support behind them to get what you want for that singular issue or maybe those couple issues. He's not doing that either. He's

third-partying to raise class consciousness, it sounds like, more than to get speed bumps will be illegal now, you know, that kind of thing. Right, right. Yeah. Okay. So he's his idea of essentially what is what amounts to a third party is not reforming within the system, but to show people why they need to mobilize and then overthrow said system. Exactly. Yeah.

Seize or overthrow. Yeah. Okay. But also to not stand in as an obstacle to reform, right? I think Luxembourg kind of dives into in her book, Reformer Revolution, that the kind of anti-Bernstein book that it was, that the revolutionary political party of the working class should not be an obstacle to reform, right?

When reforms happen, they should be celebrated and they often happen because of the tireless work that the working class puts in towards their political advocacy of those things. But that should never be the goal, right? The goal should not be reforming the system. It should be the dismantling of the capitalist control of the system or the dismantling of the capitalist system as a whole, depending on how you want to look at it. And what Lenin then also advances as an idea or part of his theory was the dictatorship of the proletariat. Now this term gets used by Marx, but it's not really fleshed out until Lenin.

And how Lenin sees the dictatorship of the proletariat is the transitionary stage between capitalism and communism, when the working class, through its vanguard party, has seized state control and is able to wield that specifically to put down any attempt at a bourgeois counterrevolution. Capitalism from a Marxist understanding is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat, right? In which the working class through its political organ is able to control not only the means

of production, but distribution, society's cultural apparatuses, and be able to also then put down any attempt at restoring the previous social order of capitalism or the dictatorship of of the bourgeoisie. Right. And to guard against a counterrevolution thereafter. Yes. Well, I mean, that's, you know, guard against the attempt at counterrevolution for. Guard against the attempt at counter revolution for those of you who cannot see me, it's kind of, it's for how long, right? And that's the, I think a lot of people get hung up on like, how long is this transitionary stage, right? How long does the, you know, the iron fist, so to speak, need to be wielded before it

can loosen its grip. And I think that that's, you know, if we're looking at an analysis of the Soviet Union, that's often what kind of gets applied, right? You have the Cheka and like the KGB, right? And the NKVD as like the political org, you know, the police essentially, right? And the secret police of the Soviet Union able to like wield almost unlimited power to put down political enemies. Right, the state organ.

And, yes. The state organ that's there not to protect the state, wink, wink. Right, right. Yeah, or not to protect particular members of the state in a lot of situations. Not necessarily even, not even necessarily just the state, right? Right. Yeah. Yeah.

So you know, that, that's the kind of understanding of how the party is used and developed in Leninism. And then of course, I think the most kind of like prolific contribution, what makes Leninism a synthesis of Marxism to those who consider themselves to be Marxist Leninists is the application of Marxism in the age of imperialism and the kind of like fleshing out of what exactly imperialism is from a Marxist perspective. So for the sake of our analysis of Star Wars, imperialism is, from a Marxist perspective, the movement of capitalism away from competition to monopolization. And from- Okay, okay, yeah, all right. So from monopolization,

essentially the world capitalist powers are able to concentrate wealth production in the hands of the class domination part, right? In the hands of the capitalist class and not necessarily on behalf of a part, right? In the hands of the capitalist class and not necessarily on behalf of a nation, right? It's now the capitalist class of the United States, the capitalist class of the United Kingdom,

the capitalist class of Japan, right? As an example. Yeah. Right, yeah. And because of that, they have to, since they've monopolized their power and their accumulation of production, they have to figure out how to consistently grow their financial wellbeing and also their market share through exploiting either foreign markets or under undercutting domestic production,

right, by paying workers less in the first world or moving production overseas to the underdeveloped countries and paying their workforce even less or not paying them at all. Right. And so the. I was going to say, it seems like, you know, that that model is thoroughly unsustainable because you will run out of people to squeeze. Right. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Eventually, as you know, Margaret Thatcher very famously said, the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. And I would argue the problem with capitalism is that eventually you run out of other people. Yeah. Yeah. That's a really succinct. That's

an excellent, that's an excellent response to that. Good reminder to old man. If the if the remark on her. Yeah. I mean, cap capitalism destroys its two most needed products, the natural world and people. But with the understanding of how imperialism kind of develops is that since the concentration of wealth through monopolization occurs within these capitalist classes that exist in varying countries that it creates an environment in which the exploitation of the underdeveloped world is used to maximize the profits of the developed world. I'm using air quotes for those of you who cannot see me.

