Marx was not a "statist"

In this video I argue against some very common claims about Marx and his views, Sometimes held by Marxists themselves. If you disagree with my view I hope you will nevertheless watch the entire video, as it involves active engagement with Marxist texts And its contents are of great significance to anyone interested in Marx and Marxism. Thank you.

There is a very common assumption propagated all over the political spectrum both by Marxists and anti-Marxists that, for Marx, Socialism is about state control or at the very least presupposes state control and this isn't that surprising after all, in the Communist Manifesto, The most widely read Marx and Engels text, Marx lists ten measures to be done immediately after the working class ceases state power and these involve massive nationalization and strict centralization Obviously, this can't be done without the heavy involvement of a state But, before we tackle this, let's rewind a little bit back for the beginners and start with what at least most Marxists already agree on. For Marx the state is something that must eventually be abolished. After all, Communism is a classless moneyless and stateless society.

For Marx, the existence of the state necessarily presupposes political alienation. This is because the social powers that people develop among themselves are Alienated from them by being transferred to the state and so all of their actions are mediated by state bureaucracies already in 1844 when he wrote 'Critique of Hegel's philosophy of Right' He said that "In true democracy the political state disappears" However, so the common narrative goes, before the state can be abolished it must first be seized by the working class, Utilised to establish socialism, and once communism is on the horizon the state will naturally wither away. So this is the narrative that you have likely seen before.

First you have Capitalism: markets, the state, classes, all that. Then, socialism emerges when workers take power Under socialism you still have the state and classes But with the working class rather than the capitalist class being in power finally, once the burgeoisie have been defeated classes, money and the state, will finally disappear and we have Communism. This is an extremely common narrative, but it is not Marxist narrative.

First of all, to avoid confusion, we should point out that Marx never Distinguished between socialism and communism in the sense that the former comes first and the latter comes after He didn't use the word socialism that often preferring to use communism and when he did use it He usually used it interchangeably with communism, as they were generally used interchangeably in the socialist theory of his time. The only times that Marx or Engels actually distinguished socialism from communism was when they used socialism to refer to socialist tendencies they were against, for instance, in one preface to the Communist Manifesto, He and Engels say: "In 1847, socialism was a middle class movement communism a working class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent, at least 'respectable'; communism was the very opposite.

And as our notion, from the very beginning was set that the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself,' There could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it. " The popular distinction between socialism and communism, Where socialism is said to come first and then leads into communism afterwards was popularized by Lenin.

Now, there is of course one significant distinction Marx did make in 'Critique of the Gotha Program', where he distinguished between lower phase communism and higher phase Communism. In the lower phase people must work for labor vouchers. These are not the same as money because they cannot be accumulated Kind of like a movie ticket.

You use it once and then it's rendered invalid. Because labor vouchers cannot be accumulated They cannot be turned into capital, hence not capitalist. These labor vouchers can then be used in exchange for various products.

In other words, lower phase communism still contains material incentives for work, as the amount of labour vouchers you receive Depends on the number of hours you have worked. Once society reaches a sufficient level of development, Productivity increases to the point of abundance, and people have become fully socialized into this new form of social life, We have entered the higher phase of communism. Labor vouchers are no longer necessary and are replaced by the principle "From each according to ability to each according to need.

" Later, as popularized by Lenin, the lower phase of communism was termed Socialism and higher phase communism was termed simply communism But note that whether we're talking about the lower phase or the higher phase it is still money less Because money is replaced with labor vouchers If it's moneyless it is also classless, because without money there is no class that owns all the capital and uses it to wield power over the rest of society and therefore Stateless because for Marxists a state is merely the means by which one class exerts its power over Subordinate classes. No classes means no state there are several, crystal clear indications that Marx does not distinguish between Socialism and communism as stages in a single development. For example in 'Critique of the Gotha Program' He writes "What we have to deal with here is a communist society, Not as it has developed on its own foundations, but on the contrary, Just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.

" If communism was something that only develops after a long period of the development of socialism, this quote would not make sense. Instead, it's clear that even when not distinguishing between lower phase and higher phase Marx speaks of communism as that which emerges right out of capitalism. So, Lenin begins using the term socialism to refer to lower phase communism, Which Marx never did, and some of his formulations do differ from Marx.

