Critical Remarks On And A Summary Of The Hakim-Vaush Stream
One thing we can undoubtedly say is that the whole endeavor was… interesting.
“Social Democracy is a sinkhole. […] America fucking sucks.” — Vaush
“We do actually agree on way more things than we disagree on.” — Hakim
Introduction
On January 3rd, 2021, Youtubers Hakim and Vaush held a live-streamed discussion on the latter’s channel under the title “SUPER CAPITALISM, talking w/ Hakim, weed & more!” which had an average of 15,000 live viewers. We must not delude ourselves: streaming online doesn’t make one the herald of international class consciousness, nor does it constitute any form of activism, strictly speaking (Vaush calls what he does “advocacy”). However, given the fact that these two figures have more than 375,000 subscribers taken together, it must be said that they exert a limited, but an influence nevertheless. Naturally, individual videos either Hakim or Vaush make have no direct impact on the daily struggles of the Proletariat, but they have substantial “fanbases” spread across different platforms, and it would be willful ignorance to deny their presence. Both of them have shown to be able to generate online discourse, which then spreads to other “influencers” and “streamers” and these topics get transferred and passed around in much wider circles.
Due to the above-given reasoning, I deemed it appropriate (with necessary permission) to write a critical summary and a general overview of the discussion that took place. Once again, we must not be deluded enough to consider this a substantial contribution to global workers’ struggles, nor does it constitute “theory.” But dominating and controlling the information inflow-outflow, as well as the discourse online is not an easy feat, nor an irrelevant one. Therefore, this is The Acheron’s contribution to yesterday’s dialogue: what was done well, what could have been done better and which parts of the stream were erroneous.
Besides the critical commentary, this is meant to be a summary more than anything, for those who were unable or unwilling to personally watch the stream. I will try to balance formality and informality to the best of my abilities, so this overview is easily accessible to everyone and not too dense to read from start to finish. All words and sentences that are given in quote marks represent direct citations from respective persons. There is some margin of error, as I stayed up late to note down some phrases that were said in passing while listening to it live. But rereading it, I believe there should be none. Yet, I encourage the readers, as always, to read critically and check the original sources themselves if in doubt.
Do keep in mind, that this was a live stream and the participants aren’t infallible Chrysostoms. There could have very well been slip-ups, accidental mistakes and unintentional errors caused by anxiety, fatigue, misspeaking and so on. Thus it’s important to concentrate less on the technical pedantry and more on the actual substance (but we shall do both!) to get the correct sight of the conflicting parties’ stances. It also has to be noted, that both the reflections and interpretation here are subjective, my own, and fallible. It is one perspective out of many, but still worth reading about.
Without further ado, before the Acheron drags us into the Hadean Chasms for eternity, let us begin our examination.
Part I: Revolutionary Tactics And Organization
The stream certainly started off… interestingly. Vaush said he abandoned the label of “anarchist” due to “a lot of contention about the specific definitions of anarchists…” and resorted to calling himself a libertarian socialist. He claimed that this is also “rhetorically useful” because libertarianism tends to be associated with Capitalism, and while arguing with right-leaning people, it can serve to confuse them and then Vaush can correct them, which is “usually fun.”
Hakim asserted that his personal views are that of a “Marxist-Leninist” but very curiously, he voiced that he “personally consider[s himself] a Libertarian too,” adding that while this is generally true, “when it comes to pragmatism… my Libertarianism has to be dulled.” We’re off to a rather peculiar start! What must be noted, however, is Hakim’s characterization of the authoritarian-libertarian divide in a video he posted half a year ago, titled “Libertarian Socialism With Authoritarian Characteristics”:
“We need to change the system we live in. The only methods to do so are by definition authoritarian. Libertarian socialists understand this and they surely aren’t pacifists. Yet, to reject so-called authoritarianism or to label others as authoritarian, […] simply makes [the topic] confused. […] The libertarian-authoritarian “split” is nothing but semantics to protect one’s feelings, […] seen exclusively in online Marxist spaces.” [Timestamps: 4:10–5:00]
Therefore, we can claim that “I am a Libertarian too” from Hakim shouldn’t be taken at face value, as he still very much subscribes to the “Engelsian” conception of authority and power. What he argues is that these terms are largely useless and generally dominate online spaces, whereas in “third world countries like [his] own,” people would ridicule you for your revolutionary aspirations having such dichotomous characterizations.