I think everybody could hear the air quotes. I think you did a good job making the air quotes audible there, but yeah. And because of this, the conflict then arises between the capitalist powers for more control over territories and markets. And obviously, it's really important to understand that like Lenin's development of imperialism, the highest stage capitalism, which is the book where he kind of blushes this out is right around World War One. Nice.

You can kind of see that playing out. Yeah, a little bit. That was definitely the pattern on his wallpaper as he was developing all that theory. Yes. Oh, presentism. Yeah. A little bit. But what's also really, I think, as I said at the beginning

of this episode is that I'm a master of segues, is a really good segue into Maoism, is this kind of understanding of how the quote unquote developed world over exploits the underdeveloped world world and how we can use this in our analysis. So OK, so Maoism is not catpolism. No, you know, I mean, obviously, Chairman Meow would be. Yeah, right. That's how I knew my

Perleteria. Say it again, because I talked over the perl literate. There you go. I just wanted to make sure that was on on tape So this this is where okay, so Communists are a bunch of contentious people and as one I feel like I can say that you know you can't say that I can say that that's our Right yeah, I am NOT a nerf herder or at least you can't call me that yeah Nobody picks on my brother, but me I have a pass my friends a gun dark all right No one commits war crimes except for me and maybe the boy No one commits war crimes except for me and maybe the boy

Some of my best friends are weak way, I don't know what you want. I what come on. I grew up with Nicktoe Okay, and they said it was okay. I got picked on by Gamorians and I have I have a quaran card in my back pocket Look I also hate sand okay doesn't right I mean really it's everywhere fine You know find one person who says that they like the beach and stick a cup full of sand in their butt crack and then see How they feel about it how they feel about that yeah, this is why I won't read Dune. Oh You're not missing out. Thank you And I'm sorry it's only though. it's only the first book that's worth reading. OK, see, we can agree on that. We can agree.

Like, here's where we get to the two sides of the show, too. This Gabriel is anti-dune. The other Gabriel is pro-dune. Pro-dune. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, Gabriel is also a fellow surly Catholic. So that's right. You know, you bring your Gabriel. There we go. Yeah. Yeah. I think hiding my surly surly Catholic miss Catholicism. I don't know. No, you lost it there. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So Maoism, it's okay. So there are a lot of Marxists that kind of consider it to

be like the third synthesis of Marxism in that it's applicable to the entire world. That's what makes Marxism a synthesis or a synthesis of Marxism, right? Marxism as a science is applicable to everything. Marxism, Leninism as a synthesis of Marxism is like imperialism, the, the role of the party. Those are applicable to all conditions, right? Uh, a lot of folks who would consider themselves to be Maoist would consider that Mao's synthesis of Marxism, one that it is a synthesis and two that that makes it universally applicable to all situations. Okay. I am not a Maoist, so I do not believe that some of the things that Mao contributed to

Marxism are universally applicable, but I do think that they're important. Okay. Especially for this analysis. So I would say that Maoism's primary contribution to Marxism, one is the mass line. And the mass line is the, how you structure the party essentially is that you And you educate them to become Marxists who then turn around and kind of convert the next group of people. Right. So you have this continuous rather than like the, the professional revolutionaries of the Vanguard party, right.

Being like the top tier, ex-March, right. So you have this continuous, rather than like the, the professional revolutionaries of the Vanguard party, right. Being like the top tier Eklion of, of organization, right. The mass, the mass line is to the masses from the masses, right. So that you're, you're constantly redeveloping your ideas based off of how the masses develop their consciousness through any given historical moment. And I think a really prime example of this happening. Um, and obviously there's a lot of, a lot of takes on this and whether it was successful, whether it was unsuccessful is, is the great proletarian cultural revolution

of the 1960s in China. Um, and for those of us who are not super well versed in it, I think it's is essentially the party, the communist party of China became its own obstacle to progression. Right. So that, uh, you know, Mao essentially urged the, uh, kind of like the purging of the party of unsavory or backwards or reactionary political theorists or thinkers or movers, called them capitalist rotors, essentially people who were trying to bring about a counterrevolution to undermine the progress and the successes of the 1949 communist revolution in China through the mass line, right? That like bringing, bringing, going back to the masses, right?