But at this point Lenin's narrative is still in essence Marx's narrative with merely some Terminological changes. Both socialism and communism here still referred to moneyless, classless, society The distorted narrative that is popular nowadays only fully emerges after Lenin's death. However already here some confusion is introduced because When new readers of Marx already have the Leninist distinction between socialism and communism in mind they are often confused by the way Marx uses the term communism, but of course people will not yet be convinced.

We need to go further. Don't close the video yet. So if both the lower phase and higher phase communism is stateless What about the measures in the Communist Manifesto?

Since they demand centralization and nationalization in the hands of the state, they obviously presuppose the state and because they also demand a certain form of taxation they presuppose money and so all the other elements that communism whether lower or higher phase is supposed to do away with Well, these are not measures for the establishment of the socialist mode of production itself that is nowhere said. People assume that the working class taking power is socialism but Marx never says this. If he did that would in fact Contradict his own views.

Things like taxation and nationalization still presuppose money, capital, accumulation, in other words all the elements that Marx analyzes as part of the capitalist mode of production The measures in the manifesto do not concern socialism however, rather these are measures intended for the transitionary period "Transitionary period? " You might say, "What the hell is that? As the common narrative goes I thought that you have capitalism, then socialism is established when the working class seizses state power, and then after a long period of development you finally have communism.

" Well, Marx clearly states for example in 'Critique of the Gotha Program' that between Capitalist and communist society that lies the period of revolutionary transformation of one into the other Corresponding to this is also a transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat If you're interested in what a dictatorship of the proletariat is I encourage you to watch the third part of my Collaboration with anarchopac and Red Plateaus in which I go into this topic Dictatorship here does not mean what it means in common discourse nowadays: ruled by a dictator Rather, it means absolute authority. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the absolute authority of the working class just as Capitalism is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie absolute authority of the capitalist class as Marx clearly states, and contrary to popular claims, The dictatorship of the proletariat is not socialism or lower phase communism because it is the means by which the working class exerts its will over other classes and Socialism or lower phase communism is classless indeed if one argued that the dictatorship of the proletariat is socialism or in Marxist terminology lower phase communism one would be led into the absurd claim that the transition from capitalism to communism is Communism so now we can correct the aforementioned narrative into one that Marx believed in along with other great Marxist theories such as Rosa Luxemburg or Lenin. First, you have capitalism, then the workers seize power.

This is the transitionary period, or the dictatorship of the proletariat the state, markets, and classes, in other words Capitalism still exists merely with the working class now in power the process begins to vanquish classes. Once the working class has defeated the bourgeoisie Lower phase communism is established and has no states no money and no classes, But still has material incentives for work. After a long period of development higher phase communism emerges, which just like the lower phase has no states, no money, No classes but with material incentives replaced with free access to the society's products.

So, the measures written down in the communist manifesto are not measures for establishing the socialist mode of production. Indeed, they can't be because none of the measures involve fundamental changes in the mode of production. Rather, they're measures meant for the transitionary period Measures by which the working class exerts its will on all other classes.

Now, some may say "Who cares if we say that the state exists in the transitionary period or in the socialist period? That's merely a semantic difference and it doesn't change the fact that Marx saw the state as Necessary for socialism to be established. " That's completely fair, And so we need to go even further.

The story doesn't end here. After all, the development of Marxist thought did not end with the first release of the communist manifesto At that point one of the most important developments in Marxist thought was yet to come. In 1871 something happened which changed Marx's entire thinking about the state: the Paris Commune.

The Paris Commune was a government established by revolutionary workers in Paris Which implemented a radical form of democracy that allowed regular working people to take active participation in political decision-making. It made incredible achievements in political practice and lasted for just two months before being crushed by the French military in a bloody massacre. In the face of this event, it's not like Marx's views just changed on a whim.

He always emphasized that one's political theory must be informed by historical developments and this was for Marx an event of extreme historical significance Because he took it to be the first historical instance of the dictatorship of the proletariat It showed everyone what it means for workers to be in power This event was so significant that a year later Marx and Engels wrote a new preface to the communist manifesto In which they say that the aforementioned Revolutionary measures listed in the manifesto have now become obsolete "No special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of section 2 In view of the practical experience gained first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. " One thing especially was proved by the Commune, vis. , that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.