The trend of civil discussion and broad agreement was maintained through the whole 2-hour-and-some stream, which brings us to the first minus of the whole endeavor: too little confrontation and critical examination of each other’s points. Of course, we are not to pit the two against one another — this isn’t a coliseum where we have congregated to watch a bloody show. But the very mellow and at times dull flow of the conversation was much more fruitful in establishing personal respect than it was in clashing on obvious and unaddressed disagreements.
Hakim and Vaush continued the discussion with implicitly talking about utopianism and explicitly mentioning “the ideal.” According to the two, the obvious ideal would be a peaceful, bloodless transfer of power from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat for the “establishment” of the desired system (yes, we are keeping in mind the “is not a state of affairs” quote). As they mutually agree to the utopian character of such a quest, Hakim sees revolutionism as the obvious solution, whereas Vaush hopes that he will be “debating the bourgeoisie out of the means of production” in the “marketplace of ideas” (arguably jokingly) but says that something substantial has to be done to move towards a new status quo.
The dialogue unavoidably arrives at the chances of the civil war in the US, where Vaush says that he’s “not so idealist to believe” that the American people have as much potential or conditions to revive movements similar to the Black Panther Party or the general atmosphere of the turbulent 60s (and apparently, reading about these is what got Vaush into Leftism back in college, being “scared away” by the aesthetic-driven “tankies”). This is where Hakim makes one of his biggest errors: he agrees with Vaush that yes, a revolution in America is indeed not possible. For Vaush, the chances of revolutionaries taking to the streets (at least for now) in America is “laughable, a joke, it’s never ever gonna happen,” Hakim chiming in with “and I agree.” Vaush sees the resurgence of class consciousness and the orchestration of coups such as “the business plot back in 1920s America” as an “excuse or a means” for radical change. On this part, Hakim only responds with “that’s an interesting perspective” which we may take as a concealed disagreement.
Here we must reaffirm that this is the greatest detriment of the stream — wherever there must be an obvious disagreement, it gets handwaved as “interesting perspective” and never elaborated on. Both of them are indeed correct in assuming that the chances of a revolutionary movement breaking out in the US are very slim, but not impossible. Precisely, Lenin wrote a few months before the October Revolution, both to his wife and publicly as a lecture, that he would likely not get to see a revolution in his lifetime. Oh how wrong he was! And we must hope that our two parties are too, as it’s not possible to foresee the future with certainty and we cannot physically know what madness and eschatological marvels may unfold in the next few months or years. Here, Hakim’s mistake was granting Vaush’s assertion that a revolution in America is 100% impossible validity. Even a faint protest of “perhaps, but not entirely out of the question” would’ve been satisfactory.
Both seem to agree to the idea that a revolution in the first world is very improbable, and Vaush aggressively asserts that perhaps only the “Global South” has the capacity and the ability to carry out revolutions in this day and age. To this, Hakim agrees and they conclude that the revolutionary potential of the working class has shifted southwards. Hakim seems to have a more elaborate position on this topic vis-à-vis aligning interests and the national bourgeoisie, which we shall touch upon in Part II below.
Naturally, the conversation steers towards Reform or Revolution. Vaush, impressively, mentions “electoralist nonsense” and claims that the Democratic Party will obviously not do anything in favor of Socialism. Yet he keeps up with his narrative that they’re arguably better than the Republicans and much preferred to them, as according to his account of the political processes is America, 2 more Republican presidents would culminate in Fascism taking charge. Vaush seems to connect the rising support for “left-wing politics” to Bernie Sanders and his campaign which “came behind Hillary” in just one cycle. This skewed view has two errors: first, there is no uniform determinant or measure of what “left-wing politics” is or how it is on the rise. Anything from the Democratic Party to the CPUSA can belong to this broad spectrum and its elevation doesn’t in itself benefit us or the working class. Simply put, this criterion is too vague and the studies Vaush hasn’t shown but certainly relies on will have to suffer from such vagueness to conclude that such politics are indeed starting to dominate.
Second, Bernie came behind Hillary in one election cycle, but as a result of many years of campaigns and organization, which means that we cannot chalk this up to a result from a single cycle. It was the cumulative effort of many years and many people, and if this is the best speed “social democracy” has to offer, we certainly cannot afford that snail pace in the face of increasing political and ecological instability. And Vaush ties this increase of popularity in the left wing section of political activism to Bernie and his campaigns, which is simply too reductive and great-man-theory-ish to even be considered serious.