Like, let's go back, figure out what it is about the party that has become bureaucratic, that has become bourgeois in nature. And let's purge that through a cultural revolution because we've, we've done the economic part. We were successful in changing our control over the means of production, but we have not tackled the cultural part. We have not tackled the part that, that re edifies the economic base.

We have not tackled the superstructure effectively to be able to, to progress past the dictatorship of the pro-libertariat. Okay. Okay. I also kind of feel like there's an element within the cultural revolution. There's also kind of a youth element, like a generational element, where certainly part of, I mean, whatever take you want to have on the Cultural Revolution, part of Mao's messaging was at least in part pointed toward the youth need to rise up and seize control of the party and and you know carry it forward into the future and and so there's a there's like

a generational cycle kind of thing involved in that absolutely oh okay and the word revolution like it's in yeah a constant overturning yeah so it doesn't just stop after one revolution. It gets a perpetual revolution Yeah, well, yeah, and you you I assume that you would want it to go not not as fast as possible, but as steadily as possible and You want to maintain your RPMs your revolutions per malice? Nice your RPMs, your revolutions per Maoism. Nice. Nice. Thank you.

Go on. Yeah. Not to be confused with like Trotsky's permanent revolution, which is very, very different, but I think we both hit the nail on the head. And I think that as teachers, you could appreciate the fact that we probably, all three of us, consider ourselves to be fairly progressive people, right? that we can identify aspects of society that are backwards or reactive or, um, and, and know where the right side of history is most of the time. Um, but I would also say that all of us, probably when we were young, had a lot of, um, you know, maybe language that we no longer use. That would be incredibly problematic now. Right. Uh, and, and we see our students kind of being, you know, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, more of a, of, um, you know, maybe language that we no longer use. That would be incredibly

problematic now. Right. Uh, and, and we see our students kind of pushing that progress a lot of times, right? Like I expect to be left behind. Exactly. Yeah. Exactly. Yes. Yes. Exactly. And I, and I think that that, that is the understanding of like the pro, you know, the great cultural revolution was that your, the people, the old guard of the party should have been seen as reactionaries by the time that Mao was looking towards the youth saying like, okay, we've reached the limit, the capacity that you have to progress our society further towards the ultimate goal of communism. Now we need to go back and look towards the youth. And I mean,

like what's, what's the most famous piece of like a cultural artifact that came out of the culture revolution is the little red book, right? Right. Which, which is a book of very short, easy to recycle quips and theoretical tidbits. Meme culture. Meme culture, exactly. Exactly, yeah. And it's supposed to be, and truly memetic,

like back to the old piece of work. It's interesting that you mention this because, and by no means do I consider Bruce Lee to be a Marxist icon, but his discussion of Jeet Kune Do is very similar to this, in that Jeet Kune Do, what he said in 1970 and 1971 was Jeet Kune Do 20 years ago, 20 years from now, will look nothing like Jeet Kune Do, Jeet Kune Do of now. We have to let go of the dogmatism and focus on the art of the martial art.

And that means perpetually grabbing other things in, getting other influences. And next years should look different than this year's. And it was mind blowing to a lot of the old guard of martial arts and a lot of the people who'd made money on like I'm selling you tradition and He was like no, this is you know, this is an ongoing thing. It was in many ways his revolutionary Yeah Yeah his his his goal

In in martial arts and and I think there was also some spiritualism Spiritualism certainly wrapped up in it. Yeah, that that was The best style is having no style. Mm-hmm, you know not not being tied to the idea of a dog one frame or a yeah So I think there is there's a Since we're talking about, you of Chinese thinkers here, I think the influence of Taoism on both of those ideas is really interesting to consider. And the Wu-Tang analysis of Taoism.