"" So, after the experience of the Paris Commune not only did Marx and Engels conclude that the ten step revolutionary program they previously proposed had become in many details antiquated. They also concluded that the state as it exists cannot simply be wielded by the working class for its own purposes It is by nature bourgeois and must be destroyed and replaced by entirely new radically Democratic working class institutions Further, in the original manifesto chapter 3 contained the statement that "in Germany It is the task of the really revolutionary party to carry through the strictest Centralization. " After the experience of the commune the manifesto was now updated with the footnote renouncing this earlier statement "It must be recalled today that this passage is based on a misunderstanding.

At that time - thanks to the Bonapartist and liberal falsifiers of history - It was considered as established that the French centralized machine of administration had been introduced by the Great Revolution and in particular that it had been operated by the Convention as an indispensable and decisive weapon for defeating the royalist and federalist reaction and The external enemy. It is now, however, a well-known fact that throughout the whole revolution up to the eighteenth Brumaire the whole administration of the departments, arrondissements and communes consisted of authorities elected by the respective constituents themselves, and that these authorities acted with complete freedom within the general state laws; That precisely this provincial and local self-government Similar to the American became the most powerful lever of the Revolution and indeed to such an extent that Napoleon immediately after his coup d'etat of the eighteenth Brumaire, hastened to replace it by an administration by prefects, which still exists and which therefore Was a pure instrument of reaction from the beginning. " In short, the demand for strict centralization was now deemed by Marx and Engels to be based on a misunderstanding because they had believed that the French centralized administration was of a progressive and revolutionary character and now they realized it to have been a pure instrument of reaction from the beginning and In opposition to such centralized administration.

They now instead favoured as the true lever of revolution local self-government. But for a more detailed statement we must go to the text of 'The Civil War in France', written the same year that the Paris Commune was established. It is here that we really see to what extent Marx's views on the state had changed With this text in hand, we can also note that while Marx clearly argued that the commune was a dictatorship of the proletariat, he at the same time said about the commune's policies that, quote: "There is nothing socialist in them except their tendency.

" In other words in the commune the working class was in power and yet there was nothing socialist in their policies. Once again, this is completely incoherent if one claims the dictatorship of the proletariat or worker's rule is identical to socialism. Instead, it's the political form that eventually leads into socialism Now, just as Marx realized that it was local self-government Rather than centralized administration that was the motor of the French Revolution so he realized that it is the commune and not the state that shall lead the proletarian revolution He saw in the Paris Commune a vision of, quote: "All France.

. . organized into self working and self-governing communes, the standing army replaced by the popular militias, the army of the state parasites removed, the clerical hierarchy displaced by the schoolmasters, the state judge transformed into Communal organs, the suffrage for national representation not a matter of sleight of hand for an all-powerful government, but the deliberate expression of the organized communes, the state functions reduced to a few functions for general national purposes.

" So, even though here Marx makes clear that the dictatorship of the proletariat would still have a state it would be fundamentally different from the bourgeois state that we are all so familiar with as the state would be, as Marx says, reduced to a few functions for general national purposes and would have no means of centralized enforcement as the standing army would be replaced by popular militias consisting of people elected from the working class itself. And if that's not enough, he even went as far as to say "The true antithesis of the Empire itself - that is to the state power, the centralized executive, of which the Second Empire was only the exhausting formula - was the Commune. .

. This was, therefore, a Revolution not against this or that, legitimate,, constitutional, republican or Imperialist form of State Power. It was a revolution against the state itself, of this supernaturalist abortion of society, a resumption by the people for the people of its own social life.

It was not a revolution to transfer it from one faction of the ruling class to another, but a revolution to break down this horrid machinery of class domination itself. . .

The second Empire was its definite negation and therefore the initiation of the social revolution of the 19th century. Marx's emphasis on local self-government is further confirmed when Bakunin asks "The Germans number around 40 million. Will for example all 40 million be members of the government?

" and Marx in his notes responds "Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune. " And finally, Engels confirms this when he proposes as one of the points for the program of the German social democratic party "Complete self-government in the provinces, districts and communes through officials elected by universal suffrage.