For Vaush, the characteristic that makes Democrats a preferable alternative is that they can still be swayed to be “actually progressive” whereas the Republicans are an existential threat, thus it is a virtue to keep them out of the office. He lambastes the inactivity of Communist Parties (something we must agree to, for the anticommunist “communist parties” of America are indeed inactive and subservient to capital) and insists on the need for “organic organization of working class peoples,” giving unions as one such example. Hakim repeats the classic Leninist position about electoralism, how it can be used as a “microphone” to spread Socialist ideas, raise awareness, etc. Of course, he maintains that socialism cannot “happen” through Parliaments and decrees and doesn’t forget to mention Salvador Allende. One more mistake Hakim made here is agreeing to a form of entryism: he agreed that creating caucuses within the Democratic Party to “make these ideas more prevalent in society” could be useful. Fortunately, he underlined that the Democrats would always be limited by their inherent drive and character, as it is bourgeois and cannot self-destruct or decimate the system it stands on.
Vaush considers “social-democrats who signal socialism” to be a step forward. He emphasizes that this should not be at the expense of working class consciousness or organizational development (not seeing the inherent contradiction in these two declarations). Hakim raised a point about the European-style Parliamentarianism (e.g. equal representation according to votes, proportionality) which would improve the living standards of the US citizens and have more leverage over things like healthcare, student debt, etc. He reminded the audience that at the end of the day, socialism and for the working class to seize political power meaningfully wouldn’t be possible through such a system either way.
Vaush argued that “Social Democracy is a sinkhole” and ultimately, “America fucking sucks.” In his view, revolutions usually happen where there are impoverished, starved, desperate populations, tying it back to the “Global South” (we’re on the border of a certain type of Orientalism now). In this regard, as America seemingly has none of the above (even though he later in the stream says that America has a “shit ton of” poor people), he is willing to settle on Social Democracy and to neuter the “militaristic institutions” of America to remove as many barriers from the “Global South” activating and being engulfed in waves of revolutionary action as possible. At the very same time, there is a message in the chat from a certain “pixelk” saying: “God, defund the CIA and destroy american imperialism,” clearly showcasing the surface-level and infantile approach to American Imperialism many “libsocs” have.
From here, the two connect the discussion to the reciprocal exploitation of the Third World (a term Hakim is hesitant to use) as Social Democracy develops, steering in the territory of Imperialism. We thus arrive at Part II.
Part II: Imperialism And Value
“For every shiny building in Sweden, we have three sweatshops [in the Third World].” — Vaush
Hakim starts off discussing Lenin’s Imperialism by bringing up just the title of his work on the topic, to showcase that Imperialism is a stage of Capitalism, the highest one in fact. Vaush considers the hesitation to present more in-depth theoretical arguments to be humorous, saying “I’m not allergic to [theory], I’ve read a bit!” prompting laughter from both parties. Hakim asserts that “capitalism cannot expand without imperialism” and that the inherent drive towards accumulation must necessarily go off the borders of a single nation. He is led to introducing the notion of Labor Aristocracy “as Lenin, Marx and Engels termed it.” A slight technical and very pedantic correction here would obviously be that Marx never implicitly used such terminology and it was only Engels who used “Labor Aristocracy” after Marx’s death, after which Kautsky helped popularize it and it was adopted by Lenin in his analyses of Imperialism. Even though this concept is controversial, Hakim possibly referred to the “three heads” (Marx-Engels-Lenin) in haste and must know that the term is Marxist but not Marxist. Nevertheless, this is not a catastrophic error.
Hakim increasingly steps into the “Third Worldist” interpretation of Imperialism (not a crime in itself and not a surprise either, given… well, Mao) and repeats in the vein of labor aristocracy, that sections of the working class of the first world countries have their interests set along the lines of the national bourgeoisie. Vaush chimes in to remind the audience that “One of the greatest enemies we have for global socialism is [nationalism],” a pleasantly surprising declaration (Rosa Luxemburg is clapping from the heavenly clouds).