Well yeah. And how it fed into professional wrestling in North Carolina. And it was the Wu Tang analysis. You know, I was I was going to get on this episode and just start by apologizing that I did not have this great wrestling introduction that I like know your listeners just long for. Oh, always. Oh, everybody. Everybody wants 20 minutes on Bobby Eaton or on outlaw Ron Bass or, you know, the oeuvre of Cocoa Beware. Like, I mean, I guess it would it would be relevant to mention it's not wrestling. It's boxing

But you know Mike Tyson does have a Chairman Mao tattoo on his stomach. Oh Does he really yeah and and Jay Guevara on the other side because I know he has the champ stamp. Yep That's good I took that from local and touring comic who's been all over the place. Ellis Rodriguez. That is his, not mine. Fair. I love that. Good to cite your sources. Social studies teachers. Okay. So we have the mass line as Mao's contribution. Second contribution from Mao is the idea of a protracted people's

war commonly raised as PBW in Marxism versus insurrectionism. All right. So the idea of, and this is where Marxist Leninist and Maoist generally diverge their path of those who consider themselves Maoist because they find their path of those who consider themselves Maoist because they find universal application and those who still consider themselves Marxist-Leninist because they do not find universal application primarily in this part of Maoist theory is that protracted people's war is the understanding that is simplified guerrilla warfare, right? That the military arm of the working class party can secure holdings throughout any nation, and kind of build a stronghold from there,

build out from there rather than like, whereas it's more commonly thought of that there will be an insurrectionary moment in which like the, the working class party can kind of step in and take hold of the reins of state power. Mao didn't see it that way that it was this long contentious for, you know, uh, what's, what's the term? Um, why am I blanking on the long path? The long march. The long march.

Thank you. God. It's a long march of history. It's been a long day. What I find interesting about the comparison between Marxist, Lenininist and Maoist in that kind of view is the historical context of how their respective revolutions turned out is that for Lenin, it was this, this is our moment. We're going to, you know, the czarist structure is rotten and has started falling apart because of World War I. We have a moment here. And

then for Mao it was, no, no, this is a long protracted struggle against the Japanese and simultaneously against the Kuomintang, the Nationalists. And I mean, yeah, of course they're going to come up with different theories about how this is going to work because their lived experiences were two very different kinds of things. Yeah. I would also say if you look at the historiography of both regions too, Lenin, didn't his older brother get hanged for trying to kill his army? Yes, to assassinate the czar, yeah.

And then there was a bomb thrown at the previous one. And so there were people constantly trying to pick their moment in Russian history through Lenin's life. Whereas with Mao, you have a society that's been around for 4 000 years by that point you know right and so there are there are no quick ends to things except for that one dynasty um they are long protracted things that then finally end right except for that one dynasty yeah the first one yeah yeah um yeah i mean at least they were first right? Yeah, I mean not the trope caught a fire as it turns out. Yeah Yeah, okay, but like I mean just looking at the history of both, you know it really And and again, I would imagine that it has something to do with where the people are located too in each

Russia's sprawling that it doesn't really matter if you're in the Urals who took over because you don't see yourself as Russian anyway. You're like, we are local. We're local. That's what we are. Whereas in China, there was a state identity that had, again, 4,000 years long. When the, and when the man Chu took over, it was like, okay, now we're going to make you Chinese. You know, and it just constantly like they survive by you're going to, you're going to, you're going to become Han culturally, whether you want to or not. Right. And yes, we're going to wear a Q, but you're going to be us. So, you know, like, I mean, that's, yeah, we,'s yeah We are the Middle Kingdom now and you ever like it doesn't matter who you are or what you want to impose on us

We don't we're gonna do our thing and like, you know, you don't build a wall overnight and Just and then you don't need it again. Like it's a long protracted keep the fuck out like yeah So, you know, you don't see that in Russia, you know, so you just see a it sure would be nice to have a warm water port. Oh, well, let's do bombs. Like, you know, yeah.

Well, what's what's interesting, I think about the the bifurcation here, right? Because obviously we we live in modern society, so we have to apply this to modern conditions. So like, clearly these theories were developed in very particular conditions, but why Maoists consider it to be universally applicable is that they're viewing the,

rather than the protracted people's war as like, I'm in California, right? And say my little band of rebels, um, you know, takes, takes over. Yeah, exactly. Right. That we create, we create a little stronghold. We, we have, right. That's, that's where Marxist Lenin is kind of like, well, that's impractical, right? It's, it's not, it's not, uh, it's not necessarily possible within the Imperial core. Mm-hmm. Okay. Yeah. Maoists view the world in the sense that they're not looking at protracted peoples war as happening necessarily in the Imperial core, right? The protracted peoples war is happening in the Philippines.