The abolition of all local and provincial authorities appointed by the states. " So if we go by Max Weber's definition of the state often used by anarchists, Which defines the state as a monopoly on violence over a given territory, the dictatorship of the proletariat would arguably not be a state. It would however be a state on the definition often used by Marxists that the state is the means by which one class exerts its power over others.

A lot of confusion in the debate between Marxists and anarchists on the state derives from the differing definitions of the state that are used. The truth is that the kind of state socialism that Marx is so often accused of is actually closer to the socialism of German Politician Ferdinand Lassalle who was, like Marx, one of the biggest names in the socialist politics of 19th Century Germany. He believed that socialism was a matter of state control and Marx heavily disagreed with him on this point.

The critique of the Gotha program that I've referenced several times in this video was a critique of the program of the Social Democratic Workers Party of Germany, which was heavily influenced by Lassalle and in the critique Marx wrote that "the whole program for all its democratic clang, is tainted through and through by the Lassallean sect's servile belief in the state, or, what is no better, by a democratic belief in miracles; or rather It is a compromise between these two kinds of belief and miracles, both equally remote from socialism. " Now this is all in Marx but, just in case someone accuses me of providing an interpretation of Marx that is in fact an anarchist deviation and misinterpretation, Lenin agreed with all of what I just said. First of all, he agreed with Marx that in between capitalism and lower phase communism or socialism is a transitionary period.

He makes this division clear even in the list of chapters for 'State And Revolution' as the transitionary period is clearly Separated from the lower phase of communism. In the text 'The Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat' He clearly distinguishes socialism from the transitionary period or the dictatorship of the proletariat as I did earlier. "Socialism means the abolition of classes.

The dictatorship of the proletariat has done all it could to abolish classes. But classes cannot be abolished in one stroke. And classes still remain and will remain in the air of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The dictatorship will become unnecessary when classes disappear. " Lenin here's saying that socialism means the abolition of classes makes several things clear: First that he distinguishes socialism from the transitionary period or the dictatorship of the proletariat, After all, the dictatorship of the proletariat is ruled by the working class and socialism is the abolition of classes; They cannot possibly be identical. Secondly, that by implication Socialism is stateless.

We can derive this through a bit of syllogistic reasoning for those who are into logic Proposition 1: according to Lenin socialism is the abolition of classes, Proposition 2: Lenin accepts Marx's definition of the state which sees it as an instrument of class rule and therefore presupposes classes Conclusion: if both proposition 1 and proposition 2 are true, then according to Lenin Socialism is stateless Ok, but then you may ask Didn't Lenin consider the Soviet Republic to be socialist? And it couldn't have been Socialist according to the preceding points because it still had money and the state. No, Lenin did not in fact consider the Soviet Republic to have established the socialist mode of production.

Far from it. In a speech to Russian Congress He said "We are far from having completed even the transitional period from capitalism to socialism. We have never cherished the hope that we could finish it without the aid of the international proletariat.

We never had any illusions on that score, and we know how difficult is the road that leads from capitalism to socialism. But it is our duty to say that our Soviet Republic is a socialist republic because we have taken this road and our words will not be empty words. " In other words, the Socialist Republic just like the Paris Commune, Was called socialist not because it had established the socialist mode of production, but because it was in the transitionary period Moving towards it.

This is further confirmed in Lenin's text 'Tax in Kind': "No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia had denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any communist denied that the term Socialist Soviet Republic implies a determination of Soviet power To achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the new economic system is recognized as a socialist order. " Oh, Lenin, you were very optimistic in saying this.

Okay, so Lenin agreed with Marx on the existence of a transitionary period and believed that the Soviet republic was in this period. What about his views on what the dictatorship of the proletariat would look like? Again full agreement on all the basics.

Lenin believed that the dictatorship of the proletariat Would involve the abolition of the standing army, the police force, and the bureaucracy. Instead being replaced with radical democracy, quote: "At a certain stage in the development of democracy. it first welds together the class that wages a Revolutionary struggle against capitalism--the proletariat, and enables it to crush smash to atoms, wipe off the face of the earth bourgeois, even the republican-bourgeois, state machine, the standing army, the police and the bureaucracy and to substitute for them a more democratic state machine but a state machine nevertheless, in the shape of armed workers who proceeded to form a militia involving the entire population.