Now, we get to the “dodgy” part of the conversation — Value. Here, I think both parties had severe flaws. Vaush argued: “Even in a post-scarcity society… I still get the feeling that we’re going to maintain that economic divide. I feel like there’s something preferably exclusionary to the global north about keeping the global south in poverty, there’s something socially requited there, it’s a component of our luxury.” An attempt at deep analysis, this declaration, bordering on essentialism, ignores both the character of post-scarcity and economic divides. The matter is rather easy: Socialism or Imperialism, as Luxemburg declared (yes, this is separate from the Socialism or Barbarism slogan). If the working class doesn’t sweep in with the international revolution, we are indeed doomed to maintain “that economic divide” because capitalism will continue to dominate. And Vaush’s view is preconditioned on the notion that Socialism will indeed never take root, as doing so would sublate any divides and inequalities where the so-called “social and economic” are concerned. Here, we must recall Engels’ letter to Bebel in Zwickau, March 18–28, 1875:
“‘The elimination of all social and political inequality,’ rather than ‘the abolition of all class distinctions,’ is similarly a most dubious expression. As between one country, one province and even one place and another, living conditions will always evince a certain inequality which may be reduced to a minimum but never wholly eliminated. The living conditions of Alpine dwellers will always be different from those of the plainsmen. The concept of a socialist society as a realm of equality is a one-sided French concept deriving from the old ‘liberty, equality, fraternity,’ a concept which was justified in that, in its own time and place, it signified a phase of development, but which, like all the one-sided ideas of earlier socialist schools, ought now to be superseded, since they produce nothing but mental confusion, and more accurate ways of presenting the matter have been discovered.”
It is quite obvious to every Marxist, that “living conditions will always evince a certain inequality which may be reduced to a minimum but never wholly eliminated.” But this is certainly not Vaush’s implication, who without a doubt isn’t acquainted with this letter. He tries to introduce inequality in a post-scarcity world, which has to assume the ultimate triumph of capitalism. Here is also where Hakim goes off the rails with value:
“Most likely, the concepts of unequal exchange and value transference will continue, at least in some meaningful sense, even under socialism. Suppose even in a fully socialist world, these sort of things will still exist and they would require to be combatted, it would require the active deindustrialization of the imperial core and the active (re)industrialization… of the [global south] to equalize the level of productive capacity… to develop the productive forces.”
There are a few points to be made here. We must once again recall Engels, writing in Anti-Dühring:
“As long ago as 1844 I stated that the above-mentioned balancing of useful effects and expenditure of labour on making decisions concerning production was all that would be left, in a communist society, of the politico-economic concept of value.”
Of course, as we are aware, also taking in account the entire third section of the said book, a “communist society” operates with the socialist mode of production, nevertheless the stage. Thus, Hakim’s assertion that “value transference will continue” is incorrect, as a nonexistent thing cannot be put into action, especially in a “fully socialist world.” But one thing he notes correctly is that the productive capacity will have to be developed and expanded. This is affirmed by the German Ideology, which V. I. Dyachenko explained well:
“According to Marx and Engels, the world revolution on its path to communism would first have to break the world capitalist system, eliminate the world capitalist market (which dictates market conditions to all countries) and destroy the conditions that give rise to the private character of appropriation. This would remove the threat of suppression of communist development. Secondly, such a revolution should form, in modern terms, a communist matrix based on developed countries. Marx and Engels believed that in the course of revolutionary transformations, the transfer of the latest technologies from these states to the entire planet should be carried out. They wrote [in “The German Ideology,” Chapter I, Private Property and Communism]:
‘In history up to the present it is certainly an empirical fact that separate individuals have, with the broadening of their activity into world-historical activity, become more and more enslaved under a power alien to them (a pressure which they have conceived of as a dirty trick on the part of the so-called universal spirit, etc.), a power which has become more and more enormous and, in the last instance, turns out to be the world market. But it is just as empirically established that, by the overthrow of the existing state of society by the communist revolution (of which more below) and the abolition of private property which is identical with it, this power, which so baffles the German theoreticians, will be dissolved; and that then the liberation of each single individual will be accomplished in the measure in which history becomes transformed into world history. From the above it is clear that the real intellectual wealth of the individual depends entirely on the wealth of his real connections. Only then will the separate individuals be liberated from the various national and local barriers, be brought into practical connection with the material and intellectual production of the whole world and be put in a position to acquire the capacity to enjoy this all-sided production of the whole earth (the creations of man). All-round dependence, this natural form of the world-historical cooperation of individuals, will be transformed by this communist revolution into the control and conscious mastery of these powers, which, born of the action of men on one another, have till now overawed and governed men as powers completely alien to them.’”