It's happening in- It's the peasants. It's the underdeveloped world, right? It's or the over exploited world. And they are creating essentially rifts in the capitalist system, the imperialist system that focuses a lot of capitalists and imperialist energy and resources into putting down these insurrections or these protracted peoples war. Right. Sure. Um, and,

and those can develop simultaneously all over the world and exhaust the resources of the empire, right? And that's super important for this show. And he's got his history on his side for that argument too. Because every empire has fallen in roughly the same trajectory. Yeah, like you you end up like Rotting from within and then shit happens on the margins and then the whole thing like collapses in on itself under its own weight Right, you know Yeah and but it's shit on the margin that leads to that leads to that leads to that leads to and then suddenly

You've you've got a collapse suddenly after 500 years. Suddenly, right. Looking at you automatically. For this one thing. Yeah, it was the one, yeah. Yeah, it makes sense to me that, that again, you're gonna have these different takes,

and I can understand how these aren't actually fully compatible with each other, because you go back to the, Different takes and I can understand how these aren't actually fully compatible with each other because you go back to the You call is the party main is that we said no, it's you know that that line line. Thank you Party city yes It's the hobby lobby is that no um so the Mass Line, there seems to be a thing, there seems to be a focus on

the philosophical purity. The revolution being the godhead almost, whereas the Marxist-Leninist, like you just said, that's not practical. Let's get practical control of things to move things. And, you know, we'll worry about what people are thinking as we're going along, but let's again, celebrate the wins of the working class as you move toward that revolution, like don't, don't, don't shit on it just because somebody else voted it in like, you know, yes, we know it's not philosophically pure, but you know what, people have more bread now, so let's go.

So I can see the disparity there, the conflict that will rift between those two. And you bring up a really good, kind of analogous, why Mao split, right? Why the Sino-Soviet split happened, right? It was because Mao was able to identify, or he did identify, how the Soviet Union had become an obstruction to the worldwide revolution because of this kind of old guard bureaucratization of the Soviet Union. Didn't they abandon the third international? Yes.

The Soviets did? Yeah. Yeah. And I mean, because it becomes the common turn. Right. Yeah. And that's Soviet controlled, right? And then Trotsky tried to start the fourth international, which is why they're called the fourth

internationalist. But anyways, so that actually leads perfectly into this next part of the contribution of Mao as the third world theory or three worlds theory, which was popularized, essentially called the Soviet Union part of the imperialist block, right? And called it an imperialist power, which is part of the reason why the Sino-Soviet split happened and why Vietnam aligned with China and why Cuba aligned with the Soviet Union and all the satellite states, the socialist bloc states aligned with one of the two major contending socialist powers.

Right. Okay. But I think what's important, because that's not super important to the analysis, but the important part is this, uh, the idea that came out of three worlds theory, which is third world ism, um, which was really developed by, uh, uh, a person by the name of J. Sakai. I actually didn't write down his first name, but he's very famously wrote a book called settlers. Um, and the,

the subtitle to it is the mythology of the white proletariat. And the argument to third world ism is that working class people in the imperialist core of the primary capitalist powers cannot actually be revolutionary because of the position that that they rely too heavily on the quote unquote third world producing the comforts of their life, right? That they, even though they might have certain, uh, wrapping reforms that they might want that they might have some issues with the, the capitalist class of their nation, that they might have certain, uh, different ways of thinking about their lives. might have certain reforms that they might want, that they might have some issues with the capitalist class of their nation,

that they will always fight to uphold the imperialist order because it allows them lives of considerable comfort in comparison to the third world. Right. So that the only real revolutionary class that exists is within the third world, right? So that the only real revolutionary class that exists is within the third world. Um, and any revolutionary movement within the first world should work exclusively to develop the revolutionary potential of the third world to overthrow the imperialist system because it does not have the ability to, to heighten the consciousness of working class people within the Imperial core because they do not have it ability to to heighten the consciousness of working class people within the imperial core, because they do not have it.