" He also quotes in full agreement all the passages in Marx and Engels that emphasizes local self-government. But given all this, why is it that this narrative became obscured by the different one outlined in the beginning? The Marxist thing would be to see what material and historical conditions led to the abandonment of the original Marxist view.

In my view, One of the primary reasons was the failure of revolution in Europe, particularly in Germany, as Lenin said in the previously mentioned quotes: "We have never cherished the hope that we could finish it without the aid of the international proletariat. " From the very beginning Marx emphasized that the revolution would have to be international Capitalism is an international system and it must therefore be challenged on international terms. If a revolution happens in only one country it will become isolated and the only way for it to survive will be to make compromises and trade agreements with capitalist countries and thus in order to maintain itself, It will have to maintain commodity production, production for profit, Never being able to transition out of capitalism.

For example, Engels wrote "Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone? No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the earth into such close relation with one another that none is Independent of what happens to the others.

It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries. It is a universal revolution and will accordingly, have a universal range This is especially significant for Russia, Considering that at the time it was not yet a fully industrialized country and a large percentage of the population was the feudal peasantry and in such conditions establishing socialism is that much more difficult. The Soviet doctrine was at this point in keeping with Marx and Engels who in 1882 wrote that "If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for communist development.

The original plan, therefore, was to keep Russia under workers' control until the Revolution in the West happens and makes socialism possible in Russia. This was expected, as a workers' revolution was happening in Germany in the years 1917 to 1919 And active revolutionary movements were cropping up around the globe. At this time, a big part of Soviet policy was to support these revolutionary movements politically and economically.

However, the German revolution failed, betrayed by the German Social Democratic Party, which used the proto-fascist paramilitary group Frekorps to execute the revolutionary leaders Rosa Luxemburg and Carr Liebknecht, Thereby paving the way for the rise of fascism. To add to this, the civil war cost the Bolsheviks almost their entire Working-class base. By 1921 most industrial workers had either left to fight in the Red Army or to return to the land.

In these conditions the bureaucracy swelled up so much that in his last words to the Communist Party Lenin declared "If We take Moscow with its 4,700 communists in responsible positions, and if we take that huge bureaucratic machine, that gigantic heap, we must ask: who is directing whom? I doubt very much, whether it can truthfully be said that the Communists are directing that heap to tell the truth they are not directing, they are being directed. " In the face of the situation the Soviet Union became isolated and bureaucratized.

Faced with extremely difficult conditions through no fault of their own. I do not doubt the good intentions of the Soviet leadership, that they truly did want to bring about socialism, But the class situation of Russia and the world generally made this impossible and the party became stuck in place, incapable of moving forward. Having lost their proletarian base the party shifted from a revolutionary organization to the representatives of a capitalist society, Functionally becoming Social Democrats, the state overseers of a market economy.

Some Soviet leaders had argued that they should gradually develop the forces of production While continuing to support the international communist movement and wait for it to succeed. However, the solution that emerged victorious was to abandon the international project and instead focus on national State building, which was finally solidified installing conception of socialism in one country, Something which Marx would consider an utter impossibility. The fact that there was a shift from internationalism to nationalism is clearly expressed if we look at Stalin's 'Foundations of Leninism' from 1924 and the original edition the views of Lenin were actually accurately reflected: "The overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of a proletarian government in one country does not yet guarantee the complete victory of socialism.

The main task of socialism, the organization of socialist production still lies ahead. Can this task be accomplished, can the victory of socialism in one country be attained, without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries? No, this is impossible.

For the final victory of socialism, for the organization of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of such a peasant country as Russia, are insufficient. " And yet, just a few months later, This addition was withdrawn and a new one was published that stated the exact opposite "After consolidating its power and leading the peasantry in its wake the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society. " Because the Soviet states still required to legitimate itself, over time the official doctrine changed and the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism became equated.

The previously existing heated debates between Soviet economists about how to abolish money ended and the leadership less and less expected to transition out of capitalism. The USSR was said to be socialist despite not fulfilling any of the criteria that either Marx or Lenin had elaborated on. The workers councils and workers militias, wherever the existed, no longer had any power.