But when it comes to value, to borrow Bordiga’s expression, “one cannot let Stalin’s [Hakim’s here!] statement pass.” Thus, both sides have proposed somewhat incorrect visions of the future, one removing it completely from socialism and the other presenting a “socialism” still rooted in capitalist exchange relations. Of course, Hakim’s comments would immediately be rendered correct, only if we take everything he describes to happen during the epoch of the proletarian dictatorship, where capitalism still dominates and is diverted through state capitalism for such “constructive purposes” as Lenin envisioned it in “The Tax in Kind.”
Moreover, Hakim stresses, that the “US won’t have a revolution. […] The best we can hope for is lukewarm social democracy.” Vaush chimes in dissatisfied, that when he says this, he gets called a liberal, but Hakim “gets away” (wonder why that could be). Hakim proposes the sabotage of the US army as a viable alternative to stir up the conditions enough for any meaningful revolutionary action, citing the “red army faction in Germany” which “sabotaged NATO bases” and “stole arms.” This was followed by a rightful critique of critical support, which Hakim summarizes by saying that “critical support has to be more than just words, or it’s meaningless.”
Shortly, humorous detournement is made to joke about the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot abolishing the commodity form (where The Acheron’s article about Pol Pot got indirectly mentioned by Hakim). From here, we arrive at Vaush’s vision for revolutionary activity: “form international workers’ […] aid missions […] humanitarian work in Rojava etc. […] they are vaguely left wing. […] We are not willing to kill Americans, it’s bad press.” What an impressive mix of horrible and sound points! Vaush claims that humanitarian missions can be developed for the cause of socialism, as they’re “vaguely left wing.” This assertion is of course false, but the implicit connection is made between compassion and leftism, which is an interesting observation. But the last point was absolutely correct, Vaush furthering it with “100 dronestriked Iraqis are page 8 news; an American on tour who gets a splinter — that’s front page.” This speaks absolutely well about the state of American media and how it functions, implying that American governments can’t afford bad press, hence American charity missions can possibly used to serve to further “the cause” as they have this kind of public quasi-protection.
For Hakim, the crux of the matter is “the formation of working class organizations… that we could get done immediately (mutual aid, etc… electoral participation).” He inquired what Vaush’s view is on the future perspectives in America, him answering with the soundest points he’s made throughout the entire discussion: “Americans really hate protesting the government. […] Something truly apocalyptic has to happen. […] The only apparatus capable of mobilizing enough people [are justice dems]… BLM hasn’t accomplished very much but getting a lot of people on the streets… Americans maintain the illusion of apoliticality [sic.]… Americans are terrible at civil disobedience.” He nails on the head of many issues, clearly identifying the American unwillingness and cowardice for serious political activity, and when this does take place, it’s not incredibly effective from our point of view, although his approach is still much more fatalistic than preferred. He mentions the yellow vest protests in France as well, reviewing protests as a form of political disobedience.
Here, we near the last 25 minutes of the stream, where the men discuss theory, heterodox ways of arriving at conclusions, “supercapitalism” and the aesthetic.
Part III: Theory
Vaush, by his own admission, is notorious for disliking theory or “having read it all.” He dispels this a bit by saying that he doesn’t necessarily believe this. This discussion is prompted by Hakim saying: “As I originally thought… we do actually agree on way more things than we disagree on… you’ve organically reached correct positions” (an overstatement!) after which he inquires about theory. Vaush confirms reading theory is very helpful, but: “[the] issue with theory isn’t that theory is bad, certainly not. My issue with theory is that there are a lot of people online who treat it the way religious fundamentalists treat the bible… they don’t actually think… engage… relate… instead, they just cite the text, recant out these memorized sections… theory is meaningless without the critical ability to engage and analyze [it]… Marx would agree.” Here, Vaush tries to take a bite at dogmatism, Hakim being inclined to agree and bringing up Mao’s “Oppose Book Worship.”
According to Vaush, criminality helps us understand where there are faults in society. He claims that he “arrived at the idea of class antagonism before reading about it directly” which shouldn’t be surprising at all, as according to Marx himself:
“And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists, the economic economy of the classes. What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production (historische Entwicklungsphasen der Produktion), (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.”