They will always fight against the revolution to uphold imperialism, even if they feel like they might be fighting capitalism itself. They'll uphold the imperialist system. Now does Sakai say that I just want to make sure I'm understanding this. That they will do their fight the whole time and actually be fighting toward their own comfort. And this might be a trinary here, so hang with me. They're fighting along these lines, convinced that they're doing the good work of revolution, but they're actually fighting for their comfort, or they will fight until they get comfortable.

And then they're like, okay, guys, we're done. Or are they like, how to put like, so are they gaslighting themselves? Are they cynical? Or are they cynical and gaslighting everyone else and saying, oh, we're going to help you? Like which of the three is it most like? I think it's primarily B, but with a little bit of C with this added caveat, they'll, they'll fight until they reach the point in which it becomes uncomfortable and then stop the fight.

Right. So like, it's not necessarily the fact that they'll fight until they're just, you know, things are good enough, right? It's that as soon fact that they'll fight until they're just, you know, things are good enough, right? As soon as the fight becomes real and they start having to make real sacrifices, right? Like I appreciate the fact that I can go to Walmart and get a 12 pack of socks for $3. As soon as that becomes $15, I'm gonna have a real big fucking problem with it. And then I'm gonna, I will view the problem

being working class people demanding too much, we should move production overseas so that the cost goes back down. So this is people bitching about McDonald's workers wanting to get paid a living wage. In essence, but if I could move production of my McDonald's burgers to a third world country in order to reduce the price, then I would, right?

That's what they're saying. That like the way the working class and the imperialist core will always subjugate and sell out essentially the underdeveloped working class in order to procure their own comfort. Did he just know a lot of Irish workers in the 1800s? Is that a ton? I mean, he wrote the book in 1989.

Um, and it is, it is, um, it's a, it's a favorite of white leftists who want to show that they know, you know? Oh, it is the book version of, I'm a feminist, ladies. Right. Yeah. I'm not like other leftists. Exactly right. Yeah. But you know, for there, there, and there is a subsection of, of Maoist that, that like quantify themselves as third world is, but it's, it's not a huge amount. And I would say that a vast majority of Maoists do not subscribe to this theoretical understanding. But I, I do think

it, it obviously has some very appealing features to it, right? It makes sense that most working class people who are maybe don't have a Marxist theoretical understanding of the world would choose to actively subjugate some unknown faceless worker. I mean, they'll actively work to subjugate a faced worker down the street. So a faceless unknown worker around the world, fuck him. Right? Or if not actively subjugate, passively subjugate not even through inaction, but just like,

what's the word I'm looking for? It's almost like passive aggression. I'm not saying that I want people to suffer I'm just saying why should have my pay my taxes go up. It's like that kind of the banal cruelty of Individual selfish, you know, you know, yes It's not I'm never I'm not going down there and punching homeless people I'm just saying that the mayor was right to move them. You know, it's like that kind of yeah. Yes. Yeah, you know, um What I find which i'm sorry. I just real quick which allows them then to say it's not me doing it

I'm not again. I'm not like these assholes who are like going and filming beating up people. That's terrible You know, it allows them that that emotional and intellectual cover. So sorry. Yeah, go ahead. Oh, yeah, no, I just I think it's part of part of what comes across to me in in this outlook on, you know, workers in, as you say, the Imperial Corps, is I feel like there's a certain level of kind of elitism involved in this view of them. That's a little bit weird. You know, that, that, you know, this this set of assumptions about about, well, okay, this particular level of the proletariat just isn't capable of doing this thing.

And I mean, it's logical, but there's there's, there's a level of bias involved. Oh, if you like, you know, well, there's a hierarchical action. Yeah, there's a, I'm clearly part of, you know, well, there's a hierarchical action. Yeah, there's a I'm clearly part of, you know, the alpha. Right. And therefore, you know, it's it's that thing where, like you said, they'll they'll sell out largely to buy into the hierarchical structure. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I think that that's, you know, the primary criticism of third-world ism is that like it almost assumes that one, the working class in the empirical, imperial core is somewhat monolithic, right? That they, you know,

all, all working class people without taking in into consideration, a lot of the intersectionality of working class people, um, are all benefiting from imperialism equally. And then if they are not, even the ones that are benefiting the least are still better off than a worker being exploited by imperialism. Right. And that they will always choose, you know, it's going back to World War I, right? Like a lot of the leftists in Europe were hardcore internationalists until their nation was at war. Right. And then you saw them kind of like, well, I can put aside my internationalist rhetoric and get behind supporting the nation