The state was engaged in breaking up strikes and even censured certain writings by Marx, refusing to release a publication of his complete works. Now, instead of focusing on support for revolutionary movements, the USSR increasingly moved to support for nationalist movements at the expense of revolutionaries. As one example of how bad this got, the Soviet controlled Communist international, or Comintern for short, supported the Chinese Nationalist Party and the Chinese Nationalist Politician Chiang kai-shek was an honorary member of the Comintern.

Chinese Communists in the 20s had attempted a revolution, But were staggered by the Comintern and instead ordered to form an alliance with the Chinese Nationalist Party, Which led the Chinese Communists to be disarmed and in 1927 the Chinese Nationalist Party massacred thousands of them. In other words, this development did not point to the failure of Marxism, but the success of a counter-revolution against Marxism. Marx had devoted so much of his theoretical powers to defeat the Lasallian strand in socialism, the "servile belief in the state" as he put it, and this is worth respecting, Not because it comes from Marx, but because it reflects the struggles of the working class around the world since the dawn of capitalism.

It is they who are the movers of history. As Engels put it: "The idea that political acts, grand performances of state, are Decisive in history is as old as written history itself and is the main reason why so little material has been preserved for us in regard to the really progressive evolution of the peoples which has taken place quietly, in the background, behind these noisy scenes on the stage. " Now, some of my viewers after this video might be surprised about some of my claims, or the quotes for Marx and Lenin and they might want to read up on the topic for themselves.

For this purpose, I most of all recommend Marxist critique of the Gotha program This is a short but extremely influential text Because it is one of the only parts in Marx's entire corpus that speaks about the details of communist Society For Lenin's view the go-to book is 'State and Revolution', an accessible work Which I recommend not just to Marxists but to socialists in general. On the details of the Russian Counter-revolution you can read Simon Pirani's 'The Russian Revolution in Retreat', a detailed historical study of Moscow in the years 1920 to 1924 with a strong focus on working class action on the ground level. It's written by a Marxist, but if you don't trust Western academics, you can read Viktor Serge's 'Memoirs of a Revolutionary.

' He was a Bolshevik revolutionary who was expelled from the party largely for criticizing the Comintern's foreign policy on China. I'd like to thank Rad Shiba for helping me research for this video. He has a great up-and-coming youtube channel Which you should subscribe to.

I'd also like to thank him as well as Red Plateaus, Xexizy, and my wife For reading out some quotes. And now, i'd like to thank my rank-and-file Bolsheviks from patreon: (apply 'quine-that-doesnt-work-on-37th-call) A pronounceable name Alec Radford Always remember that you deserve happiness and well-being in every sense and that a better world for all is possible And most importantly, Andrés Oliva Baathild & Daffe Christopher Clark Fletcher Connor D. dancingvulture Daniel beaver Daniel Zautner Dinka Pignon Dson E.

V. Roske Ean Dent Edison Hua Ethan Hastings Franklin Hirsch Gary Coulter George Soros Ggggggggkkkkkkkkkk Greg Boyarko gubgubkolkol Heraclean (as in Heracles) Ideologue Jean Baudrillard Jeuxlag Joe Rapoza John White Justin Armijo Jurgen Lipps Kapzi Karl Niu Kelly Rankin M lim Mark Kalpacks Matt Gold Matthew Richards Meme Manifest MrSnickers Nathaniel Larke Nebojsa Manojlovic Noble Drw Thomas Polecat Rachel Anne Rad Shiba Rafael Marchante Angulo Republic of Chad Ricco Rosas Robert Seals Sarah Sitkin Sebastian Roll sweetinjections Syncione Bresgal Tendies123 Theodor Sandal Rolfsen Trevor Stevenson ukkendoka ViFi Yimin Shih Zim As well as all of these little Bolsheviks. Because I am currently on vacation from uni, I will try to release a second video this same week, which will be the long-awaited video on Philipp Mainländer that so many people have asked for.

If you become my patron you'll be able to have access to a Google Drve in which you can find notes to help you with my videos and You'll also be able to vote for what the next video topic should be. I hope you had a nice Easter. See you soon.

Thank you.