Therefore, it’s not illogical that someone has discovered class antagonisms without theory, as this has been done many times before. But Vaush tries to wrap this up in the narrative of “it’s possible to arrive at these conclusions in… unorthodox ways,” which is undoubtedly true but also should be viewed skeptically. No one will be able to reach the same substance and level of understanding as a well-learned Marxist if they don’t engage with theory and simply depend on such “unorthodox ways” for these revelations to fall out of. Precisely the entirely self-educated Joseph Dietzgen, a German philosopher and journalist, developed the notion of dialectical materialism independently from Marx and Engels as an independent philosopher of socialist theory. This alone shows that what Vaush says is possible. But this culminated in Dietzgen contacting Marx and becoming a Marxist, not furthering his philosophy by trying to continue on his individual path in the hopes of making another such discovery. This should be the case for every such “heterodox independent scholar” who has struck a goldmine — they should look into already written and analysed works grounded in material reality instead of waiting for the skies to shine further instructions upon them.
Vaush falsely claims that “you should always be able to make an argument on your own, otherwise you’re engaging in a sort of dogmatism.” Falsely not because this notion is untrue, but because he tries to link this to theory. Independently, you’re more likely to make declarations without value or substance if you don’t have some preexisting knowledge and certain intellectual capital, for which theory is necessary. Let us not anathemize this word and concept.
Then he raised the issue of aesthetics, how some “tankies” like Stalin, Soviet visuals and music and that’s as far as their radicalism goes. This is a correct and unfortunate observation — many “leftists,” especially online, build their “ideologies” on aesthetics. Hakim agrees, saying that”there’s a group of people [vocal minority] who care too much about aesthetics… [these types] get into leftist aesthetics before leftist politics.”
Coming to an end, Vaush offers a description of “supercapitalism,” a concept which isn’t new but has been repackaged and trending online since 2021 began:
“[It’s] twisting the definition of capitalism… “everyone gets private ownership now”… to the point where you’re actually extolling socialism using capitalist aesthetics, you actually get a socialist society that calls itself capitalism. I think that would be fantastic, I don’t care about aesthetics at all!”
Do we even comment on the level of absurdity and utopianism present in this definition? Socialism, Capitalism, Aesthetics and everything else that could’ve been possibly misinterpreted, have been so by Vaush. These are the type of crude, chymeran theses being insufficiently acquainted with theory produces. Vaush has proven our point very succinctly. He crowns this “revelation” by underlining the need for “the aesthetics that work.” This culminates in the “synthesis of the meaningful things [reform and revolution].” We get repurposed Bernstein of the 21st century espousing these wisdoms to thousands of teenagers online. I will leave judging this unfavourable situation to the readers.
Hakim wraps up with: “Reformism is generally a dead end… especially in the imperial core countries, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its uses according to the material conditions. […] It is always about the material conditions.” Well, not wrong, but the typical Leninist position about electoralism that the author believes to be outdated and even misguided today, is still present, which is not surprising or catastrophic. Unfortunately, we have no space or ambition right here, right now, to argue against such a position. We shall agree with Hakim that yes, material reality matters.
With that, the stream ended.
Some Concluding Remarks
I hope to have sufficiently showcased the positive and negative aspects of both parties and their arguments. We cannot call this stream fruitless, as much more elaboration and nuance was displayed than expected, but it could have gone much better in terms of intellectual stimulation and collision, which could’ve given birth to actual and radical responses to pressing issues, instead of broadness and vagueness which is still important to be understood by the audience, but not enough.
Overall, the major issue was a lack of confrontation, which led to actual disagreements being buried under pleasantries and niceties.
The major benefit of this discussion, however, was exposing the “fanbase” of both sides to diverse ideas, opinions and propositions.
We may conclude with the following: both Hakim and Vaush showcased a good understanding of their positions, engaged honestly and respectfully, and led the dialogue well. Other than than, keeping all the errors in mind, nothing revolutionary or sensational took place, nor did either participants expect any such outcome.
In Russian Revolutionary terms, this stream would translate to a marginal exchange between two passionate delegates at a twenty-something-th Party Congress, which would certainly be talked about during the dining break, but not get printed in the next day’s issue of Iskra.