state that I happened to be born in. Right. To go kill my fellow workers. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, even like Peter Kropotkin, who is a very famous Russian anarchist and has written a lot of great anarchist theory and was for all intents and purposes, one of the most famous internationalists became a hardcore nationalist during world war one. So it's not outside of the realm of logical conclusions to say that like, yeah, when push

comes to shove and you're seeing the real world implications of a working class contending with their role in imperialist subjugation, that they'll resort back to the comforts that they're used to and forego the revolutionary cause for reformism or a slightly more white-gloved approach to imperialism. And as long as I can get the diamond ring or as I make sure I can get the diamond ring or as I, you

know, make sure that I get the cheap produce or whatever it is that like I'm going to, you know, for my rhetoric is one thing, but when you actually put into action it's something else. So. Which kind of comes back to the idea of what the ownership classes can do to disrupt those kinds of movements. Because all you had to do was have cousins declare war on each other and workers were at each other's throats for four years.

All you got to do is raise prices on socks and produce and people absolutely like will, absolutely like, will start selling out, like what these workers need. All you got to do is park the kids with their parents for a month. Yeah. And the heroes then become asshole, selfish pricks who just want to stay home and get a paycheck. All you got to do is wait in line to get gas and then you get Reagan for eight years. Oh man. years. Yeah. Oh, man.

Ooh, yeah. Wow. Yeah. Sorry, Jimmy. We did you and your peanuts dirty. Yeah, no kidding. OK, so that's that's my my theoretical foundation to Marxism that I'm going to use. But I also have some cultural analysis part with some other theoretical development that we could do.

Yeah, I think this is actually a good break-off point, and I think we should start with that next time, partly because it keeps the tradition going, that we're going to talk about this thing in another episode. I have said the word Star Wars and and or multiple times. This is true. This is true. This is true. Yeah, and and Damien did mention Idiocracy at least once or twice in the first three episodes. We spent talking about it and eugenics So, you know, that's true. That's true. I mean, I just condensed

9,000 books down Your your efforts are heroic. Don't get either one of us wrong. We're pointing this at ourselves more than anything else. No. Cool. Well, okay. So first things first, Gabe, we're going to end with you on the book recommendations.

I would like to recommend a book for our audience because I think it ties in Directly to the series that we are going to be analyzing or that we have been analyzing this whole episode I'm sorry if anybody blinked and missed it But and and that book is called tales from the Empire It is an anthology series that I believe was curated by Kevin J. Anderson. It wasn't all his stories though. So it's decent and that I believe was curated by Kevin J. Anderson. It wasn't all his stories though, so it's decent. And essentially there was a Tales from Mos Eisley Cantina and Tales from Jabba's Palace that came out. Then somebody gathered a bunch of stories from the Star Wars magazines, because people have been publishing those, various authors and what have you you and Tales from the Empire is this wonderful anthology series that's set during the time of the Empire. I think that you can find several groups

and characters that echo what you see in Andor, not the least of which being the Red Crescent, which is a wonderful mercenary group that we meet. And it's kind of told from the perspectives of the brand new recruit kind of thing. Seems kind of familiar to the episodes that we saw. So that's what I'm going to recommend. Ed, what are you recommending? All right. This is a bit of a departure, but I'm going to recommend Cocaine Blues by Carrie Greenwood. And the reason I'm recommending it is because it is the first of a series of mystery novels whose main character is the honorable Miss Friny Fisher. And it's set in post World War

One, Australia. And two of the main two of the supporting characters who play significant role in the whole series are are a couple of as as it was termed out the time in Australia, red raggers. They are Marxist Leninist veterans of the First World War. And they consistently have, you know, throwaway lines about, you know, the, you know, the role of the proletariat, and, very upfront about their working class identity. And yeah, and it's a fascinating window into how those movements were open and a notable part of the political landscape in Australia and other parts of the world immediately following World War I. In a way that for us Cold War kids were like, wait, there were open communists?

Like what? You know, in a way that when I was first introduced to the characters in the TV series, based on the novels, I was like, wait, what was this a thing? I actually had to look it up. So yeah, I recommend that as as kind of entertaining reading on on that aspect of the history. I've heard about that book before, and it did not ever hear that very relevant detail of it Yeah, I'm just stunned that there would be anti-imperialist from Australia. Whatever would have caused Could possibly yeah

Not not any great surprise. They they actually turned out to be survivors of Gallipoli So, you know. Did something happen there to turn them against? Yeah, just you know what I as as as our guest said at the beginning of the episode, I don't have the emotional bandwidth to educate you on that. So Google it. Fair point. Gabriel, what would you like to, uh, advise us to read?

My recommended book is, uh, uh, continuity and rupture, uh, philosophy in the Maoist terrain by J. Muffwad Paul. Uh, he's actually a Canadian Maoist. Um, and this, uh, it was the second book he wrote in a three part series, kind of making the argument for Maoism as the third synthesis of Marxism, the rupture from Leninism and why it continues in the line of revolutionary communism. I call it the book that almost made me a Maoist because I think that his arguments are incredibly compelling. communism. I call it the book that almost made me a Maoist because I think that his arguments are

incredibly compelling. And I also think that he does a fantastic job breaking down the history of Maoism, the application of it around the world. And then also does a lot of work to kind of dismiss or not dismiss, to counter the arguments against Maoism as a synthesis of Marxism and, and does a pretty decent job, you know, outlining the arguments that Marxist Leninists make arguments that Trotskyists make against Maoism and then kind of deconstructs them using a lot of discussions with other Marxist friends of mine, kind of breaking it down. And then going and listening to a bunch of interviews that he would do, and he would be like, I'm going to do this, I'm going to do this, I'm going to do this, I'm going to

do this, I'm going to do this, I'm going to do this, I'm going to do this, I'm going to do this, I'm going to do this, I'm going to do this, I'm going to do this, I'm going to do this, I'm going to do this, I'm going to do this, I'm going to do this, I'm going to do this, I'm going to do this, I'm going to do this, I'm going to do this, I'm going to sit and kind of like chew on it for a while and had a lot of discussions with other Marxist friends of mine kind of breaking it down. And then going and listening to a bunch of interviews that he would do on the book. And I definitely expanded my understanding of Maoism. And I think that it's a it's a wonderful book if you're interested in the topic. And the title. Very cool.

Is a content continuity and rupture philosophy in the Mao. Great. And the title again? All right. Very cool. The title again. Is Continuity and Rupture, Philosophy in the Maoist Terrain. Excellent. Thank you. Cool. Well, would you like to be found anywhere on the social medias or in any kind of a performance space?

I do have a book account on Instagram, which is mr. underscore G's underscore book underscore club, where I do reviews of different books, primarily political and history based by every once in a while when I read something fantastic that is fiction, I will write a review of that as well. Terrific. Cool. And Ed, is there anywhere you'd like to be found? No, I am in remain the shadow and warp.

But we, of course, collectively can be found at our website at Wubba Wubba Wubba dot geek history time dot com. And also on the Apple podcast app and on Spotify. Since you're listening to this, I assume you found us in one of those three places. And please take the time to subscribe. Oh, find us on Amazon podcast now, too. Really? Yes. Wow. Yeah. All right. I'm going to have to sell out.

We are. Yeah, no. So I won't even make excuses, but all three places, please. Yes. So, yeah, wherever it is, you found us. Take the time to take a moment to subscribe and give us the five star review that, you know, our guests have earned us, especially on an episode like I learned. Wow, I learned a lot. So thank you, Gabriel, for all of that. Thank you. And yeah, that's that's where we can how about you, Damian? Where can you be found, sir? Well, you know, the first Friday of every month at 9pm, you can find me slinging puns with capital punishment down down at the Comedy Spot. It is our new home, our

new venue. Come on down and come and laugh and throw out pun ideas to us and help us spin that wheel. So Capital Punishment at Comedy Spot in Sacramento, 9 p.m. on the first Friday of every month. All right. Cool. Well, Gabriel, thank you so much for being on this. And we can't wait to meet again on the next episode to talk culture and, of course, Star Wars. Yeah.

But so for a geek of history of time, thank you, Gabriel Geip. I'm Damian Harmony. And I'm Ed Blaylock. And until next time, keep rolling 20s.